Does anyone know if Jack Smith appealed Cannon's new order?

[hookaleft]

The information about witnesses and statements was due to be delivered to team trump yesterday?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

1. She put the brakes on that yesterday.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-cannon-halts-handover-of-unredacted-documents-in-trump-case-after-jack-smith-s-clear-error-warning/ss-BB1i5ygR?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=08e56c93f2f14bfdbcd42d3b26058686&ei=68

Judge Cannon Halts Handover of Unredacted Documents in Trump Case After Jack Smith’s “Clear Error” Warning

She probably knew that if it was appealed, her order would be reversed.

[Girard442]

3. Eileen Cannon goes Emily Litella.

"Never mind."

[hookaleft]

4. thanks

missed that

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. Its just a stay pending appeal isn't it?

She didn’t rescind the order, just put a stay in place until the appeal could be heard, no?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

6. I believe so. nt

[FBaggins]

11. Probably "reconsideration" rather than appeal

The “clear error” language fits that.

As for an actual appeal… I’m not sure that this scenario fits that well. Where does Smith think the threats are coming from?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

12. I believe you're correct,

he's asking her to reconsider her order and she's giving time to Benedict's lawyers to respond to SC Smith's request.
We'll see how she handles this.

[bluestarone]

13. Wouldn't surprise me if she gave them 3 months to answer

[onenote]

23. She gave them two weeks -- until February 23.

The order to un-redact and make public certain discovery material is stayed pending a decision on the Special Counsel's motion for reconsideration.

[bluestarone]

24. Gotta ask here WHY TWO WEEKS?

Hell, she gave Smith 24 hours!!

[onenote]

26. She gave Smith 24 hours to comply with an order.

She gave Trump two weeks to respond to a motion filed by Smith -- less time than the rules would allow. And she suspended the order until the motion is decided

[Turbineguy]

33. It gives her two weeks to cook up a reason for another delay.

24 hours would require faster thinking.

[bluestarone]

36. You got that right!

So tiring. I still see her give 24 hours to Smith and two weeks to them. (i know it's different, but DAM it's not right!)

[Fiendish Thingy]

14. So Cannon is pausing for "reconsideration"

But if she lets her ruling stand unaltered after reconsideration, I fully expect Smith to appeal given the risks he detailed in his filing, don’t you?

[onenote]

27. Yes, Smith probably will seek intervention from the 11th circuit if the reconsideration is denied.

[FBaggins]

29. I don't

No offense intended- but I’ve heard this speculation a bunch of times (“it’s time to remove her”) - and it’s usually by those who really don’t understand how unlikely that is to occur.

Smith is stuck to some extent. He can draw attention to her errors for public opinion purposes… but it needs to be a much bigger issue before he can afford adding months delay for an appellate court .

[Stargleamer]

39. Resulting in further delays which is her goal

doing all she can to help the POS delay

[onenote]

17. See post 16. The stay relates to the order that would make public certain information given to Trump

in discovery that is covered by a protective order limiting its disclosure to the public. Smith filed a motion for reconsideration of that order and Cannon suspended the order pending a decision on the motion for reconsideration.

The order that Smith was supposed to comply with by the end of the day yesterday related to an Exhibit attached to the Motion for Reconsideration. That Exhibit provided information about a threat to a witness that currently is being investigated. It was submitted as evidence in support of the motion for reconsideration and was filed not only under seal (not available to the public) but ex parte (not available to Trump and his lawyers). Because Trump's lawyers get an opportunity to respond to the motion for reconsideration it is not that surprising that Cannon would keep the Exhibit under seal but require Smith to give it to Trump and his attorneys so they can review it in preparing their response.

I don't know whether Smith made a last-minute attempt to keep the Exhibit from being shared with Trump and his attorneys, but it wouldn't greatly surprise me if he went ahead and complied with the order.

[bluestarone]

22. Was there a time limit on TFG's lawyers to respond? (like she did with Smith)

I'm betting , NO.

[onenote]

28. You'd lose that bet. She gave them 2 week -- less than the rules would allow

and she suspended her order pending a decision.
The two situations are not really comparable.

[bluestarone]

31. Yea i would have lost.

I still see her favoring tfg and his lawyers though. Two weeks is a long time in my thoughts. Always something to delay.

[onenote]

41. Then why did she suspend her order while waiting for Trump's response and a decision.

[bluestarone]

42. Maybe to stop an appeal? (Smith would surely appeal)

Still think 2 weeks is a win for TFG.

[onenote]

44. But an appeal would delay things even longer wouldn't they?

Failing to follow the logic.

[bluestarone]

45. Well, can't disagree with that.

Always a step or a million ahead of me. TY

[FBaggins]

43. Because if she didn't suspend it, that's the same as denying the reconsideration

No way to put the genie back into that bottle.

[C_U_L8R]

7. It's become pretty confusing... which is typically a magat chaos strategy

Last edited Sun Feb 11, 2024, 12:28 PM - Edit history (1)

It wasn't clear (to me) what her Saturday deadline was about and whether she cancelled that demand (or some other). It seemed Mueller She Wrote was expecting a Smith response before midnight yesterday. I've not seen anything since that clearly explains what is going on and what comes next.

[onenote]

18. It wasn't clear because the so-called experts commenting on it were careless in describing two orders

It really isn't all that confusing if one reads the orders and related filings. See post 16.

[C_U_L8R]

34. Thanks onenote. Very helpful.

It's kinda what I thought... and was curious what happened (or didn't happen) with the second order that was due yesterday. And if it even mattered.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Thanks. I had been wondering several times too. . . . nt

[triron]

9. She's up to some mischief no doubt

[MarineCombatEngineer]

10. I don't doubt it. nt.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Legal AF Popok said so last night

Sounds to me like she's looking for excuses to taint or dismiss the trial by trying to catch Jack Smith asleep. Good luck with that.

[Deuxcents]

15. I don't think she's smart enough..she's gotta be taking directions from someone/somewhere else

[onenote]

20. He wasn't referring to the order that Smith was supposed to comply with last night.

He was referring to the order to un-redact certain discovery material. That is the order stayed by Cannon, not the order to give Trump an Exhibit to the motion ro reconsideration that contained threat evidence designed to support the motion for reconsideration.

In his typical all-caps, hair on fire approach, he confused a lot of people.

[onenote]

16. That is not what was due to be delivered yesterday. The coverage has confused a lot of people

There are two orders in play. The first involves a request to "un-redact" certain information, including witness names and witness statements, that previously were provided to Trump and his lawyers in discovery. They are subject to a protective order that prevents their disclosure to the public unless the Special Counsel consents or the court approves. Trump submitted a discovery-related filing in which, consistent with the protective order, he redacted certain information, but he asked the court to allow it to be made public. It is information that Trump already has access to. Smith opposed un-redacting the information because, among other things, it could lead to attempts to harass or intimidate witnesses or to witness coordination. Cannon initially granted Trump's request, in part because, to be honest, the Special Counsel did a surprisingly bad job in its opposition (among other things, failing to discuss the appropriate legal standard for deciding whether to allow public disclosure). Smith then filed a motion for reconsideration which does a much better job of making the legal and factual case for not un-redacting. Cannon then suspended her order pending a decision on the motion for reconsideration, so for now, nothing is being unredacted.

The second order is related to the first, but is separate. As part of the Special Counsel's motion for reconsideration, Smith attached an exhibit with information about a specific example of threats being made against witnesses. He filed that exhibit both under seal (not available to the public) and ex parte (not available to Trump or his attorneys). After reviewing the exhibit, Cannon decided to keep it under seal, but to order Smith to provide a copy to Trump so that his attorneys can review it in connection with preparing their response to the motion for reconsideration. It is this exhibit that, barring some further intervention from the courts, Smith was required to provide to Trump and his attorneys by the end of the day yesterday. I haven't seen any indication Smith decided to challenge this order and I wouldn't be surprised if he complied ( notwithstanding certain "experts" confidently predicting he would fight it, largely because these experts themselves seem to be confused about the two different orders. )

[MarineCombatEngineer]

21. Thank you for the explanation and clarification,

it is confusing to those of us who aren't trained in such things.

[onenote]

25. I agree its confusing, particularly because the so-called experts commenting on it have done a piss-poor job

They're so intent on making hair-on fire, Cannon has done it again comments, they are sloppy in distinguishing two different orders and in describing what each of those orders say.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

38. Thank you. That's much clearer. . . nt

[Emile]

19. MAGATS have been sending her death threats,

so I imagine she put the brakes on.

[GreenWave]

30. Maybe she senses they may pull this important case from her.

Endangering witness's lives is how to end our legal system. If her crush on the Orange Menace has blinded her to that fact, it is time for her to go.

[triron]

32. You are correct.

[Scrivener7]

35. This one's not going to trial before the election.

[Snackshack]

37. I don't know which looks more

Incompetent this judge or the fact that the DOJ is allowing her to obviously make judgements from a purely bias position that favors the criminal in a case of extraordinary circumstances.

[Chainfire]

40. Cannon's mission is to delay trial until after the election...one issue at the time.

If Trump wins, she will win the prestigious Karl Roland Freisler award and advance to the Supreme Court. Without that, she is at the end of her advancement in her career. (it is obvious to me that the Peter Principle has already kicked in with her.) One thing you can say is that she knows where her bread is buttered.

[republianmushroom]

46. More delays either way. Win, win for trump.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

47. There was no appeal filed to challenge Judge Cannon's order last night.

Link to tweet

Context: The order required the defense be given access to an exhibit, submitted ex parte earlier this week, detailing the kinds of threats made against a potential witness.

The ex parte exhibit was part of a broader motion to get Cannon to reconsider her earlier rulings, which could make public the identities of dozens of potential witnesses.

It was a “here’s what could happen if you let your ruling stand” warning.

Judge Cannon decided on Friday the defense should see this exhibit…to potentially reconsider their initial motion to unseal the materials in question.

What happens now? The defense, having reviewed the exhibit, could recognize the risk to witnesses and withdraw their motion to unseal. (They probably will not)

…or Judge Cannon, in light of the exhibit, could reverse her ruling and keep the materials under seal.

If not, as foreshadowed in the filings this week, it will probably end up with the 11th circuit via injunctive appeal.