Jack Smith denounces Judge in Trump document case

Special Counsel Jack Smith made a strongly worded motion requesting Judge Aileen Cannon reconsider an order unsealing the names and statements of some witnesses in the Mar-a-Lago documents case against former President Trump. It's even possible at this point, that this will be a move to have Cannon removed from the case.

Smith, a far-left operative, claims that Judge Cannon's order 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.” He goes on to say that Judge Cannon, a Trump appointee, “applied the wrong legal standard” when she publicly put the information on the docket in respect to witnesses of the case--a huge mistake even for a wet-behind-the-ears jurist.

Cannon insists that the government demonstrate a “compelling interest” to keep the information redacted, while Smith insists that he must only show “good cause.”

Smith’s putting on the proverbial boxing gloves makes for what should follow quite interesting. She could admit her error, but her invite to Trump for a response by February 23 shows she probably won't admit that. Yet by not doing so, the special counsel can appeal the ruling, or go for the jugular and request she recuse herself or be removed.

While Smith's motion asks Judge Cannon to go back on her own decision, it sends a clear message to the riders of the 11th United States Appeals Circuit that if she does not do so, the appeals judges will soon be invited to overturn her. The prosecutor writes that “reconsideration is warranted” because Judge Cannon’s order would perpetrate “manifest injustice.”

Smith roundly objects to the “public identification of more than two dozen people who participated in the investigation,” among them witnesses “expected to provide important trial testimony who will likely be subject to threats, intimidation, and harassment.” 

He calls that eventuality “concrete and palpable” and asserts that disclosure of discovery is not protected by the First Amendment. Trump is likely to contend that disclosure is necessary to his constitutional right to confront his accusers.

Judge Cannon notes that Smith’s worry about danger to witnesses is too “speculative,” to which he responds that the “court’s duty is to prevent harms to the witnesses or the judicial process,” a duty in which he now suggests Judge Cannon is defaulting. He invokes a “dangerous atmosphere” for anyone involved in this case, which charges Trump with 44 crimes.

But Smith counters with the notion that there exists a “well-documented pattern in which judges, agents, prosecutors, and witnesses involved in cases involving Trump have been subject to threats, harassment, and intimidation.” He also cites a “racist death threat” made to Judge Tanya Chutkan in the January 6 case and threats and harassment directed at his own office.

Where's Alan Dershowitz just when you need him?

Tweet