Cannons ruling 'makes no sense': Legal analysts think Jack Smith will throw down over her latest

Judge Aileen Cannon made a ruling that some legal and political analysts are concerned about. The Donald Trump-appointed judge denied special counsel Jack Smith's motion to file the 84 witnesses he might call under seal.

The ongoing concern of the special counsel is that Trump tends to use his loyalists to threaten and attack those who might speak in court. Trump has been told multiple times he's not allowed to talk about the case with any of the witnesses. That doesn't mean his children, allies, staff or supporters can't attack or target witnesses.

"In fact, it appears she rejected their effort to file it with the court at all," tweeted NBC News' Lisa Rubin. "Defense counsel has the list already. The only question now is whether the rest of us can or will and on what timeline. After all, she questions whether it need be filed with the court, period."

The media has argued that the list should be public.

Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega saw the reporting and said, "this makes no sense as far as I can tell."

It's "important to note that Judge Cannon is not even requiring the list of witnesses to be filed with the court," she continued. "So her decision doesn't mean that the list will be revealed publicly. Currently, it is only the defendant who has the list."

Andrew Weissmann, former FBI general counsel, cited what he thought was the best point Cannon has ever made: "Why do you need to file the list with me at all? The rest is needlessly persnickety. Very much in keeping with her tone and tenor last we saw her during the investigation."

Activists took to Twitter saying that the special counsel should take it to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and demand she recuses herself.

Democratic activist Andrew Wortman said that Trump's legal team didn't even dispute the idea of keeping the witnesses under seal. "This makes clear Judge Cannon cannot preside over this case and gives the DOJ a completely legitimate reason to have her replaced by the 11th circuit."

Speaking to MSNBC's Ari Melber on Monday, former acting solicitor general Neal Katyal explained that she wasn't saying that the list should be made public or private but asking for more information from the government.

"With respect to sealed witnesses piece of the orders today, you know, it's a little bit odd what she did because Trump didn't even oppose the government's motion to seal these 84 witnesses," he said. "But actually, she made a good point, Ari. Maybe we can avoid this issue entirely. I don't even need to see these 84 witnesses right now, so maybe we can sidestep the issue. She's not giving it a firm no to the government right now. She's saying tell me more."

Another issue he pointed out is the trial timeline to begin in Dec. 2023.

"Judge Cannon seems to be buying into that, and I don't think Jack Smith was taking a delay," he said. "I think that the interim date that was picked by Judge Cannon was generated by computer. There are all sorts of evidentiary issues that are going to take place, so December is a realistic trial date. She has said she's signaling that as well to the defense, and I think the most important piece here is, you know, you and I have talked about classified material in investigations, that often delays trial for a long period of time. But there's an exception. If you've got the buy-in from the top of the intelligence community, things can move fast."

He said that the intelligence piece likely would be resolved by the intelligence community and may have already been.

See the comments from Katyal below or at the link here.

from Alternet.org https://ift.tt/WoZm3Vu
via sinceretalk