Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Showing Original Post only (View all)

BumRushDaShow

(129,096 posts)
Fri Feb 9, 2024, 02:30 PM Feb 9

"Manifest injustice": Jack Smith calls out Judge Cannon's "clear error" in new filing [View all]

Last edited Fri Feb 9, 2024, 04:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Salon

Published February 9, 2024 8:58AM (EST)


Special counsel Jack Smith’s team on Thursday said U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon made a “clear error” by refusing to shield witnesses in former President Donald Trump’s documents case. Smith’s team asked Cannon to reconsider her order granting Trump’s request to unredact portions of their motions for discovery, rejecting the Justice Department’s concerns about potential harm to witnesses.

The special counsel’s motion argued that Cannon made a “clear error’ that defied 11th Circuit Court precedent and would cause “manifest injustice.”

"That discovery material, if publicly docketed in unredacted form as the Court has ordered, would disclose the identities of numerous potential witnesses, along with the substance of the statements they made to the FBI or the grand jury, exposing them to significant and immediate risks of threats, intimidation, and harassment, as has already happened to witnesses, law enforcement agents, judicial officers, and Department of Justice employees whose identities have been disclosed in cases in which defendant Trump is involved," the filing said.

Smith’s team on Wednesday revealed that authorities are already investigating a series of online threats made to potential witnesses in the case. "The Court's conclusion that the Government's witness-safety concerns are too speculative or generalized is misplaced," Thursday’s filing said. "A court's duty is to prevent harms to the witnesses or the judicial process 'at their inception,' before they are realized and dysfunction envelops the trial."

Read more: https://www.salon.com/2024/02/09/manifest-injustice-jack-smith-calls-out-cannons-clear-error-in-new-filing/



Link to filing (PDF) - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.294.0.pdf
55 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I know she's a hack, but this should have been a no-brainer. TwilightZone Feb 9 #1
NOTHING POSITIVE? LiberalLovinLug Feb 10 #44
If Loose Cannon digs herself any deeper, Smith might get a higher court to move the case away from her. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Feb 9 #2
I would think this would be enough. LiberalFighter Feb 9 #10
I sure hope so! ShazzieB Feb 9 #23
A considerable delay in that case. Probably what fuckface wants. Lucky Luciano Feb 9 #42
Smith should iniate that process ASAP. n/t iluvtennis Feb 9 #14
He may just be waiting for her response to this. ShazzieB Feb 9 #24
Amen to that!! PortTack Feb 9 #28
Yes, setting the groundwork to have her dismissed. ananda Feb 9 #22
We can hope Rebl2 Feb 9 #33
Expose this corrupt judge for what she is Mysterian Feb 9 #3
You know what? Maybe Judge Cannon isn't corrupt... FakeNoose Feb 10 #46
Lawyer Brigade incoming to tell us Cannon was right Prairie Gates Feb 9 #4
Nope. We don't entertain trolls here. lastlib Feb 9 #12
LOL Prairie Gates Feb 9 #16
Not from me. TomSlick Feb 9 #41
Wait... you know bmaz too? nt. druidity33 Feb 10 #47
Member, I guess, of the "Lawyer Brigade" here. And while the motion to reconsider should be granted by Cannon onenote Feb 11 #51
Aileen is following the Alien and seduction of Trump Act! GreenWave Feb 9 #5
It's Very Hard for Me to Entertain the Idea That This "Own Goal" is Merely an Inadvertent Error The Roux Comes First Feb 9 #6
Hope this is first step for bluestarone Feb 9 #7
When does Smith edhopper Feb 9 #8
I think he was reluctant to do this at first because of the delays drray23 Feb 9 #31
He doesn't. Certainly not for this order. onenote Feb 11 #50
Jack is finally stopping the coddling. Thank you, Jack. republianmushroom Feb 9 #9
Coddling? lol! Torchlight Feb 9 #17
I find it hard to believe that she was randomly chosen for this case. trusty elf Feb 9 #11
I find it impossible to believe orangecrush Feb 9 #13
No doubt she hopes the same mahina Feb 9 #15
I dont thnk anyone "selected" her for this. ShazzieB Feb 9 #26
I thought that might be ambiguous. If I am not mistaken she is a Trump nominated judge. mahina Feb 9 #34
Yes, Cannon was definitely a Trump appointment. ShazzieB Feb 9 #36
So, she is the mouthpiece, who is the brain, and the strategic planner. Some one or a team of someones..... usaf-vet Feb 10 #45
I read at the time that there were only 2 judges it could be assigned to... AnrothElf Feb 9 #18
True too. But Trump nominated her. She was confirmed in 2020. She had no judicial experience. mahina Feb 9 #35
Question: Is Cannon the Judge EndlessWire Feb 9 #19
Has she now become a co-conspirator to allowing Bluethroughu Feb 9 #20
No, she applied the wrong legal standard in response to a motion when the opposition didn't cite the correct standard onenote Feb 11 #52
Slobby would dox these witnesses immediately. rubbersole Feb 9 #21
He already has this information. This is about whether the press and public at large should get it. onenote Feb 11 #53
Delay, delay, delay, that's the name of the game Mr. Ected Feb 9 #25
What is your evidence "DOJ is taking great pains" to keep her on it? Bernardo de La Paz Feb 9 #40
Well don't you think she should have been removed earlier? Nobody can tell what is in someone's mind flying_wahini Feb 10 #48
Yes, it is off base to say "don't you think that ..." is evidence of corruption Bernardo de La Paz Feb 10 #49
"Judge Cannon" 3825-87867 Feb 9 #27
Love to see Jack Smith find a way to put her in the unemployment line for good. KS Toronado Feb 9 #29
If she is removed, could bluestarone Feb 9 #30
yes of course. it would be reassigned to another judge.nt. drray23 Feb 9 #32
Another judge would be assigned, however... Shipwack Feb 9 #39
Kick dalton99a Feb 9 #37
"That discovery material, if publicly docketed in unredacted form as the Court has ordered, ffr Feb 9 #38
YAY.. Oh I wish he could Cha Feb 9 #43
I have a bit of a problem figuring this woman out. madaboutharry Feb 11 #54
Kick ck4829 Feb 12 #55
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»"Manifest injustice&...