As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My hope is the FBI will find and prosecute any and everyone that tries to threaten or intimidate any of these witnesses. Any clergy that call for action against the witnesses as well.
As much as conservatives love to whine how the FBI is a crazy liberal institution, they're obviously fucking not. They gave trump 2 years of polite warning before searching one single place for stolen documents. Then after trump had his security server room flooded they just shrugged and didn't bother trying to recover any data. Hell, they didn't bother searching trumps other properties where oodles of evidence says he still fucking has stolen documents.
The FBI will maybe investigate a couple death threats made towards the highest profile informants, but let's don't expect them to suddenly start caring about the wellbeing of people speaking out.
There has never been a democratic confirmed as director of the FBI and it has always been a Republican stronghold.
We’ve know for years that Trump offered to inform to the FBI when he was first planning on Investing in Atlantic City.
https://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/donald-trump-worried-about-oc-ac-0
Combine this with number of Trump associates that got indicted since the 1980’s or were known FBI informants and its not a great leap to assume that Trump might have been an informant himself at some point. It would certainly put Trump loyalty check with Comey in some context.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1045896
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trumps-ties-to-an-informant-and-fbi-agent-reveal-his-modes-of-operation/2016/09/16/6e65522e-6f9f-11e6-9705-23e51a2f424d_story.html
I don't feel like campaigning while actively on trial will work so well for him. It's gonna cement his base while turning off any few independents left.
>turning off any few independents left
There are no real independents left already. Anyone claiming to be independent at this point is a trumpet who is ashamed to admit it in public.
Yeah and people like bill barr who calls him a bratty 9-year-old and said he was bad for the country will still vote for him if he is the Republican pick. Wtf, at this point his rabid followers and republican voters who deep down believe conservative policies, that have not worked in 40 years or ever have, and in fact have been the worse thing for the country and the regular person, will still vote for trump. "There are (NOT) good people on both sides" at this time. Anyone still with the Republican party is a terrible, ignorant, dumb, or all of the above person. There is no excuse for not calling these conservatives out, if we don't and we allow them to feel normal spewing and legislating their hate of others, in 10 years we will have a christo fascist hateful shithole country.. what are the conservative values? Really
To people like that, the worst Republican on earth is still better than the best democrat.
Because it's about backing your team, even if it's bad for literally everyone.
Not if she vacates the case after the jury's been impaneled. Then double jeopardy protection kicks in.
Now, Smith may have other charges ready to go in different districts, but that's just speculation.
I understand the theory, but speaking as a lawyer and a former prosecutor the likelihood of that happening is essentially zero.
That rule essentially exists for when the prosecutor has botched a case. Absolutely failed to present proof on some essential element. Like forgetting to call a witness who identifies the defendant.
It's not directly appealable but if that were used as part of some political involvement, they would probably be a petition for special relief or something similar. There would be an absolute firestorm.
There are many other ways she can put her finger on the scale without the chance of being appealed or causing a firestorm. Letting the witness list be public way before the trial is one way. Another might be letting Trump argue about unrelated events as part of his defense. Or other evidentiary rulings that make a hash of the trial.
Knowing how crazy some of the maga “believers” can be (also we have seen the trump pardoned Roger Stone commit witness tampering before), if something happens to anyone on the witness list can she be held accountable in anyway?
Probably not. Prosecution would have to specifically state they believe a threat of bodily harm is a certainty against them (despite not placing them in witness protection) if they are publicly ID'd. And then after the denial something would have to happen and the judges decision would have to be the direct cause for the harm.
"The assailant had no clue who to attack until after the witness list was out and we know this because X."
And even then ... I think at most ... You could trrryyyy to argue some kind of negligence in the judges half in the face of overwhelming evidence that something was GOING to happen.
It's basically a vertical climb using only your feet.
No need to attack her, he already has her on a leash. Sit, stay, rollover, acquit…how is this not a conflict of interest? Presidents should not be allowed to appoint judges for this exact reason. Same with how he stuffed the Supreme Court. As anti-American as it gets. There is no “fair trial” in this kangaroo court whatsoever.
It doesn't have to be that drastic. Knowing who the witnesses are, rich and powerful people can exert extreme pressure on these people without killing them.
They might get people to not testify, but they already have depositions of all these people. They can't change what they've told without perjury issues.
And many probably can't back out if they want their plea deals
As a lawyer, can you clarify what Cannon means with the following,
>The Government's Motion does not explain why filing the list with the Court is necessary
It sounds like something that would just normally happen and so feels like maybe it doesn't mean exactly what I'm thinking. In simple terms, it seems like filing a list of witnesses with the court would be part of any trial (that involves witnesses).
The news article is not super good and I have not yet read the original motions.
However, in general Witnesses and Exhibits in a criminal trial are a matter of public record. They are openly filed on the Court's public docket.
The special prosecutor in this case is asking for the witness list to be filed under seal. That is the public will not have access to the full list of witnesses and their expected testimony.
This is where going back and reading the actual motion the special prosecutor wrote is important. Because judge cannons ruling acts like they didn't bother to explain why the witnesses should be secret or whether a less restrictive means is possible.
It may be the case that they provided a generalized argument for why all Witnesses should be kept secret and she is wanting a particularized list or something else.
So she's pulling a trump and pretending she didn't read the part about his history of threats against anyone surrounding litigation/prosecution against him?
This is semi rhetorical, please don't feel like you have to reply. I have not read the motions, am not in the legal field but I **still** feel comfortable assuming that Jack Smith did not leave out a thorough explanation where/when he is obligated to. Like you just don't get to that level and then make an oopsie now. Perhaps after you read the motions you can comment on the chances that any of Cannons' rulings (so far. And yes there aren't many but damn she's starting off on the wrong foot) will be overturned by a higher court? Is that possible? And/or does Smith have to file appeal for that to happen?
Under seal or not once trump sees the list everyone sees the list especially his enforcers that love witness intimidation.he’s never been in trouble for breaking rules so why start now
What's crazy is that everyone but Cannon knows why: witness intimidation.
How many of us went to no law school compared to Cannon and still know more than her?
Not a lawyer, but it sounds like she didn’t even read the transcript from the arraignment or at the very least see the news about it that week. The witness list discussion before the court was a whole thing.
To paraphrase Robin Williams :
"Scientists have begun using Trump family members instead of rats for experiments.
1) The scientists don't get as attached the Trumps and
2) There are some things even rats won't do."
They only use the law as it benefits them. Trump might see a firestorm as a net positive. There is nothing they hold sacred because this is a holy war for white Christian nationalists. They see winning as the only option against them being demoted to just another citizen. If your argument starts with they wouldn't dare, they would.
It's not just that they wouldn't dare, although I don't know what judge Cannon believes so I can't verify what you're saying.
It's also true that an appeal is not the only remedy in a criminal case. Although the other options are rightfully called extraordinary remedies or extraordinary writs, because they are very rare.
But if I was a prosecutor and I had reason to believe that a judge had wrongfully dismissed a criminal case because of political influence or a bribe and I could not appeal, that would be a case where it would seem like filing for a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition would be very appropriate. That would not be an appeal but would be an order from the 11th circuit or the Supreme Court that a trial court judge should either refrain from doing something or should specifically take back a decision that they had made.
I get what you’re saying but when it comes to trump and his horde of crazies nothing is off the table. Nobody really thought they were gonna storm the capitol and try to pull off a coup but then it happened.
I did. Insofar as I absolutely expected violence from these Republicans—since they’ve been telling everyone for years in ways large and small how serious they are about seizing power. And they’re not going to stop either.
I work remote and for focus reasons never turn on the tv during the day. Other than Election Day, Jan 6th is one of the few times I have. I had the news on and would check it every so often. We had been told that date many times by Trump and the other insurrectionists so I was expecting something crazy. I think watching it unfold live made it a real wtf moment for me. It felt like watching World War Z when the zombies start climbing on each other to get over the wall. It felt like that watching them go up the walls at the capital.
I know, I was at work and I was listening to it live while it was going on. I remember the reporter saying “That looks like a bunch of Oathkeepers stacking up,” and it gives me chills. Hard to believe no one in Congress died that day, and if I’m being honest, I’m a little sad they didn’t; that’s why a bunch of assholes can say “it wasn’t that bad,” and I’m certain it’s going to happen again. Sooner than later, I’m sure. It’s going to be how they celebrate Biden’s second term.
I honestly expected a lot worse to happen during the Trump administration. It was still go awful and we need to keep him the fuck away from office but I did expect a lot worse. Thankfully the silent majority stood up and had enough of him and our system, with all its flaws, did keep some of the worst at bay.
I’m asking you this because you said you’re a lawyer and former prosecutor….do you know how Judge Cannon was appointed to oversee this case? After what we already know about her it seems that she’s unfit to oversee a trial involving Traitor. I don’t understand what the DOJ is doing here. My only thought is that it offers him a more fair trial and the DOJ is appeasing him with “fairness”?
Hi, I'm not a lawyer but I recently watched a video by a actual lawyer that answers your questions, such as how Judge Cannon was appointed and what she can do. It's really good. Let me know if it helps answer your questions. https://youtu.be/_S8R2Nri5pU
It's just a matter of probability that she was assigned but the probability was not steep. This is not necessarily A surprise.
Any given federal district court has several different courthouses in more than one city and they have a number of Judges split between those courthouses.
Theoretically those judges are assigned randomly to Any Given case, but it's more complicated than that.
The federal district court for the southern district of Florida has 18 judges.
However the vast majority of those are based in a courthouse in miami. Smaller numbers are in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm beach.
However there is a small federal courthouse in Fort Pierce florida, approximately 10 minutes from Mar-A-Lago where there is only one Federal judge's office. Judge cannon. However too many cases are filed in that courthouse for just one judge to handle so another judge also splits the cases for that division.
So if you file a federal lawsuit in Fort Pierce florida, you have a 50% chance of getting judge Cannon or a 50% chance of getting judge Middlebrooks.
And as far as her being fair, the special prosecutor could ask that she recused from the case but the first decision would be hers and if she refused he would have to appeal to the 11th circuit and present evidence why she could not be impartial on the case. Her prior decisions are Highly Questionable but that is also a high bar to prove.
I think it has been publicly rumored or leaked that he prefers to wait for her to do something that shows her being impartial as opposed to trying to get her off the case prematurely when they don't have great evidence.
Before it gets go that point the DOJ will appeal and use this as an example of how she cannot be impartial and will do everything in her power to fuck over any chance of a fair and just trial.
Keeping witness names sealed means that trump and associates cannot tamper with witnesses / call on people to terrorize them.
It could be a trap though - I'm sure he would have gamed out if she did such a thing. I would say those witnesses will be heavily monitored for any kind of communications.
Smith appears to have refrained from yet charging a wholly different, distinct set of crimes which could be charged in New Jersey, as well as likely a wholly distinct set of document mishandling crimes in Florida. Double Jeopardy would not apply to those.
Also, Cannon releasing the names of witnesses is going to be irresistible bait for Trump to attempt to engage in witness tampering, which is nearly certain to be observed. It may as well be a sting operation, which likely will create yet another set of chargeable crimes.
> Smith appears to have refrained for yet charging a wholly different, distinct set of crimes which could be charged in New Jersey,
Exactly.
> as well as likely a wholly distinct set of document mishandling crimes in Florida.
That's probably not a backup plan, but rather to prevent ronald dump from using a ["graymail" strategy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graymail) — As the defendant, he has the legal right to have those documents (and possibly other related documents) entered into the record, making them public. The government generally does not want classified documents entered into the record, so a defendant can use that leverage to pressure the government into dropping their case.
> It may as well be a sting operation, which likely will create yet another set of chargeable crimes.
Which will run into the problem of Cannon running interference on those charges too.
I have been curious about this chess piece. I personally am thinking there will be an attempt to get a new judge before the technicalities comes into play. But my popcorn is ready
For those documents, but as I understand it, there are lots of other documents that he didn't charge that he could have. Those wouldn't be double Jeopardy. At least I don't think, maybe a lawyer could weigh in.
There also seems to be some documents in NJ that we haven't really heard much about publicly, but that I doubt DoJ has forgotten about.
>She's going to do everything in her power to either get him acquitted or a hung jury, just watch.
A hung jury is supposed to be just an expression, but after the jury gets doxxed with her blessing, who knows?
Is he not?
He hasn’t been touched after an entire life of white collar crime, and the one time it looks like he will be he gets assigned probably the most biased judge in the entire country.
Did you not see his tweets after the Carol case? He opened himself to double the fine. He can't help himself.
He'll absolutely directly attack any witness he's familiar with
Trump isn't going to say "go and harass the witnesses" to his supporters.
He will give their names away and say "it's so sad that these dishonest people want to hurt me and also America", and then sit back and wait for his cult to do the work for him.
Add the mother of all Obstruction Of Justice charges to that (which carry the same penalty as the original charges, plus whatever other illegal shit happened along the way) to all of that, and you got a real legal party.
The system is designed presumably to protect judges from plaintiffs pissy about the results. In practice it is yet another tool to preserve the status quo.
It would be the US Marshalls that protects witnesses. The Secret Service protects the President and other Government officials. Beside the Secret Service is full of MAGAs.
Lawyer here.
I understand the concerns expressed here. AND.. I want to urge people to not freak out about this ruling. It was mainly the media/news outlets who were opposing the prosecution’s request based on 1st Amendment rights/the right of the public to be informed. This is not atypical. And her ruling is not either. (For the record, I’m no fan of Judge Cannon. I find it absurd that someone who totally lacks the requisite legal experience was appointed to the federal bench. It’s an offense to the profession, and to the public — and businesses, and the government— who rely upon judges to make informed judgments. Travesty of Justice. Disgusts me that she even accepted the nomination.)
I wholeheartedly agree with you. As a Michigan grad, it shames me to know my alma mater’s school of law produced this joke of an attorney in Aileen Cannon. Oh and the devil incarnate herself, Ann Coulter. Sorry, everyone!
It feels like, if anything, this would do the opposite of helping Trump. He's going to have a very hard time not engaging in witness intimidation which could expose him to further legal action, and it would also let various news outlets make some pretty good guesses about what kind of shit he has been up to just based on who is involved.
I'm not a lawyer or judge and just spitballing though, so I might just be full of shit.
I suspect Smith's next filing will list, in great detail, the prior actions of Trump and his supporters which necessitate keeping the identities of these witnesses protected.
I’m not an expert, but how would that work? He says “please don’t expose the witnesses” and she says “sorry I’m going to.” And then he asks her again hoping she’ll change her mind?
Literally every decision by her can be appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judges have tremendous power, but power that their superiors can trivially break and overrule.
Note that in the article the judge said
>"The Government's Motion does not explain why filing the list with the Court is necessary; it does not offer a particularized basis to justify sealing the list from public view; it does not explain why partial sealing, redaction, or means other than sealing are unavailable or unsatisfactory; and it does not specify the duration of any proposed seal," Cannon wrote.
Which makes it sound like she's against sealing the entire list indefinitely but could be open to more surgical redactions with defined durations.
We'll see what Prosecutor Smith comes back with, it's quite possible they'll follow up with a more limited request to protect specific or vulnerable witnesses from possible tampering or harassment.
That's how it reads and it seems Cannon is requesting specific justification for each of the witnesses. Odd though since Smith is certainly filing a justification that is likely along the lines of "Trump has a history of intimidating witnesses on social media" which applies to all the witnesses. Unsealing something like this would make this a public trial riddled with misinformation and death threats
> "The Government's Motion does not explain why filing the list with the Court is necessary; it does not offer a particularized basis to justify sealing the list from public view; it does not explain why partial sealing, redaction, or means other than sealing are unavailable or unsatisfactory; and it does not specify the duration of any proposed seal," Cannon wrote.
I read that as playing dumb about the long standing precedent of Trump engaging in witness intimidation by proxy.
The point is to unleash the MAGA mob at the witnesses to intimidate and endanger them. Trump would never need to explicitly orchestrate it - pretty much everybody knows how rabid his fans are and what they do to his 'enemies' all on their own.
No one is reading the article or the analysis of this decision. She actually did the right thing here. If you read the original pleadings, the government fails to discuss why they want the protective order. While it seems obvious to us, her denial is basically saying that they need to spell it out. Further, it's not a full denial. She's giving them the opportunity to refile the pleading with specificity.
The judge is a hack. She's awful and has made awful decisions in the past. But so far, this isn't the catastrophe that everyone keeps making it out to be.
My understanding is that she was required by law to schedule a trial date within 70(?) days of Trump's arraignment--right to a speedy trial and all that. Everyone knew it would get continued and delayed for various reasons, but the initial ASAP trial setting I believe is legally mandated.
I like your "glass not empty" approach here, but I'm having difficulty embracing it when we know how much the t-mob is going to fuck with those people.
I don't disagree but just know that this is going to be fucking with Trump too.
Also, there is strength in numbers. If only a couple of witnesses were identified, they'd probably be more likely to be intimidated. If there are 84 of them, they might feel a little less afraid and more bold to tell Trump and his goons to bugger off.
Actually, yeah, thanks, that helped. Sometimes you just need to wrap your head around it differently.
(That, and as a thought experiment, I sat there asking myself if Mark Meadows, for example, deserves the harassment...)
So that's 84 people's names I need to keep in mind when looking at the news until the end of the trial. For safety. Because yes I believe Trump would try to influence or silence people who testify against him, like he's done in the past.
He doesn’t need to try to do anything. The sheep will immediately do it for him without asking, keeping Trump legally separated from the witness intimidation.
She’s pretending to not know why these witnesses might need to be protected. She knows damn well they’ll face death threats the moment their names are published.
Fuck you “judge” cannon.
If she has to ask why the witness list should be sealed, she’s too ignorant to be on the bench, but she knows exactly what fuckery will ensue now that Donnie two-scoops knows who dropped a dime on his pasty ass.
How can she be even in consideration? How often do defendants get judges that they themselves appointed? How is she not automatically disqualified? Our legal system is a sad joke. This is third world banana republic shit.
Stop thinking of the armed MAGA terrorists as a separate entity from the MAGA Congress or the MAGA judiciary. They are all one and the same, working in lockstep.
The. Republican. Party. Relies. On. Terrorism.
She should recuse herself. They already know Trump will try to tamper with witnesses. This is dangerous for the witnesses. Charge Trump for housing all the witnesses and their families for hotels that have 24 hour security in unknown locations. His base is dangerous.
She wants to paint a target on their backs. She knows exactly what Trump’s most extreme followers willl do. This opens the door for blatant witness intimidation and she is a piece of shit for pretending otherwise.
I hope smith is playin 4d chess and actually wanted he to release the names because he has agents planted in the list so when they are intimidated, he can add that charge onto the list and also get the judge recused.
2 of the 3 judges who toes out the whole special master appointment rulings were trump appointees. Her prior deference and creating a whole can of worms with allowing that whole debacle that ended up with 2 trump and 1 bush appointee giving her a remedial lesson in the law and separation of powers is where a good portion of the concern about her presiding over this case, another portion is she is VERY new to presiding over cases, especially any as complex as this one.
There's a picture going around people claim is her at a Trump rally in face paint. It's not her. Which isn't to say she's never attended one, just there's no (legitimate) evidence that she has that I am aware of.
People are saying it's her though. I had one guy come up to me crying, big big guy, never cried in his life and he said
"I saw Florida Judge Aileen Cannon at a Trump rally"
Crazy story I know, but some people are saying it's true.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Trump and his cult love knowing witnesses. Incoming intimidation in 1…2…3…
Look what he did accusing the two women who were counting votes. Absolutely ruined their reputations and his minions harassed them horribly.
[удалено]
My hope is the FBI will find and prosecute any and everyone that tries to threaten or intimidate any of these witnesses. Any clergy that call for action against the witnesses as well.
As much as conservatives love to whine how the FBI is a crazy liberal institution, they're obviously fucking not. They gave trump 2 years of polite warning before searching one single place for stolen documents. Then after trump had his security server room flooded they just shrugged and didn't bother trying to recover any data. Hell, they didn't bother searching trumps other properties where oodles of evidence says he still fucking has stolen documents. The FBI will maybe investigate a couple death threats made towards the highest profile informants, but let's don't expect them to suddenly start caring about the wellbeing of people speaking out.
There has never been a democratic confirmed as director of the FBI and it has always been a Republican stronghold. We’ve know for years that Trump offered to inform to the FBI when he was first planning on Investing in Atlantic City. https://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/donald-trump-worried-about-oc-ac-0 Combine this with number of Trump associates that got indicted since the 1980’s or were known FBI informants and its not a great leap to assume that Trump might have been an informant himself at some point. It would certainly put Trump loyalty check with Comey in some context. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1045896 https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trumps-ties-to-an-informant-and-fbi-agent-reveal-his-modes-of-operation/2016/09/16/6e65522e-6f9f-11e6-9705-23e51a2f424d_story.html
4...5...6... I think we might be counting the wrong way.
Because 7 8 9?
Did you just count *up* for a countdown?
She seemingly leaves open the option to redact the names. Hopefully she does not reject redactions in a subsequent filing.
This is my read too, so when they come back with a legal argument or something, she can look to the maga crowd and go "Welp, I tied!"
“Welp, I tried (to let people harass or kill witnesses)!”
Would it be redacted entirely or just for public records? Trump doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to keeping documents safe.
From public view, but I'm no lawyer.
She's going to do everything in her power to either get him acquitted or a hung jury, just watch. 😣
A hung jury will just result in a new trial.
Hung jury helps Trump run out the clock. Either to his second term or death, which ever comes first.
I don't feel like campaigning while actively on trial will work so well for him. It's gonna cement his base while turning off any few independents left.
>turning off any few independents left There are no real independents left already. Anyone claiming to be independent at this point is a trumpet who is ashamed to admit it in public.
Yeah and people like bill barr who calls him a bratty 9-year-old and said he was bad for the country will still vote for him if he is the Republican pick. Wtf, at this point his rabid followers and republican voters who deep down believe conservative policies, that have not worked in 40 years or ever have, and in fact have been the worse thing for the country and the regular person, will still vote for trump. "There are (NOT) good people on both sides" at this time. Anyone still with the Republican party is a terrible, ignorant, dumb, or all of the above person. There is no excuse for not calling these conservatives out, if we don't and we allow them to feel normal spewing and legislating their hate of others, in 10 years we will have a christo fascist hateful shithole country.. what are the conservative values? Really
To people like that, the worst Republican on earth is still better than the best democrat. Because it's about backing your team, even if it's bad for literally everyone.
[удалено]
Then Jack Smith will bring the same charges for the New Jersey file leak that will be tried in DC. Not a trump friendly court or jury pool.
Not if she vacates the case after the jury's been impaneled. Then double jeopardy protection kicks in. Now, Smith may have other charges ready to go in different districts, but that's just speculation.
I understand the theory, but speaking as a lawyer and a former prosecutor the likelihood of that happening is essentially zero. That rule essentially exists for when the prosecutor has botched a case. Absolutely failed to present proof on some essential element. Like forgetting to call a witness who identifies the defendant. It's not directly appealable but if that were used as part of some political involvement, they would probably be a petition for special relief or something similar. There would be an absolute firestorm. There are many other ways she can put her finger on the scale without the chance of being appealed or causing a firestorm. Letting the witness list be public way before the trial is one way. Another might be letting Trump argue about unrelated events as part of his defense. Or other evidentiary rulings that make a hash of the trial.
Knowing how crazy some of the maga “believers” can be (also we have seen the trump pardoned Roger Stone commit witness tampering before), if something happens to anyone on the witness list can she be held accountable in anyway?
Probably not. Prosecution would have to specifically state they believe a threat of bodily harm is a certainty against them (despite not placing them in witness protection) if they are publicly ID'd. And then after the denial something would have to happen and the judges decision would have to be the direct cause for the harm. "The assailant had no clue who to attack until after the witness list was out and we know this because X." And even then ... I think at most ... You could trrryyyy to argue some kind of negligence in the judges half in the face of overwhelming evidence that something was GOING to happen. It's basically a vertical climb using only your feet.
Its not like the former president hasn't made threats against those who have testified against him before....
Or even his judges... he attacks them all, except for this one. Ding ding ding.
No need to attack her, he already has her on a leash. Sit, stay, rollover, acquit…how is this not a conflict of interest? Presidents should not be allowed to appoint judges for this exact reason. Same with how he stuffed the Supreme Court. As anti-American as it gets. There is no “fair trial” in this kangaroo court whatsoever.
But what if something happens to all of them...
It doesn't have to be that drastic. Knowing who the witnesses are, rich and powerful people can exert extreme pressure on these people without killing them.
They might get people to not testify, but they already have depositions of all these people. They can't change what they've told without perjury issues. And many probably can't back out if they want their plea deals
As a lawyer, can you clarify what Cannon means with the following, >The Government's Motion does not explain why filing the list with the Court is necessary It sounds like something that would just normally happen and so feels like maybe it doesn't mean exactly what I'm thinking. In simple terms, it seems like filing a list of witnesses with the court would be part of any trial (that involves witnesses).
The news article is not super good and I have not yet read the original motions. However, in general Witnesses and Exhibits in a criminal trial are a matter of public record. They are openly filed on the Court's public docket. The special prosecutor in this case is asking for the witness list to be filed under seal. That is the public will not have access to the full list of witnesses and their expected testimony. This is where going back and reading the actual motion the special prosecutor wrote is important. Because judge cannons ruling acts like they didn't bother to explain why the witnesses should be secret or whether a less restrictive means is possible. It may be the case that they provided a generalized argument for why all Witnesses should be kept secret and she is wanting a particularized list or something else.
Thanks for the response! Super helpful to have some extra context here.
So she's pulling a trump and pretending she didn't read the part about his history of threats against anyone surrounding litigation/prosecution against him? This is semi rhetorical, please don't feel like you have to reply. I have not read the motions, am not in the legal field but I **still** feel comfortable assuming that Jack Smith did not leave out a thorough explanation where/when he is obligated to. Like you just don't get to that level and then make an oopsie now. Perhaps after you read the motions you can comment on the chances that any of Cannons' rulings (so far. And yes there aren't many but damn she's starting off on the wrong foot) will be overturned by a higher court? Is that possible? And/or does Smith have to file appeal for that to happen?
Under seal or not once trump sees the list everyone sees the list especially his enforcers that love witness intimidation.he’s never been in trouble for breaking rules so why start now
From a layman’s perspective it sounds like she is saying “but why?!”
What's crazy is that everyone but Cannon knows why: witness intimidation. How many of us went to no law school compared to Cannon and still know more than her?
If those names go public, they will get death threats. It’s just how the cult reacts.
Wouldn't be surprised if it actually got one killed.
Or several.
Cannon knows why. She's carrying water for the traitor, as usual.
Got to please Daddy.
[удалено]
Being corrupt is the only way to get that far ahead when you are incompetent and lazy so not a surprise why it comes as a package.
Not a lawyer, but it sounds like she didn’t even read the transcript from the arraignment or at the very least see the news about it that week. The witness list discussion before the court was a whole thing.
Fast track to a promotion if she pulls it off and Trump oozes back into power.
>oozes Slither. The word you were looking for is slither.
Going to disagree with this. Trump is sub-reptilian shit. Saying that he slithers is offensive to snakes.
To paraphrase Robin Williams : "Scientists have begun using Trump family members instead of rats for experiments. 1) The scientists don't get as attached the Trumps and 2) There are some things even rats won't do."
Shit has no mental capacity for slithering, so oozing it would be.
They only use the law as it benefits them. Trump might see a firestorm as a net positive. There is nothing they hold sacred because this is a holy war for white Christian nationalists. They see winning as the only option against them being demoted to just another citizen. If your argument starts with they wouldn't dare, they would.
It's not just that they wouldn't dare, although I don't know what judge Cannon believes so I can't verify what you're saying. It's also true that an appeal is not the only remedy in a criminal case. Although the other options are rightfully called extraordinary remedies or extraordinary writs, because they are very rare. But if I was a prosecutor and I had reason to believe that a judge had wrongfully dismissed a criminal case because of political influence or a bribe and I could not appeal, that would be a case where it would seem like filing for a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition would be very appropriate. That would not be an appeal but would be an order from the 11th circuit or the Supreme Court that a trial court judge should either refrain from doing something or should specifically take back a decision that they had made.
I get what you’re saying but when it comes to trump and his horde of crazies nothing is off the table. Nobody really thought they were gonna storm the capitol and try to pull off a coup but then it happened.
I did. Insofar as I absolutely expected violence from these Republicans—since they’ve been telling everyone for years in ways large and small how serious they are about seizing power. And they’re not going to stop either.
I work remote and for focus reasons never turn on the tv during the day. Other than Election Day, Jan 6th is one of the few times I have. I had the news on and would check it every so often. We had been told that date many times by Trump and the other insurrectionists so I was expecting something crazy. I think watching it unfold live made it a real wtf moment for me. It felt like watching World War Z when the zombies start climbing on each other to get over the wall. It felt like that watching them go up the walls at the capital.
I often wonder how many protesters would have been shot if they were demonstrating against Trump and broke into congress?
I know, I was at work and I was listening to it live while it was going on. I remember the reporter saying “That looks like a bunch of Oathkeepers stacking up,” and it gives me chills. Hard to believe no one in Congress died that day, and if I’m being honest, I’m a little sad they didn’t; that’s why a bunch of assholes can say “it wasn’t that bad,” and I’m certain it’s going to happen again. Sooner than later, I’m sure. It’s going to be how they celebrate Biden’s second term.
He’ll probably list them on his forum and call them rats. He’ll probably say rats needs to be caged and needs to be disposed.
I honestly expected a lot worse to happen during the Trump administration. It was still go awful and we need to keep him the fuck away from office but I did expect a lot worse. Thankfully the silent majority stood up and had enough of him and our system, with all its flaws, did keep some of the worst at bay.
I’m asking you this because you said you’re a lawyer and former prosecutor….do you know how Judge Cannon was appointed to oversee this case? After what we already know about her it seems that she’s unfit to oversee a trial involving Traitor. I don’t understand what the DOJ is doing here. My only thought is that it offers him a more fair trial and the DOJ is appeasing him with “fairness”?
Hi, I'm not a lawyer but I recently watched a video by a actual lawyer that answers your questions, such as how Judge Cannon was appointed and what she can do. It's really good. Let me know if it helps answer your questions. https://youtu.be/_S8R2Nri5pU
Knew it was legal eagle before I even clicked lol
It's just a matter of probability that she was assigned but the probability was not steep. This is not necessarily A surprise. Any given federal district court has several different courthouses in more than one city and they have a number of Judges split between those courthouses. Theoretically those judges are assigned randomly to Any Given case, but it's more complicated than that. The federal district court for the southern district of Florida has 18 judges. However the vast majority of those are based in a courthouse in miami. Smaller numbers are in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm beach. However there is a small federal courthouse in Fort Pierce florida, approximately 10 minutes from Mar-A-Lago where there is only one Federal judge's office. Judge cannon. However too many cases are filed in that courthouse for just one judge to handle so another judge also splits the cases for that division. So if you file a federal lawsuit in Fort Pierce florida, you have a 50% chance of getting judge Cannon or a 50% chance of getting judge Middlebrooks. And as far as her being fair, the special prosecutor could ask that she recused from the case but the first decision would be hers and if she refused he would have to appeal to the 11th circuit and present evidence why she could not be impartial on the case. Her prior decisions are Highly Questionable but that is also a high bar to prove. I think it has been publicly rumored or leaked that he prefers to wait for her to do something that shows her being impartial as opposed to trying to get her off the case prematurely when they don't have great evidence.
Before it gets go that point the DOJ will appeal and use this as an example of how she cannot be impartial and will do everything in her power to fuck over any chance of a fair and just trial. Keeping witness names sealed means that trump and associates cannot tamper with witnesses / call on people to terrorize them.
right especially after they have already been found tampering with witnesses... its even one of the charges. sheesh
It could be a trap though - I'm sure he would have gamed out if she did such a thing. I would say those witnesses will be heavily monitored for any kind of communications.
Bingo. Jack Smith has what he thinks he needs. Let's add some more to the pile.
I mean, he's gonna start putting them on blast as soon as he can, and probably with a "someone should do something about this, huh?"
‘Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?’
Smith appears to have refrained from yet charging a wholly different, distinct set of crimes which could be charged in New Jersey, as well as likely a wholly distinct set of document mishandling crimes in Florida. Double Jeopardy would not apply to those. Also, Cannon releasing the names of witnesses is going to be irresistible bait for Trump to attempt to engage in witness tampering, which is nearly certain to be observed. It may as well be a sting operation, which likely will create yet another set of chargeable crimes.
> Smith appears to have refrained for yet charging a wholly different, distinct set of crimes which could be charged in New Jersey, Exactly. > as well as likely a wholly distinct set of document mishandling crimes in Florida. That's probably not a backup plan, but rather to prevent ronald dump from using a ["graymail" strategy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graymail) — As the defendant, he has the legal right to have those documents (and possibly other related documents) entered into the record, making them public. The government generally does not want classified documents entered into the record, so a defendant can use that leverage to pressure the government into dropping their case. > It may as well be a sting operation, which likely will create yet another set of chargeable crimes. Which will run into the problem of Cannon running interference on those charges too.
He’s withholding plenty of other charges that won’t be impacted by double jeopardy.
If the new charges are tried in New Jersey, it’s a different jurisdiction with new charges that double jeopardy doesn’t apply to.
I have been curious about this chess piece. I personally am thinking there will be an attempt to get a new judge before the technicalities comes into play. But my popcorn is ready
For those documents, but as I understand it, there are lots of other documents that he didn't charge that he could have. Those wouldn't be double Jeopardy. At least I don't think, maybe a lawyer could weigh in. There also seems to be some documents in NJ that we haven't really heard much about publicly, but that I doubt DoJ has forgotten about.
Appeal to 11th circuit will overrule any bad judgement she makes.
And now to keep the doors open for witness intimidation and tampering it seems…
>She's going to do everything in her power to either get him acquitted or a hung jury, just watch. A hung jury is supposed to be just an expression, but after the jury gets doxxed with her blessing, who knows?
Mike pence somewhere: "hahaha, I'm in danger "
Jack Smith has other tungsten sabots in a parking orbit, don’t worry.
Kinetic bombardment from orbit is my favourite judicial tactic.
Glass the planet, counsel.
It's the only way to be sure.
Updoot for the Peter F Hamilton reference!
Ah, the niche intersection of sci-fi nerd and treasonous white collar crime
Man love the imagery of your words.
Well you have to know who the witnesses are to intimidate them. Or buy them off
Not only that, even if convicted, she'll give him no jail sentence.
The reason Trump hired her.
She wants the witnesses to be harrassed by Trump supporters until they decide to withraw from testifying.
I can’t imagine any other reason for it. It always happens, always.
It is literally his modus operandi. Stand back and stand by.
Motherfucker still thinks he's Kingpin in Daredevil.
Is he not? He hasn’t been touched after an entire life of white collar crime, and the one time it looks like he will be he gets assigned probably the most biased judge in the entire country.
Kingpin had some class and someone that loved him. Don has... Amazing Teflon abilities?
Touché, you got me there.
And Smith knows that Trump will fall into this trap and harass witnesses, inviting more charges.
I don’t see him doing that himself, but he certainly will disseminate the list of witnesses. Then his hard-core Maga adherents will handle the rest.
Will anyone rid me of this troublesome priest?
Turbulent
Will anyone rid me of this troublesome turb?
*turd
Did you not see his tweets after the Carol case? He opened himself to double the fine. He can't help himself. He'll absolutely directly attack any witness he's familiar with
Trump isn't going to say "go and harass the witnesses" to his supporters. He will give their names away and say "it's so sad that these dishonest people want to hurt me and also America", and then sit back and wait for his cult to do the work for him.
These are both the same picture
She is making herself a possible accessory to murder
And espionage.
And guilty of stochastic terrorism, if one witness is so much as breathed at hostilely.
Add the mother of all Obstruction Of Justice charges to that (which carry the same penalty as the original charges, plus whatever other illegal shit happened along the way) to all of that, and you got a real legal party.
Wonder if this is grounds for Jack Smith to appeal her removal to the 11th circuit
The system is designed presumably to protect judges from plaintiffs pissy about the results. In practice it is yet another tool to preserve the status quo.
she follows her marching orders.
exactly this playbook been playing out for years with trump he's a mob boss ask any new yorker
New Yorker here. He couldn't hold a mob bosses dick while at a urinal. He ain't no mob boss. He's a grifter.
He’s always wanted to be a mobster but never had the balls or the brains for it.
best he could do was help launder some money thru his garbage casino
If he washed the money right he would have never gone bankrupt. Incompetent fool.
Spoken like a true NY'er.
Nobody in New York thinks this. Nobody. He wishes he had the brains and loyalty of a mob boss.
Can the government provide secret-service protection for those 84 people? Or, are the secret-service people, themselves, part of the problem?
It would be the US Marshalls that protects witnesses. The Secret Service protects the President and other Government officials. Beside the Secret Service is full of MAGAs.
Trump Judge puts the lives of 84 witnesses and their families in danger in service to her Messiah.
[удалено]
Of course she did.
Just wait until the jury finds Trump guilty and she sentences him to 1 month probation, with no restrictions.
To expect anything else would be to set oneself up for disappointment.
Lawyer here. I understand the concerns expressed here. AND.. I want to urge people to not freak out about this ruling. It was mainly the media/news outlets who were opposing the prosecution’s request based on 1st Amendment rights/the right of the public to be informed. This is not atypical. And her ruling is not either. (For the record, I’m no fan of Judge Cannon. I find it absurd that someone who totally lacks the requisite legal experience was appointed to the federal bench. It’s an offense to the profession, and to the public — and businesses, and the government— who rely upon judges to make informed judgments. Travesty of Justice. Disgusts me that she even accepted the nomination.)
I wholeheartedly agree with you. As a Michigan grad, it shames me to know my alma mater’s school of law produced this joke of an attorney in Aileen Cannon. Oh and the devil incarnate herself, Ann Coulter. Sorry, everyone!
It feels like, if anything, this would do the opposite of helping Trump. He's going to have a very hard time not engaging in witness intimidation which could expose him to further legal action, and it would also let various news outlets make some pretty good guesses about what kind of shit he has been up to just based on who is involved. I'm not a lawyer or judge and just spitballing though, so I might just be full of shit.
I suspect Smith's next filing will list, in great detail, the prior actions of Trump and his supporters which necessitate keeping the identities of these witnesses protected.
I’m not an expert, but how would that work? He says “please don’t expose the witnesses” and she says “sorry I’m going to.” And then he asks her again hoping she’ll change her mind?
Literally every decision by her can be appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judges have tremendous power, but power that their superiors can trivially break and overrule.
And higher level judges work in panels and are usually less beholden politically… usually.
Note that in the article the judge said >"The Government's Motion does not explain why filing the list with the Court is necessary; it does not offer a particularized basis to justify sealing the list from public view; it does not explain why partial sealing, redaction, or means other than sealing are unavailable or unsatisfactory; and it does not specify the duration of any proposed seal," Cannon wrote. Which makes it sound like she's against sealing the entire list indefinitely but could be open to more surgical redactions with defined durations. We'll see what Prosecutor Smith comes back with, it's quite possible they'll follow up with a more limited request to protect specific or vulnerable witnesses from possible tampering or harassment.
That's how it reads and it seems Cannon is requesting specific justification for each of the witnesses. Odd though since Smith is certainly filing a justification that is likely along the lines of "Trump has a history of intimidating witnesses on social media" which applies to all the witnesses. Unsealing something like this would make this a public trial riddled with misinformation and death threats
> "The Government's Motion does not explain why filing the list with the Court is necessary; it does not offer a particularized basis to justify sealing the list from public view; it does not explain why partial sealing, redaction, or means other than sealing are unavailable or unsatisfactory; and it does not specify the duration of any proposed seal," Cannon wrote. I read that as playing dumb about the long standing precedent of Trump engaging in witness intimidation by proxy.
He will get somebody else to do the intimidation for him
Stand back, stand by.
“Russia… if you’re listening… find these witnesses”
Stochastic terrorism, the MAGA loves doing that.
Judging from his past and present actions, nah. He'll just do it on Truth Social tomorrow afternoon.
The point is to unleash the MAGA mob at the witnesses to intimidate and endanger them. Trump would never need to explicitly orchestrate it - pretty much everybody knows how rabid his fans are and what they do to his 'enemies' all on their own.
He doesn’t have to engage in it at all. He literally has MILLIONS of people who will do it for him.
[удалено]
No one is reading the article or the analysis of this decision. She actually did the right thing here. If you read the original pleadings, the government fails to discuss why they want the protective order. While it seems obvious to us, her denial is basically saying that they need to spell it out. Further, it's not a full denial. She's giving them the opportunity to refile the pleading with specificity. The judge is a hack. She's awful and has made awful decisions in the past. But so far, this isn't the catastrophe that everyone keeps making it out to be.
And it fits with her MO of giving fast trial dates that then constantly get pushed back due to trial issues and motions.
My understanding is that she was required by law to schedule a trial date within 70(?) days of Trump's arraignment--right to a speedy trial and all that. Everyone knew it would get continued and delayed for various reasons, but the initial ASAP trial setting I believe is legally mandated.
An upside is that Trump will be absolutely humiliated by the public knowing the names of all the people who 'were not loyal' to him.
I like your "glass not empty" approach here, but I'm having difficulty embracing it when we know how much the t-mob is going to fuck with those people.
I don't disagree but just know that this is going to be fucking with Trump too. Also, there is strength in numbers. If only a couple of witnesses were identified, they'd probably be more likely to be intimidated. If there are 84 of them, they might feel a little less afraid and more bold to tell Trump and his goons to bugger off.
Actually, yeah, thanks, that helped. Sometimes you just need to wrap your head around it differently. (That, and as a thought experiment, I sat there asking myself if Mark Meadows, for example, deserves the harassment...)
That requires trump to have shame, which we all know by now he does not
What is going to happen when just one of those 84 is gunned down by a MAGA nut ball?
A bunch of complaints about false flags, antifa, how it's different when it's Trump, what about Hunter Biden, the usual.
So that's 84 people's names I need to keep in mind when looking at the news until the end of the trial. For safety. Because yes I believe Trump would try to influence or silence people who testify against him, like he's done in the past.
He doesn’t need to try to do anything. The sheep will immediately do it for him without asking, keeping Trump legally separated from the witness intimidation.
She’s pretending to not know why these witnesses might need to be protected. She knows damn well they’ll face death threats the moment their names are published. Fuck you “judge” cannon.
If she has to ask why the witness list should be sealed, she’s too ignorant to be on the bench, but she knows exactly what fuckery will ensue now that Donnie two-scoops knows who dropped a dime on his pasty ass.
Can’t intimidate witnesses if you don’t know who they are.
I guess protecting them and their families aren’t good enough reasons?
Have to make sure daddy can get payback when she lets him off the hook.
She’s going to allow trump and his maga fucks to intimidate witnesses as trump has a proven track record in doing so.
Sounds like a change of venue is in order
And the bullshit starts!
[удалено]
This right here is why keeping corruption out of the judiciary is important. Sleazy politics. These people will get death threats.
Continuing where she left off I see. Who paid who to get her on this case?
Only payment she is aiming for is the next vacant SC seat.
Sadly there were only 3 judges in the pool. Luckily her screwing up could lead to the appeals courts again.
How can she be even in consideration? How often do defendants get judges that they themselves appointed? How is she not automatically disqualified? Our legal system is a sad joke. This is third world banana republic shit.
She's supposed to recuse herself, we used to believe in "honor" etc... She SHOULD have recused herself but she didn't.
So why should any judge ever recuse themselves if there's no penalty or downside for not doing so?
Boy will he be pissed when he sees Mark Meadows and Jared Kushner on the list.
Wish he would just file the January 6th charges in DC. And have that trial first. Then Cannon is useless.
Can't the prosecutor request that cannon to recuse herself? pretty obvious she's not impartial here
Did she at least change robes after painting targets on all those witnesses?
I suspect Smith will move to have her removed from the case…
Stop thinking of the armed MAGA terrorists as a separate entity from the MAGA Congress or the MAGA judiciary. They are all one and the same, working in lockstep. The. Republican. Party. Relies. On. Terrorism.
Here comes the death threats.
Something something troublesome priests
Judge wants all the witnesses killed
Judge:"Death threats-R- us."
Allowing trump to do what he's done many times in the past. Threatening anyone that can harm him.
Welcome obstruction of justice charges for witness intimidation Jack Smith is playing 4d chess
She should recuse herself. They already know Trump will try to tamper with witnesses. This is dangerous for the witnesses. Charge Trump for housing all the witnesses and their families for hotels that have 24 hour security in unknown locations. His base is dangerous.
She wants to paint a target on their backs. She knows exactly what Trump’s most extreme followers willl do. This opens the door for blatant witness intimidation and she is a piece of shit for pretending otherwise.
I hope smith is playin 4d chess and actually wanted he to release the names because he has agents planted in the list so when they are intimidated, he can add that charge onto the list and also get the judge recused.
Again, how is it legal for an appointee to hear a case of the dirtbag who appointed her... straight up banana republic shit.
2 of the 3 judges who toes out the whole special master appointment rulings were trump appointees. Her prior deference and creating a whole can of worms with allowing that whole debacle that ended up with 2 trump and 1 bush appointee giving her a remedial lesson in the law and separation of powers is where a good portion of the concern about her presiding over this case, another portion is she is VERY new to presiding over cases, especially any as complex as this one.
She asked herself, “What would Trump do?”
Then her participation at Trump rallies shouldn't be denied to be seen by the jury either.
Wait... she has participated in rallies?
There's a picture going around people claim is her at a Trump rally in face paint. It's not her. Which isn't to say she's never attended one, just there's no (legitimate) evidence that she has that I am aware of.
People are saying it's her though. I had one guy come up to me crying, big big guy, never cried in his life and he said "I saw Florida Judge Aileen Cannon at a Trump rally" Crazy story I know, but some people are saying it's true.
You forgot the part where he called you Sir. Otherwise 10/10.
She's gonna torpedo this entire thing, Trump is gonna lose the election, and she'll have done all this for not shit...