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

Trump may fire Sessions or not

President Trump is talking with advisers to discuss the idea of firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions as he continues to publicly rage against the AG's decision to recuse himself over the Russian meddling of the 2016 presidential campaign. 

It's obvious that Trump is extremely angry at Sessions, referring to him as "beleaguered" in a tweet, but while he frequently talks about making staff changes, he often fails to follow through, or perhaps changes his mind.

Trump tweeted Monday:

"So why aren't the Committees and investigators, and of course our beleaguered A.G., looking into Crooked Hillarys (sic) crimes & Russia relations?"

Department of Justice officials say that Sessions is in "good spirits."

The criticism with which Trump has been discussing Sessions has created speculation that either Trump will fire him or he will resign. 

Someone shouted a question during a White House event asking whether Sessions should step down--Trump ignored the question. Last week, however, Sessions said that he intended to stay on the job.

Should Sessions go, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would be next in line for the position, at least as acting AG. But it was Rosenstein who appointed Mueller and Trump has been sharply critical of him, both in public and private for that move.

Four White House officials leaked on condition of anonymity because they valued their jobs, to discuss private conversations.

If Sessions goes and Rosenstein moves up, Trump might ask him to fire Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the investigation, because of his hiring of all Hillary Clinton supporters to help in the investigation. Trump rightfully believes the deck is stacked against him.

Sessions recused himself from the investigation knowing that it would raise eyebrows after he revealed that he'd met with a top Russian diplomat last year. And while the meeting is perfectly legal and normal, Democrats have attacked everyone in the Trump administration for ridiculous events. They would probably go after POTUS if they caught him using Russian salad dressing.

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and frequent Trump adviser noted that the president wears his feelings on his tweets and said he was probably just venting about Sessions and being "honest with his feelings. But that doesn't mean he's going to do anything."

Gingrich admitted, however, that such statements by the president would have repercussions with staff morale.

"Anybody who is good at team building would suggest to the president that attacking team members of your team rattles the whole team," Gingrich said.

Sessions and Trump were close at one time. Trump even momentarily shared the same ideology as Sessions and it was he who backed Trump's campaign and gave the reality TV star political 'cred'.

After Trump public rebuke of Sessions last week, the AG seemed determined to stay on the job and said of that it "goes beyond anything that I would have ever imagined for myself."

"I'm totally confident that we can continue to run this office in an effective way," Sessions said.

It would be a mistake to fire Sessions, especially over his recusal, which to many people was the proper thing to do. Many in his base might have second thoughts.


Tweet

POTUS again knocks Session, calls him 'beleaguered'

President Trump seems to be signaling that he's ready to dump his Attorney General Jeff Sessions for a replacement who will better serve his needs. The problem is that Attorneys General are appointed to serve the needs of the people by upholding the law. 

On Monday, Trump again knocked Sessions over the Russian investigation, calling the AG "beleaguered."

If POTUS is fully innocent of the Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, and I believe he is at this time, then Sessions having recused himself should not be an issue of disloyalty.

"So why aren't the Committees and investigators, and of course our beleaguered A.G., looking into Crooked Hillary's crimes & Russia relations?" Trump tweeted.

While President Trump is set on blaming Jeff Sessions for the appointment of special investigator Robert Mueller in the Russian meddling, it's actually his fault that Mueller was picked. Had he not fired Comey when he did, Sessions would have likely remained on the case.

Monday's statement by Mr. Trump is just the latest in a long list of high-profile criticism he has leveled at Sessions, and it appears undeserved.

Last week, Trump went after Sessions in a New York Times interview on the Sessions self-recusal from the DoJ probe. Trump said he would not have selected Sessions for the job had he known then that he would recuse himself.

It seems to me that you don't select an AG based on one case. 

The White House insists that Trump still has confidence in Sessions, and Sessions said he plans to stay in his job "as long as that is appropriate."

This likely means that Sessions' days as AG are numbered.


Tweet