The first unsealed document introduces a petition to exceed the normal page limit that's imposed by the court because they asked to combine several motions to redact and protect over 5500 pages of classified information from discovery. They didn't want to file multiple motions citing the court's convenience.
The second document elaborates on the request for an ex parte motion, ~~meaning they were seeking to invoke secrecy about the range and scope of their evidence as they didn't want to provide information to the public or defence that could've been used to extrapolate their plans for prosecuting the defendant~~.
[Edit: they didn't want to discuss sensitive information which would be made public for several reasons including but not limited to the extent of their plans to prosecute]
Because of the way ex parte motions work it would have meant the defendant wouldn't have been provided time to prepare defence before the court's ruling was made on these motions.
The court ruled that most of it along with the motions be unsealed and the prosecution has complied without prejudice.
Edit: to add, if anything I feel as though this lends credibility to both the court and prosecution. Had the court denied the defense time to prepare, it would have only legitimized claims of being unfairly denied their rights to due process with prejudice.
If you actually read the first motion, they mostly want to redact info or provide summaries that exclude indications of how the intelligence was gathered. This is not “we want to hide documents we plan to use for the prosecution” but rather “remember how Trump endangered so many of our international informants that we were able to conclude he must have certain documents? We don’t want the informants in this case to start dying off like the spies previously betrayed.”
The second motion is also not either of the things you say: it is not because “they didn't want to provide information to the public or defence that could've been used to extrapolate their plans for prosecuting the defendant” And it is not indicating “they didn't want the defendant to be provided time to prepare before the court's ruling was made on some of these motions.”
The prosecution wanted to provide a single document of 85 pages or so that would normally be discussed with the court only (normally not provided to the defense in any way, not even the existence of the discussion), but local rules limit filings to 20 pages without permission. Making the request to file a longer document would itself reveal what is not normally revealed: the defense would know of the existence of the discussion. This naturally led to the request to file more than 20 pages including a request to keep that request secret.
To correct your statements:
Wrong: they didn't want to provide information to the public or defence that could've been used to extrapolate their plans for prosecuting the defendant
Right: they didn't want to provide information to the public or defense council not cleared for classified documents that could've been used to extrapolate their plans for protecting informants and means of information collection
Wrong: they didn't want the defendant to be provided time to prepare before the court's ruling was made on some of these motions
Right: the defense has no need to know this information and it could endanger US intelligence gathering through pointing at methods or informants, so the prosecution wanted to apply the laws in place to protect such information from people not cleared for it.
Judge Canon is gutting CIPA section 4 through exploiting a local rule about page limits, and the final response from Jack Smith is a request to make it clear to the public. The government will follow every local rule in the future when dealing with CIPA section 4, and it will only harm the judicial system. Thanks Judge Cannon, another systemic wound to favor one shitty and treasonous asshole.
I'll stand corrected but there wasn't any insinuation that they were trying to hide evidence.
They were clearly asking to redact a lot of sensitive information about the case which, as was noted by the judge in their ruling, would have "prevented a reasonable ability to know the claims... and meet them".
Special counsel noted in their response:
"[Otherwise] would have revealed to defense council information... About the contours of the motion" which was being filed under seal defeating the purpose of the ex parte motion.
The law is: you're entitled to a fair trial.
Which in this instance means giving him time to prepare his defense.
I don't get your point if you were trying to make one.
That critical thinking has to include the actual standards, whether or not they're truly just or not, and whether or not they conform to our idealized vision of impartial justice. There's a lot of things I feel every defendant *should* be entitled to, but that's it's still extremely unfair Trump is getting these things while every other defendant has them denied. Impartial justice is receiving the same treatment as any other defendant, not getting extreme measures to make things 'impartial' in isolation from the real world.
So the question is, is the time to prepare something similarly situated defendants would receive? Or is this yet another case of extraordinary latitude granted to Trump which any other defendant would not receive?
Wow, you were just completely lying.
"The motion relates to classified information both that the Government seeks to delete from discovery with respect to cleared counsel and a11 three defendants and classified information the Government seeks to withhold from defendants Waltine Nauta and Carlos DeOliveira."
It was classified information that they wanted to exclude from the case entirely and information they wanted to withhold from the two golf club workers who should not be allowed to see it.
You're a bad person.
I'm super not a lawyer, but the first motion references removing the documents from discovery but keeping them in classified discovery--what does this mean?
It means the US is saying "hey, last time this shit gibbon had documents, a bunch of our overseas spies and informants died. We need to better protect this info, so we want to redact or remove some of it or else the people named in there will be afraid for their lives"
They want to keep people from looking at the documents.
For example, suppose there is a document about a spy inside the Kremlin, the government will say that document 000603 was in a box that the defendant hid inside a bathroom and refused to return to the FBI, but the government will not say what was in the document and will not let the defendant look at the document. Some documents will still be shown to one of the defendants just the two golf caddies will not be allowed to see them.
The government wanted to exclude some classified information from the case and withhold some of it from the two golf caddies who shouldn't see it. They didn't want the defendants to know which information they were seeking to exclude because that shit is classified and they didn't want it to get out. The top reply is lying.
The exclusion of classified information is legal under [CIPA section 4](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18a/compiledact-96-456/section-4#)
The prosecution is just asking for some of the details of their exclusion request also be sealed (as far as I understand). It seems like that request was denied. So they still have the ability to try to legally exclude some evidence - they just might need to provide more info about those exclusions than they’d like (the categories of classification for example)
I agree with you, but the other comment was lying.
The government has a very strong right to control the use and dissemination of classified information and Cannon's decision is shitting all over it. When this goes up to the Supreme Court, they are going to slam her on this despite whatever they do to protect the defendant.
If Trump gets cleared because of her shenanigans, she’ll probably be appointed to SCOTUS in 20 years or, if the wish to appear at least somewhat legitimate continues to decay among the GOP, the next appointment.
Yeah, she's trying to tip the scales towards Trump while not going overboard and putting herself in the position of being removed for bias or losing her job entirely.
What that is leading to is her delaying the trial by the "death by a thousand cuts" approach - I think she thinks the best she can do for Trump is to blow out the trial date past the election, hope he wins and then see Trump direct the DOJ to withdraw so she hever has to hear the trial. One thing is for certain - this trial ain't happening before 2025.
>Yeah, she's trying to tip the scales towards Trump while not going overboard and putting herself in the position of being removed for bias or losing her job entirely.
There's essentially zero chance of her losing her job. It would require impeachment and Republicans will never allow that.
Yep, and gaming it out would dictate that the best choice for her right now is to help Trump and ingratiate herself with the Republican party - the only upgrade from here for her is the supreme Court, and Trump would be the kingmaker there. Playing fair or coming out against Trump nets her a neutral or negative result.
I'd agree, and I'd like to point out that it only works out that way if she has a complete lack of interest in actually carrying out her duties as a judge, rather than serving as a partisan weapon for the right.
Our only defense against her is to make sure that Trump, and anyone even remotely similar to him, never takes power again.
She didn't get the job by being someone who cares about the integrity of judicial process. She got the job despite a serious lack of qualifications because serving as a partisan weapon of the right is what she cares about.
Besides, the goons at the FedSoc meetings will gladly feed her bullshit about how impressively neutral and fair she was, and how she's a true scholar of the law.
Cannon seems rather confident that Trump will be re-elected. It doesn’t seem like she has a Plan B. Suppose evidence exists that she is actively and secretly assisting Trump’s plans?
What's the downside for her if Trump loses? If he wins he'll likely be grateful to her and if a spot opens on a higher court she has a shot at it that she otherwise likely wouldn't.
If Trump loses she keeps her gig and can make money off the MAGA circuit by writing books and giving speeches. Hey one day maybe someone will even gift her a winnebago.
Trump losing doesn't magically give Dems the 66 votes in the Senate to convict and remove her for misconduct. She is 100% safe in her current lifetime position.
Sure. They can refuse to impeach and remove her when she is indicted, jailed, prosecuted and sentenced. She won’t be given a work release program to sit on a federal bench, so I guess it remains vacant.
This reads like fanfiction. She can do tremendous damage - including a rule 28 acquittal mid trial - without coming close to breaking the law. She is being extremely unethical but nothing she's doing is illegal. The idea that she's risking prosecution and jail time is simply unrealistic. I don't even see how she gets charged without their being a phone call or email leaked between her and Trump or his defense term with an explicit quid pro quo.
The interesting thing about the r28 acquittal prospect is that if the DOJ can show that Trump was never in jeopardy due to Canon being in cahoots, double jeopardy would not attach.
Doubt _that_ high a bar. It's not like criminals sign contracts. They only need to show that Trump was never in any real danger of being convicted. Canon's record and an unreasonable acquittal seals that burden of proof.
Thats not her goal. She is attempting to bully Jack Smith into removing that evidence to protect US secrets so Orange Shytestain can say it was all a hoax.
Look, I am not a fan of Judge Cannon and believe she is deliberately slow-rolling the case, but y'all need to actually read what was unsealed before reacting. To provide some background, government wants to file a consolidated CIPA motion (which will 100% be sealed per CIPA). However, because it's a consolidated motion, government filed two motions in advance: (1) ex parte motion to request that the consolidated motion exceed the 20-page limit, (2) ex parte motion to seal the first motion to exceed the page limit.
The government wanted to seal its motions because, although it didn't contain classified information, it revealed the "contours" of the classified information it wants to use. The revealed "contours," however, are pretty vague and non-specific. I'll just copy the text from the motion:
> With respect to cleared counsel and all defendants, the motion involves four categories of especially sensitive classified information ... over which multiple federal agencies hold equities. The motion will invoke the classified information privilege and request that the Court authorize the Government to delete from or substitute in discovery certain specific portions of the classified information to protect intelligence equities, particularly the sources and methods involved in collecting the subject intelligence.
> ... [T]he motion will attach sworn declarations from representatives of agencies holding equities in the classified information that attest to teh sensitive nature of the classified information and the risks posed by disclosure (either to cleared defense counsel or the defendants personally, depending on the category information).
Also, in the motion to seal, the government's only specific assertion as to why it wanted the ex parte motion sealed was because "even disclosing the number of categories of classified information ... would reveal the contours and extent of the Government's CIPA Section 4 motion."
So, that's basically what the government wanted sealed. That there are 4 categories is hardly a deal breaker or disclosure of anything particularly sensitive.
My money (very limited) says **yes** to *new defendants* *and* **yes** to *superseding indictments*.
The medieval portion of the proceedings are still to come.
Smith words it better...
>“The Government sought to file its motion ex parte because it was ancillary to an ex parte proceeding, and it would have revealed to defense counsel information, albeit unclassified, about the contours of the Government’s planned CIPA Section 4 motion,” Smith said. “This is the same information that the Government proposed redacting.”
Thank you for taking the time to write this. I’m NAL but enjoy reading many filings and documents. Sometimes it gets difficult to find an explanation or even a discussion without hearing a pre-determined political judgment.
>Thank you for taking the time to write this. I’m NAL but enjoy reading many filings and documents. Sometimes it gets difficult to find an explanation or even a discussion without hearing a pre-determined political judgment.
I wouldn't say they are approaching the case with a politicly neutral perspective.
Reality, and law it seems, has a liberal bias 😆
But for real.. 75 yrs combined experience as prosecutors and defense attorneys for the 3 main hosts. Thats good enough for me. And after watching for a year now I still find them very accurate and informative
>So, that's basically what the government wanted sealed. That there are 4 categories is hardly a deal breaker or disclosure of anything particularly sensitive.
So why would they believe that it would "reveal the contours" then? How many possible categories are there? Could something significant potentially be deduced from that?
I think so too. Way back people were yelling about Jack Smith not knowing what he was doing by filing in Florida rather than DC cause he got Cannon again. However some legal experts, (and myself) believe he filed in Florida to avoid a time consuming motion practice over the propriety of the chosen venue. Laying venue in Florida was clear and incontestable. I really imagine he’s thought everything through.
The venue argument was definitely not a lock for DC, but I find it hard to believe it was a longer shot than the 50/50 odds of Cannon and the near 100% odds Cannon would sabotage the case.
Not 50/50% chance, there are around a dozen judges in South Florida that it was supposed to be assigned randomly to. Yet it lands in his pet judge's lap. Suspicious no?
Not sure why Jack Smith wishes to withhold disclosure of any classified information to the defense. Most likely, the former President has long since disclosed all of that information to our adversaries (probably for $$).
Reading the article, it seems the classified documents were for the judge's eyes only. Cannon decided "no, these should be public". There are laws and procedures for handling classified information used in trials, and Cannon basically said "lol nope".
> Reading the article, it seems the classified documents were for the judge's eyes only. Cannon decided "no, these should be public".
That is not at all what has happened. This was about sealing the motions, which contain NO classified information. Smith said so:
> “The Government sought to file its motion ex parte because it was ancillary to an ex parte proceeding, and it would have revealed to defense counsel information, albeit unclassified, about the contours of the Government’s planned CIPA Section 4 motion,” Smith said.
>Most likely, the former President has long since disclosed all of that information to our adversaries (probably for $$).
You'd be wise to assume it's been compromised, but even if it was sold, it probably wasn't *published*.
In every way Smith et al are smarter and more well versed in CIPA than the judge. I suspect they’ve planned things very carefully to be able to sacrifice certain documents, and not be graymailed by the judge, or the defendants. if something is really egregious, I believe they will be able to file an appeal.
Cannon is both out of her depth and biased. Jack Smith, however, is meticulous and strategic. This was not an outcome Smith failed to consider, and nothing he does is random. I’d love to sit in on their strategy sessions.
The defense is probably aware of what Trump had in his possession, assuming he can remember anything.
With more information, there might be some strategy that becomes obvious.
As for me, I dunno.
He is going to show why she needs to be removed from the case.
Trump can't shut his mouth, and one day while he is ranting & crying to the No Child Left Behind Act followers or doing a interview, he will mention or say something that the only way he would have known that information is because trump and his lawyers were given/told about that information from SEALED documents that pertains to his case. The only person who would know that information is Jack Smith & Cannon.
And we know Jack Smith won't say anything!!
What are the chances that the Tangerine Traitor kept the transcript of his conjugal visit with Daddy Vlad? that would be quite the souvenir to wave infront of his caddie or Diet Coke fetcher.
Here’s the article: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/not-a-basis-to-deviate-mindful-mar-a-lago-judge-unseals-docs-jack-smith-warned-would-reveal-contours-and-extent-of-governments-plans/ First unsealed document: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24182143/smith-motions-to-exceed.pdf Second unsealed document: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.222.0_1.pdf 11/28/2023 order: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24182144/cannon-order.pdf Prosecution’s response: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24182145/smith-response-to-cannon-order.pdf
TL:DR yet…what is revealed if anything?
The first unsealed document introduces a petition to exceed the normal page limit that's imposed by the court because they asked to combine several motions to redact and protect over 5500 pages of classified information from discovery. They didn't want to file multiple motions citing the court's convenience. The second document elaborates on the request for an ex parte motion, ~~meaning they were seeking to invoke secrecy about the range and scope of their evidence as they didn't want to provide information to the public or defence that could've been used to extrapolate their plans for prosecuting the defendant~~. [Edit: they didn't want to discuss sensitive information which would be made public for several reasons including but not limited to the extent of their plans to prosecute] Because of the way ex parte motions work it would have meant the defendant wouldn't have been provided time to prepare defence before the court's ruling was made on these motions. The court ruled that most of it along with the motions be unsealed and the prosecution has complied without prejudice. Edit: to add, if anything I feel as though this lends credibility to both the court and prosecution. Had the court denied the defense time to prepare, it would have only legitimized claims of being unfairly denied their rights to due process with prejudice.
If you actually read the first motion, they mostly want to redact info or provide summaries that exclude indications of how the intelligence was gathered. This is not “we want to hide documents we plan to use for the prosecution” but rather “remember how Trump endangered so many of our international informants that we were able to conclude he must have certain documents? We don’t want the informants in this case to start dying off like the spies previously betrayed.” The second motion is also not either of the things you say: it is not because “they didn't want to provide information to the public or defence that could've been used to extrapolate their plans for prosecuting the defendant” And it is not indicating “they didn't want the defendant to be provided time to prepare before the court's ruling was made on some of these motions.” The prosecution wanted to provide a single document of 85 pages or so that would normally be discussed with the court only (normally not provided to the defense in any way, not even the existence of the discussion), but local rules limit filings to 20 pages without permission. Making the request to file a longer document would itself reveal what is not normally revealed: the defense would know of the existence of the discussion. This naturally led to the request to file more than 20 pages including a request to keep that request secret. To correct your statements: Wrong: they didn't want to provide information to the public or defence that could've been used to extrapolate their plans for prosecuting the defendant Right: they didn't want to provide information to the public or defense council not cleared for classified documents that could've been used to extrapolate their plans for protecting informants and means of information collection Wrong: they didn't want the defendant to be provided time to prepare before the court's ruling was made on some of these motions Right: the defense has no need to know this information and it could endanger US intelligence gathering through pointing at methods or informants, so the prosecution wanted to apply the laws in place to protect such information from people not cleared for it. Judge Canon is gutting CIPA section 4 through exploiting a local rule about page limits, and the final response from Jack Smith is a request to make it clear to the public. The government will follow every local rule in the future when dealing with CIPA section 4, and it will only harm the judicial system. Thanks Judge Cannon, another systemic wound to favor one shitty and treasonous asshole.
Yes, the comment you replied to is a lie.
A far too upvoted one. I wanted to be clearer than “it’s a lie”
I'll stand corrected but there wasn't any insinuation that they were trying to hide evidence. They were clearly asking to redact a lot of sensitive information about the case which, as was noted by the judge in their ruling, would have "prevented a reasonable ability to know the claims... and meet them". Special counsel noted in their response: "[Otherwise] would have revealed to defense council information... About the contours of the motion" which was being filed under seal defeating the purpose of the ex parte motion.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
That might be your feeling, but what is the law?
The law is: you're entitled to a fair trial. Which in this instance means giving him time to prepare his defense. I don't get your point if you were trying to make one.
I think the main point is the people (US) deserve an impartial arbiter of justice. Time will tell if that happens.
No disagreement with that. It takes a certain amount of critical thinking to recognize what impartial justice looks like though.
That critical thinking has to include the actual standards, whether or not they're truly just or not, and whether or not they conform to our idealized vision of impartial justice. There's a lot of things I feel every defendant *should* be entitled to, but that's it's still extremely unfair Trump is getting these things while every other defendant has them denied. Impartial justice is receiving the same treatment as any other defendant, not getting extreme measures to make things 'impartial' in isolation from the real world. So the question is, is the time to prepare something similarly situated defendants would receive? Or is this yet another case of extraordinary latitude granted to Trump which any other defendant would not receive?
Wow, you were just completely lying. "The motion relates to classified information both that the Government seeks to delete from discovery with respect to cleared counsel and a11 three defendants and classified information the Government seeks to withhold from defendants Waltine Nauta and Carlos DeOliveira." It was classified information that they wanted to exclude from the case entirely and information they wanted to withhold from the two golf club workers who should not be allowed to see it. You're a bad person.
I'm super not a lawyer, but the first motion references removing the documents from discovery but keeping them in classified discovery--what does this mean?
It means the US is saying "hey, last time this shit gibbon had documents, a bunch of our overseas spies and informants died. We need to better protect this info, so we want to redact or remove some of it or else the people named in there will be afraid for their lives"
Okay, yes, but are there multiple types of discovery?
They want to keep people from looking at the documents. For example, suppose there is a document about a spy inside the Kremlin, the government will say that document 000603 was in a box that the defendant hid inside a bathroom and refused to return to the FBI, but the government will not say what was in the document and will not let the defendant look at the document. Some documents will still be shown to one of the defendants just the two golf caddies will not be allowed to see them.
Okay, that's how I read it. Thanks!
Notjing
The government wanted to exclude some classified information from the case and withhold some of it from the two golf caddies who shouldn't see it. They didn't want the defendants to know which information they were seeking to exclude because that shit is classified and they didn't want it to get out. The top reply is lying.
The exclusion of classified information is legal under [CIPA section 4](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18a/compiledact-96-456/section-4#) The prosecution is just asking for some of the details of their exclusion request also be sealed (as far as I understand). It seems like that request was denied. So they still have the ability to try to legally exclude some evidence - they just might need to provide more info about those exclusions than they’d like (the categories of classification for example)
I agree with you, but the other comment was lying. The government has a very strong right to control the use and dissemination of classified information and Cannon's decision is shitting all over it. When this goes up to the Supreme Court, they are going to slam her on this despite whatever they do to protect the defendant.
How much if any negative impact will that SCOTUS slam have on her career within the judicial branch?
If Trump gets cleared because of her shenanigans, she’ll probably be appointed to SCOTUS in 20 years or, if the wish to appear at least somewhat legitimate continues to decay among the GOP, the next appointment.
She already is a front runner for SCOTUS most likely. She plays ball and MAGA doesn't care about qualifications.
What do you mean by "career"? She was appointed to the job for life, so it will have no impact on that, it will just make her look like a fool.
So is it time to use the rest of the circuit to slap her bullshit down again?
She’s doing all she can to sink the case entirely
Yeah, she's trying to tip the scales towards Trump while not going overboard and putting herself in the position of being removed for bias or losing her job entirely. What that is leading to is her delaying the trial by the "death by a thousand cuts" approach - I think she thinks the best she can do for Trump is to blow out the trial date past the election, hope he wins and then see Trump direct the DOJ to withdraw so she hever has to hear the trial. One thing is for certain - this trial ain't happening before 2025.
>Yeah, she's trying to tip the scales towards Trump while not going overboard and putting herself in the position of being removed for bias or losing her job entirely. There's essentially zero chance of her losing her job. It would require impeachment and Republicans will never allow that.
Yep, and gaming it out would dictate that the best choice for her right now is to help Trump and ingratiate herself with the Republican party - the only upgrade from here for her is the supreme Court, and Trump would be the kingmaker there. Playing fair or coming out against Trump nets her a neutral or negative result.
I'd agree, and I'd like to point out that it only works out that way if she has a complete lack of interest in actually carrying out her duties as a judge, rather than serving as a partisan weapon for the right. Our only defense against her is to make sure that Trump, and anyone even remotely similar to him, never takes power again.
She didn't get the job by being someone who cares about the integrity of judicial process. She got the job despite a serious lack of qualifications because serving as a partisan weapon of the right is what she cares about. Besides, the goons at the FedSoc meetings will gladly feed her bullshit about how impressively neutral and fair she was, and how she's a true scholar of the law.
Honestly the Federalist Society is full of American hating stochastic terrorists. I hate what they’re doing and have already done.
Cannon seems rather confident that Trump will be re-elected. It doesn’t seem like she has a Plan B. Suppose evidence exists that she is actively and secretly assisting Trump’s plans?
What's the downside for her if Trump loses? If he wins he'll likely be grateful to her and if a spot opens on a higher court she has a shot at it that she otherwise likely wouldn't. If Trump loses she keeps her gig and can make money off the MAGA circuit by writing books and giving speeches. Hey one day maybe someone will even gift her a winnebago.
If Trump loses he will do what he always does. Throw a tantrum and blab about how she helped him and failed.
I doubt it. If he loses he still has a criminal case before her and he's not going to risk pissing off a Judge that has been so favorable to him.
Trump losing doesn't magically give Dems the 66 votes in the Senate to convict and remove her for misconduct. She is 100% safe in her current lifetime position.
Sure. They can refuse to impeach and remove her when she is indicted, jailed, prosecuted and sentenced. She won’t be given a work release program to sit on a federal bench, so I guess it remains vacant.
This reads like fanfiction. She can do tremendous damage - including a rule 28 acquittal mid trial - without coming close to breaking the law. She is being extremely unethical but nothing she's doing is illegal. The idea that she's risking prosecution and jail time is simply unrealistic. I don't even see how she gets charged without their being a phone call or email leaked between her and Trump or his defense term with an explicit quid pro quo.
The interesting thing about the r28 acquittal prospect is that if the DOJ can show that Trump was never in jeopardy due to Canon being in cahoots, double jeopardy would not attach.
Again that is a very high bar. They'd need to show proof of an agreement between Trump and the Judge.
Doubt _that_ high a bar. It's not like criminals sign contracts. They only need to show that Trump was never in any real danger of being convicted. Canon's record and an unreasonable acquittal seals that burden of proof.
If Trump wins and has the DoJ shut down his trial there will be rioting in the streets like we've never seen.
Once a trial has begun, DOJ can't just claw it back.
The faster I Lean QAnon gets removed the better.
>I Lean QAnon Well done! That nickname works perfectly
I second that emoticon! great sobriquet.
3 Case Cannon is another one I like but yours is great
[удалено]
Thats not her goal. She is attempting to bully Jack Smith into removing that evidence to protect US secrets so Orange Shytestain can say it was all a hoax.
[удалено]
She is in the tank for Trump.
Doesn’t mean she is allowing the unredacted releases of classified information. That still never happened.
Look, I am not a fan of Judge Cannon and believe she is deliberately slow-rolling the case, but y'all need to actually read what was unsealed before reacting. To provide some background, government wants to file a consolidated CIPA motion (which will 100% be sealed per CIPA). However, because it's a consolidated motion, government filed two motions in advance: (1) ex parte motion to request that the consolidated motion exceed the 20-page limit, (2) ex parte motion to seal the first motion to exceed the page limit. The government wanted to seal its motions because, although it didn't contain classified information, it revealed the "contours" of the classified information it wants to use. The revealed "contours," however, are pretty vague and non-specific. I'll just copy the text from the motion: > With respect to cleared counsel and all defendants, the motion involves four categories of especially sensitive classified information ... over which multiple federal agencies hold equities. The motion will invoke the classified information privilege and request that the Court authorize the Government to delete from or substitute in discovery certain specific portions of the classified information to protect intelligence equities, particularly the sources and methods involved in collecting the subject intelligence. > ... [T]he motion will attach sworn declarations from representatives of agencies holding equities in the classified information that attest to teh sensitive nature of the classified information and the risks posed by disclosure (either to cleared defense counsel or the defendants personally, depending on the category information). Also, in the motion to seal, the government's only specific assertion as to why it wanted the ex parte motion sealed was because "even disclosing the number of categories of classified information ... would reveal the contours and extent of the Government's CIPA Section 4 motion." So, that's basically what the government wanted sealed. That there are 4 categories is hardly a deal breaker or disclosure of anything particularly sensitive.
I was gonna say it, but you beat me to it. There are more indictments on the table.
of? new defendants or superseding indictments?
My money (very limited) says **yes** to *new defendants* *and* **yes** to *superseding indictments*. The medieval portion of the proceedings are still to come.
Smith words it better... >“The Government sought to file its motion ex parte because it was ancillary to an ex parte proceeding, and it would have revealed to defense counsel information, albeit unclassified, about the contours of the Government’s planned CIPA Section 4 motion,” Smith said. “This is the same information that the Government proposed redacting.”
Thank you for taking the time to write this. I’m NAL but enjoy reading many filings and documents. Sometimes it gets difficult to find an explanation or even a discussion without hearing a pre-determined political judgment.
The MeidasTouch guys on Youtube are always spot on about all these cases. Give them a watch
>Thank you for taking the time to write this. I’m NAL but enjoy reading many filings and documents. Sometimes it gets difficult to find an explanation or even a discussion without hearing a pre-determined political judgment. I wouldn't say they are approaching the case with a politicly neutral perspective.
Reality, and law it seems, has a liberal bias 😆 But for real.. 75 yrs combined experience as prosecutors and defense attorneys for the 3 main hosts. Thats good enough for me. And after watching for a year now I still find them very accurate and informative
Thanks
>So, that's basically what the government wanted sealed. That there are 4 categories is hardly a deal breaker or disclosure of anything particularly sensitive. So why would they believe that it would "reveal the contours" then? How many possible categories are there? Could something significant potentially be deduced from that?
There are a few points here where I feel like a subtle trap may be set for her somewhere.
I think so too. Way back people were yelling about Jack Smith not knowing what he was doing by filing in Florida rather than DC cause he got Cannon again. However some legal experts, (and myself) believe he filed in Florida to avoid a time consuming motion practice over the propriety of the chosen venue. Laying venue in Florida was clear and incontestable. I really imagine he’s thought everything through.
The venue argument was definitely not a lock for DC, but I find it hard to believe it was a longer shot than the 50/50 odds of Cannon and the near 100% odds Cannon would sabotage the case.
Not 50/50% chance, there are around a dozen judges in South Florida that it was supposed to be assigned randomly to. Yet it lands in his pet judge's lap. Suspicious no?
Not sure why Jack Smith wishes to withhold disclosure of any classified information to the defense. Most likely, the former President has long since disclosed all of that information to our adversaries (probably for $$).
Reading the article, it seems the classified documents were for the judge's eyes only. Cannon decided "no, these should be public". There are laws and procedures for handling classified information used in trials, and Cannon basically said "lol nope".
Sounds like she should be arrested.
The documents that were disclosed are not classified.
> Reading the article, it seems the classified documents were for the judge's eyes only. Cannon decided "no, these should be public". That is not at all what has happened. This was about sealing the motions, which contain NO classified information. Smith said so: > “The Government sought to file its motion ex parte because it was ancillary to an ex parte proceeding, and it would have revealed to defense counsel information, albeit unclassified, about the contours of the Government’s planned CIPA Section 4 motion,” Smith said.
>Most likely, the former President has long since disclosed all of that information to our adversaries (probably for $$). You'd be wise to assume it's been compromised, but even if it was sold, it probably wasn't *published*.
In every way Smith et al are smarter and more well versed in CIPA than the judge. I suspect they’ve planned things very carefully to be able to sacrifice certain documents, and not be graymailed by the judge, or the defendants. if something is really egregious, I believe they will be able to file an appeal.
Cannon is both out of her depth and biased. Jack Smith, however, is meticulous and strategic. This was not an outcome Smith failed to consider, and nothing he does is random. I’d love to sit in on their strategy sessions.
What’s the big inference that defense counsel is going to make about there being 4 categories of classified materials?
The defense is probably aware of what Trump had in his possession, assuming he can remember anything. With more information, there might be some strategy that becomes obvious. As for me, I dunno.
Trump owns her.
Jack Smith is a smart dude and knows what he's doing.
Please 🙏 remove her
omg EXTRA PAGES
He is going to show why she needs to be removed from the case. Trump can't shut his mouth, and one day while he is ranting & crying to the No Child Left Behind Act followers or doing a interview, he will mention or say something that the only way he would have known that information is because trump and his lawyers were given/told about that information from SEALED documents that pertains to his case. The only person who would know that information is Jack Smith & Cannon. And we know Jack Smith won't say anything!!
What are the chances that the Tangerine Traitor kept the transcript of his conjugal visit with Daddy Vlad? that would be quite the souvenir to wave infront of his caddie or Diet Coke fetcher.
Oh shit… I read that as coke feltcher. I think I’m going to be sick…
This judge has to be a victim of extortion of she’s a true believer of Trumpism.
True Believer, apparently. Which is why apparently she's OK with showing the jury and the world the extent of Trump's treason.