Posted on 06/26/2023 9:02:17 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
When last we left the proceedings in U.S. v. Trump, the federal case regarding former President Donald Trump’s purported improper retention of classified documents, Special Counsel Jack Smith had moved for a continuance of the trial date from August 14, 2023, to December 11, 2023, and further disclosed the existence of 84 witnesses, the list of which the government sought leave to file under seal.
As previously reported, during Trump’s arraignment, the parties discussed conditions of his release, resulting in a subsequent order that prevents the former president from discussing the criminal case with witnesses or co-defendant Walt Nauta. This order was both a concession and an achievement for Trump’s counsel, as the initial proposed order would have prevented all contact between those parties and Trump instead of the subject-matter-related condition.
During the June 13 hearing, overseen by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman, one of the Justice Department’s prosecutors raised the issue that it’s unclear who the order would apply to, given that there wasn’t a witness list available. The prosecutor said:
The elephant in the room is that we don’t have a list (of witnesses) yet.
…
This prompted Goodman to instruct the DOJ to promptly provide the list of witnesses, thus clarifying the scope of the order. Smith’s late-night filing of a separate document regarding the conditions of Trump’s release on his own recognizance reveals in the footnotes that there are 84 government witnesses in the case so far. The motion was to submit the witness list, under seal, that the DOJ provided to the defense on Thursday to satisfy the court’s order.
Trump’s lawyers do not oppose the witness list being submitted under seal but are reported to potentially hold objections to the special condition of his release imposed, which requires that he refrains from discussing the matter with those listed, and possible objections to the manner of the government’s version of compliance with the order itself.
Judge Aileen Cannon issued a ruling on the government’s motions on Monday.
BREAKING: This is why they want to get rid of Judge Aileen Cannon in classified docs case. Her first smackdown of Special Counsel Jack Smith:
"PAPERLESS ORDER denying without prejudice Government's Motion to Implement Special Condition of Release. The Government seeks an order…
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 26, 2023
Judge Cannon denied the motion regarding the conditions of Trump’s (and co-defendant Walt Nauta’s) release and further denied the government’s request to file the witness list under seal, noting:
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.
Additionally, as noted in the order, Judge Cannon denied the motions of multiple news organizations to intervene in the matter in order to oppose the government’s motion to file the witness list under seal as moot (since she denied the government’s motion). For those interested, the coalition of media outlets seeking to intervene included:
Judge Cannon granted the government’s Motion for a Pre-Trial Conference “to consider matters relating to classified information that may arise in connection with the prosecution,” as well as to appoint a Classified Information Security Officer (“CISO”) “to assist the Court, Court personnel, and the defense in the handling of any motions and orders” pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act (“CIPA”). (The defendants did not oppose those motions.) The pre-trial conference is set for July 14, 2023.
Lastly, Judge Cannon Ordered the defendants to respond to the government’s motion for continuance of the trial date by July 6, 2023.
As previously reported, Trump’s team doesn’t oppose pushing back the trial date from August 14th but does oppose the December date proposed by the government.
Based on Monday’s filings, it looks like the next major developments in the case will come at the pre-trial conference in July.
I don’t see Fox on that list.
I noticed that too.
Nor MSNBC.
If the prosecution has no list of witnesses, how did they come up with the tally of 84 of them? Not easy to follow this.
They are trying to completely isolate a presidential candidate from talking to anyone. How can Trump campaign if he cannot talk to anyone?
Just because they have a list of witnesses doesn’t mean they are going to call them.They are just putting names on the list to muzzle Trump from being able to speak to anyone.
“Just because they have a list of witnesses doesn’t mean they are going to call them.They are just putting names on the list to muzzle Trump from being able to speak to anyone.”
Yep. A common tactic by the prosecution.
Judge Eileen Cannon didn’t kill herself
Might be covered under one of those parent companies.
He’s basically daring Merrick Garland to arrest him at this point. These Leftists are mostly stupid and live in an echo chamber. Throw Donald in jail and in a fair election he gets 60% of the vote.
In the E Jean Carroll “trial” they concealed the identity of the jurors not just from Trump but from his defense team as well. I’m waiting to see if they do this same unconstitutional stunt again. If they can deny Trump his attorney-client privilege, I’m sure they can also hide the jurors’ identities.
Doesn’t matter. They’d benefit either way.
Nah, “News Corp.” is the parent of Fox, and it’s not on the list either.
I moved from 24 years in Portland back home to Montana last year and our county DA here is objective. The DA in Portland is as corrupted as they come and literally was college roommates with one of Antifa’s founders.
Bttt.
5.56mm
The prosecutors in liberal cities are causing the death of those cities.
After my daughters graduated HS I bounced back home to MT.
This list reads like a Who’s Who of Non-Credible Media Sources. It’s amazed me how they could let their own personal biases get the best of them. What every Media outlet needs is to have at least 5 senior editorial leaders reviewing their drafts where these leaders represent the supermajority of the perspectives - at least one mainstream Dem, at least one representative of the woke fringe groups, at least one diehard Trump supporter, at least one mainstream Rep (who’d rather not have Trump but will choose him over the Dems), and at least 2 independents who have each voted at least three times for a Dem, at least 3 times for a Republican, and at least once for someone else in the presidential general election in the past 32 years. The lack of diversity in media editorial control rooms is mind-boggling.
correction: 6, not 5; and I just want to emphasize how important Media Editorial Diversity has become for any media enterprise seeking to be credible in the future.
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.