Jack Smith is going to reveal what motivated Trump to steal all the super-duper double secret documents in the Florida case, and what trump intended to do with them. Or at least, that is how I interpret this intriguing article in the WaPo.
‘Wasting court’s time’: judge in Trump classified documents case rebukes prosecutors
Frustrated US district judge Aileen Cannon shuts down conflict-of-interest hearing after lawyers make surprise request
Hugo Lowell in Fort Pierce, Florida
Fri 13 Oct 2023 02.33 CEST
The federal judge in the criminal case about Donald Trump’s retention of classified documents rebuked prosecutors for “wasting the court’s time” on Thursday with their sudden request to partly restrict the lawyer for one of Trump’s co-defendants.
US district judge Aileen Cannon abruptly postponed the hearing after getting the request – which came after prosecutors had first said they would not seek disqualification.
“I do want to admonish the government for frankly wasting the court’s time,” Cannon said. She added she was “disappointed” that David Harbach, one of the prosecutors, had raised the request without warning, and without citing supporting cases from the southern district of Florida.
The hearing was the second in a pair of proceedings scheduled so Trump’s co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, could be told of their lawyers’ prior representation of witnesses during the grand jury investigation who could testify against them at trial.
Trump and Nauta were charged in an indictment alleging the illegal retention of national defense documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and obstruction of justice. With De Oliveira they were charged on additional obstruction counts in a superseding indictment unsealed in July.
The prosecutors in the office of special counsel Jack Smith had asked for conflict-of-interest hearings for Nauta’s lawyer Stanley Woodward and De Oliveira’s lawyer John Irving, due to the fact they might be constrained at trial because of divided loyalties to their current and former clients.
The complication emerged at the hearing for Nauta, when prosecutors said they could not be sure how Woodward might cross-examine “Trump Employee 4”, identified by the Guardian as the IT director of Mar-a-Lago, Yuscil Taveras.
Taveras is of special interest because Woodward initially represented him during the grand jury investigation. When prosecutors told him he was a target for charges, Taveras retained a new lawyer – not paid by Trump’s PAC – and changed his sworn testimony.
The prosecutors revealed at the hearing that they now intended to call Taveras as a witness, and told the judge they believed Woodward should be precluded from engaging in cross-examination, or be allowed to call into question his credibility during closing arguments to the jury.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... rosecutors
NewMexGirl wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2023 9:29 pm
Gift article:
https://wapo.st/3tpuZNx
Bring it, Jack. We are so ready for it.
They'd better take a supply of oxygen. You can't breathe in a vacumn.WAPO wrote: In each case, the government appears to be signaling that it’s not going to leave stones unturned and that it intends to get into that much-debated space between Trump’s ears.
Tweet included in article:If U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon were to grant a request from Donald Trump's legal team for access to special counsel Jack Smith's filing about classified materials the government wants deleted from shareable discovery, it could lead to her recusal, according to a legal expert.
On Wednesday, Trump's legal team filed a motion requesting that the former president's attorneys should have access to all submissions filed under Section 3 of the Classified Information Procedures Act by Smith's office.
"Given the security clearances that have been extended to President Trump and counsel, and the volume of classified discovery produced to date, there is no case-specific reason for ex parte proceedings," the team wrote in the filing. (An ex parte proceeding occurs at the request of and for the benefit of one party, usually without the knowledge and participation of another party.)
Not that I disagree with the premise, but you and I both know the "eyes only" would be total BS in this case.Maybenaut wrote:They’re asking for ‘attorney’s-eyes-only’ access, so they can’t divulge it to Trump or Nauta or anyone else. I just don’t like this sort of thing on principle.
X 4
X 33I am sick unto death of the breathless this-will-get-Cannon-recused reporting. Granting or denying the motion is well within her discretion. If she grants it and even if the government successfully appeals, that won’t be enough to get her booted. Happy to eat my words if I’m wrong, but I don’t think I’m wrong.Kendra wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 12:00 pm https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 07c6&ei=14
If U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon were to grant a request from Donald Trump's legal team for access to special counsel Jack Smith's filing about classified materials the government wants deleted from shareable discovery, it could lead to her recusal, according to a legal expert.
I would concur unless CIPA or some other law allows for both verification of the eyes-only limitation and penalties for violating it that are sufficient to ensure compliance -- i.e., not just monetary but involve some MFer going to jail or losing a license if not both.realist wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 12:31 pmNot that I disagree with the premise, but you and I both know the "eyes only" would be total BS in this case.Maybenaut wrote:They’re asking for ‘attorney’s-eyes-only’ access, so they can’t divulge it to Trump or Nauta or anyone else. I just don’t like this sort of thing on principle.
Three months after the FBI seized classified records from Mar-a-Lago last August, a longtime employee of Donald Trump’s private club quit his job.
Within days, the former president did something he rarely did – Trump called the former employee on his cell phone to ask why he was leaving after two decades of working at the resort, according to two sources and material seen by CNN.
The employee told the former president he had another business opportunity he wanted to pursue. The message later got back to the former employee that Trump thought he was a “good man.”
But he wasn’t just any staffer at the club – the former employee was a witness to several episodes special counsel Jack Smith included in his federal criminal indictment charging the former president with mishandling classified documents.
He had moved several boxes for Trump and was also privy to conversations referenced in the indictment between Trump and his two co-defendants, Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira, and Trump’s body man Walt Nauta – putting the former employee in a unique group of Mar-a-Lago staffers who could be in a position to provide valuable information to investigators.
The phone call from Trump, described to CNN by multiple people familiar with it, was part of a pattern of outreach to the former employee, who would become a key witness in the months after the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago and before Trump’s June indictment. Interactions included offers of legal representation by attorneys paid for by Trump and complimentary tickets to a golf tournament, as well as repeated reminders he could come back to work for Trump.
Taken together, the incidents may have been harmless, even gracious exchanges between friends or business contacts. But the special counsel’s office investigating Trump showed interest in them. In interviews with investigators before Trump’s indictment, the former employee shared details of how associates of the former president kept in touch after he had stopped working at Mar-a-Lago, the sources told CNN.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .241.0.pdfFirst, it is simply false that Nauta ever had “unrestricted access to all the classified information at issue.” ECF 238 at 3. The information at issue goes well beyond what even someone with a TOP SECRET//SCI security clearance can lawfully access; many of the documents require additional read-ins. There is no reason that Nauta (or any valet) would have received such read-ins.
Well, she can't be compelled to recuse herself. But she could be asked, and if she denied that request, seek review of that denial.
https://x.com/capitolhunters/status/174 ... 70439?s=20capitolhunters @capitolhunters wrote: Now that Trump has flashed a NY Mafia pal (murderer Sammy Gravano of the Gambino family) to threaten Judge Engoron, is it finally time to mention that Trump's NY mob ties also touch his "friendly" Judge Aileen Cannon? Her husband worked for John Rosatti of the Colombo family. 1/
Trump palled around with Colombo buddies John Rosatti & John Staluppi in the 1980s - Staluppi went into business with Trump in 1988. Cannon's husband worked for Rosatti later, 2011-14; could be legit. She's not required to recuse - but she should have. 2/
https://web.archive.org/web/20210726215 ... story.html
Federal rules don't force a judge to recuse when a defendant is a former business partner of their spouse's ex-Mafia employer. But it looks unseemly. And when Cannon keeps granting Trump nonsensical delays on his case, we have to talk about it. 3/
Cannon's husband Josh Lorence seems to agree it looks unseemly, since he wiped his LinkedIn in 2022 when Cannon first got a high-profile Trump case. He was a senior exec at Rosatti's BurgerFi, a hamburger businesses oddly with branches in Saudi Arabia. 4/
Trump lawyers preview arguments of 'political bias' in classified documents case
Trump's lawyers allege the investigation was “politically motivated and biased” and are seeking communications between prosecutors at the Justice Department and associates of President Joe Biden.
Jan. 17, 2024, 2:56 PM CET / Updated Jan. 17, 2024, 3:37 PM CET
By Summer Concepcion
Donald Trump’s lawyers on Tuesday night previewed their defense arguments in the case over the former president's handling of classified documents, saying they plan to rebut prosecutors’ accusations that sensitive government documents were stored at insecure locations on his Mar-a-Lago estate.
In a motion filed Tuesday, Trump lawyers signaled they will argue that prosecutors carried out a “politically motivated and biased” investigation into his handling of classified documents, with the intent to damage the former president’s 2024 campaign.
Trump’s lawyers said they are seeking communications between prosecutors at the Justice Department and associates of President Joe Biden, alleging without providing evidence that the Biden administration is orchestrating legal efforts to interfere with Trump's campaign.
“The Special Counsel’s Office has disregarded basic discovery obligations and DOJ policies in an effort to support the Biden Administration’s egregious efforts to weaponize the criminal justice system in pursuit of an objective that President Biden cannot achieve on the campaign trail: slowing down President Trump’s leading campaign in the 2024 presidential election,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.
They also point to Trump’s decisive victory in the Iowa caucuses this week in arguing that the charges against him in the case show “partisan election interference."
“The patent absurdity of the Office’s efforts is illustrated by the fact that, while working toward a historic landslide victory in the Iowa caucuses yesterday, President Trump was also preparing to bring to Your Honor’s attention today the record of misrepresentations and discovery violations that have marred this case from the outset and illustrate that the Office has disregarded fundamental fairness and its legal obligations in favor of partisan election interference,” they wrote.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... rcna134259
Aileen Cannon Meets With Jack Smith Behind Closed Doors
x5 
OMFSM - short before Hell freezes over 
Special counsel mounts forceful — and unusual — defense of Trump classified documents case
The routine filing features a public rebuttal of “misimpressions” allegedly fueled by the former president.
By JOSH GERSTEIN and KYLE CHENEY
02/02/2024 09:48 PM EST
Special counsel Jack Smith used a routine legal filing Friday to offer a forceful public rebuttal against Donald Trump’s claims that his criminal prosecution for allegedly hoarding classified documents has been infected by politics and legal impropriety.
The 68-page document began with what Smith’s team described as an effort to correct false assertions the former president had made about the nature of the case against him.
“It is necessary to set the record straight on the underlying facts that led to this prosecution,” the prosecutors argued. “The government will clear the air on those issues … because the defendants’ misstatements, if unanswered, leave a highly misleading impression.”
What followed was a lengthy recitation of the events that led prosecutors to suspect Trump had been squirreling reams of classified records at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Rather than the bloodthirsty partisan endeavor Trump describes, prosecutors say federal officials from the National Archives, intelligence community and White House counsel’s office took “measures” and “incremental” steps to retrieve the documents — often in coordination with some of Trump’s own designated advisers — before escalating the matter as the former president continued to resist.
The approach taken in the legal brief is somewhat unusual for the Justice Department. Though the filing was submitted to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, at times it sounded like an opening argument to a jury Trump could face in the future or the first chapter of a report meant to detail investigative findings to the public.
It’s unclear whether the “misimpressions” prosecutors say they’re trying to correct are ones they fear Cannon could fall prey to, whether the target audience for the brief is a larger one, and how the Fort Pierce, Fla.-based Trump appointee will respond to the tactic.
The substance of the prosecution brief is aimed at countering the demands by Trump and his two co-defendants — Walt Nauta and Carlos DeOliveira — for access to a broad range of documents from across the government that the defense attorneys contend could be useful in defending their clients. They’ve asked Cannon to consider massive executive branch agencies and the White House as appendages of Smith’s prosecution team — a decision that could open their files to defendants beyond the typical evidence-sharing that occurs for witnesses in criminal proceedings.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/0 ... e-00139456
