Posted on 05/29/2024 2:23:28 PM PDT by Twotone
United States District Judge Aileen Cannon recently rejected special counsel Jack Smith's request to place a gag order against former President Donald Trump.
On Friday, Smith's team asked Cannon to modify Trump's conditions of release to prohibit him from making "statements that pose a significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger to law enforcement agents participating in the investigation and prosecution of" the classified documents case against Trump.
Smith's team claimed the gag order was "necessary because of several intentionally false and inflammatory statements recently made by Trump that distort the circumstances under which the Federal Bureau of Investigation planned and executed the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago."
Trump is facing 40 felony charges for allegedly maintaining classified documents and obstructing the federal government's attempts to seize those records. The charges pertain to a raid conducted by the FBI at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in 2022.
Earlier this month, Cannon moved to postpone the trial due to several unresolved pretrial motions. The decision came shortly after Smith's team admitted that the federal government did not properly maintain the evidence gathered at Trump's property. His team conceded that some documents were no longer in the same order. The prosecution also admitted that the colored cover sheets that indicated various classification levels were brought in by investigators.
Trump shared posts on Truth Social regarding recently released court filings that stated federal agents who raided Mar-a-Lago were authorized to use deadly force.
Smith's team claimed Trump's posts made a "grossly misleading impression about the intentions and conduct of federal law enforcement agents" and "falsely suggest[ed] that they were complicit in a plot to assassinate him."
Trump's defense team responded to the prosecution's gag order motion, arguing it "willfully disregard[ed] required procedures."
"The Government has contacted counsel for defendant Trump, who stated that they object to the Motion and the timing of the conferral on a holiday weekend; it is their position that the Government has not provided an opportunity for meaningful conferral," Smith's team wrote in its motion. "They do not believe that there is any imminent danger, and asked to meet and confer next Monday."
Trump's attorneys claimed that Smith's team had demonstrated "bad-faith behavior" by filing the motion just ahead of the holiday weekend.
On Monday morning, Cannon rejected the prosecution's request and threatened Smith's team with sanctions.
"[T]he Court finds the Special Counsel's pro forma 'conferral' to be wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy," Cannonwrote in her decision. "It should go without saying that meaningful conferral is not a perfunctory exercise."
"Because the filing of the Special Counsel's Motion did not adhere to these basic requirements, it is due to be denied without prejudice. Any future, non-emergency motion brought in this case -- whether on the topic of release conditions or anything else -- shall not be filed absent meaningful, timely, and professional conferral," Cannon continued. "Failure to comply with these requirements may result in sanctions."
Judge Merchan in NY can learn from Judge Cannon.
Lawyer here whose paid and won monetary sanctions in court:
Denial of a motion for failure to “meet and confer”, as we say it here out West, ordinarily means the denial was almost likely to come anyway, or the issue involved is so minor or irrelevant that failure to M&C is a quick reason to deny and chastise the offender for wasting the Court’s time. If its important, the M&C requirement is the least of a judge’s concerns.
New info of filings in the Trump documents case in Florida.
By Julie Kelly:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1797277020285505639.html
Link to court filings here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump/?page=4
By Kelly:
“A new defense motion in FLA documents case accuses Jack Smith of continuing to slow walk handing over evidence.
This relates to a disclosure in bombshell Jan motion that outlined collusion btw NARA, Biden WH, DOJ, and other agencies to manufacture some sort of documents crime against Donald Trump right after he left office.
Part of the motion revealed that Dept of Energy (run by former MI Dem gov Jennifer Granholm) discovered AFTER Smith filed his June 2023 indictment that Trump still maintained a “Q” (not that Q) security clearance.
DOE then retroactively terminated Trump’s security clearance.
Trump’s lawyers asked—and Cannon ordered—the production of some records related to how the termination of the clearance came about. Smith, of course, is attempting to conceal the paper trail.
And it appears the special counsel is referring to the post-indictment
discovery and termination of Trump’s clearance as an “after action” report.
I can only imagine how Judge Cannon reacted to that (appears that description was discussed in sealed motion and/or hearing)”
I don’t see how you can “retroactively” terminate a President’s security clearance. Truly, unless convicted of a crime of sharing top secret info, a president should have security clearance for the rest of his life.
The judge should be tossing this whole case & putting Smith up for disbarment.
“I don’t see how you can “retroactively” terminate a President’s security clearance. Truly, unless convicted of a crime of sharing top secret info, a president should have security clearance for the rest of his life.
The judge should be tossing this whole case & putting Smith up for disbarment.”
I suspect Judge Cannon is of the same opinion. I believe she will dismiss the case but is making sure to “dot her i’s and cross her t’s” before doing so. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the case dismissed by early fall. She may even impose sanctions against Jack Smith and the other DOJ attorneys involved before the case is over.
Judge Pryor’s Order regarding the complaints filed against the judge signals they aren’t getting involved so for now the left is spitting in the wind by filing complaints against her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.