Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 Profile picture
Mar 1, 2024 5 tweets 3 min read Read on X
LUNCH BREAK in Florida courtroom of Judge Cannon in classified documents case.

President Trump arrived at 9:55 along with his attorneys and co-defendants.

Special Counsel Jack Smith here too but did not speak during morning session.

Judge Cannon appears unfazed by yet another historic hearing in her courtroom. She peppered Smith’s team with questions about timing of new trial date—DOJ asking for early July—and the VERY contentious issue about scope of prosecution team.
At the outset, Judge Cannon stated the Special Counsel's new proposed trial schedule (May 20 trial date will be vacated) leading to trial date of July 8 is "unrealistic" given at least 13 outstanding motions and intense CIPA litigation (special guidance on the handling/access to classified evidence before and during trial.)

Another issue is Alvin Bragg's prosecution of Trump later this month; trial is expected to begin March 25 and last between 6-8 weeks, interrupting Trump's ability to attend any court proceedings in FLA for almost two months.

When Smith's team tried to blame Trump attorney Chris Kise for taking on both the Bragg case and the classified docs case and argued his work schedule related to both matters should not preclude the FLA trial from moving forward, Judge Cannon reminded DOJ that right to access all court proceedings doesn't apply to the lawyers but "to the accused."
Much of the debate centered around the definition of the scope of the prosecution team.

In January, Trump filed a lengthy motion detailing numerous government agencies including the Biden White House involved in the investigation and prosecution of the classified docs case.

Agencies include NARA, DOJ, FBI HQ, the intelligence community, DOD, DOE and the other usual suspects.

Contrary to public assertions and Jack Smith's indictment, it appears NARA and DOJ and even the Biden White House general counsel were in cahoots as early as spring 2021 to concoct a documents charge against Trump.

DOJ says FBI opened an investigation into mishandling of classified docs in March 2022 after NARA sent a criminal referral following the alleged discovery of files with "classified markings" in the 15 boxes Team Trump gave to NARA in Jan 2022.

But the defense team has evidence--including emails and other records--to dispute that so they want an evidentiary hearing on the full scope of the prosecution team to determine which federal agencies or officials must meet Jencks, Giglio, and Brady discovery obligations.
Smith's team claims the only members of the prosecution team are their prosecutors, some agents/investigators from Washington FBI field office, and a few agents from Miami FBI field office.

But Cannon pushed Jay Bratt, the lead prosecutor in classified docs case also involved in the investigation before Smith was appointed (he visited Mar-a-Lago with 3 FBI agents in June 2022) to admit at least 3 FBI officials from FBI HQ were involved as well.

Smith is fighting not just the motion to compel discovery based on Trump's scope of prosecution team but doesn't even want Judge Cannon to hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter.

And Bratt said very emphatically, "we need to bring this case to trial this summer."

Judge Cannon again sounded skeptical. "There is a lot of pretrial work that has to be done and it needs to be done properly and correctly."
The afternoon session should also be contentious as both sides argue about redactions and unsealing of evidence. Cannon repeatedly reminds DOJ about the need to make as much information accessible to the public and on several occasions has unsealed filings that Jack Smith wanted sealed.

She ordered some records unsealed last month from the motion to compel but put her order on temporary hold pending Smith's motion for reconsideration. He wants most of redacted passages and sealed exhibits in the motion to compel discovery to remain secret.

Cannon is not so inclined so I am expecting some 🎇this afternoon.

Again no devices allowed in courthouse (!!) so I will report back later.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @julie_kelly2

Oct 31
Here’s the nondisclosure order signed by Jeb Boasberg in May 2023 prohibiting Verizon from notifying several US senators and one House member that Jack Smith had subpoenaed their phone records. Verizon complied with the subpoenas and NDOs with the exception of Ted Cruz.

Important to note what Boasberg claims here. In order to authorize an NDO in a tech related subpoena, a judge must determine one of five factors according to Stored Communications Act.

What Boasberg alleged is that sitting Republican lawmakers might break the law if notified of the subpoenas.

He is a lunatic and must be removed from the bench. This is the CHIEF JUDGE of the DC district court.Image
Subpoena: Image
Pathetic response by Verizon Image
Read 5 tweets
Oct 19
Jim Comey just added Michael Dreeben to his criminal defense team.

Dreeben most recently represented Jack Smith in the SCOTUS immunity case. (Safe to say Dreeben lost.)

But Dreeben's dirty hands are all over Robert Mueller's investigation, too. He is clearly conflicted 🧵
Dreeben played a key role not just on Team Mueller but he also is directly tied to Comey's involvement in developing the obstruction case against the president--recall Comey admitted the reason he leaked the content of his secret Flynn memo was to prompt the appointment of a special counsel, which happened the day after the NYT leak...
x.com/JohnWHuber/sta…
In 2023, Dreeben bragged about his lead role in the Mueller witch hunt; the "speed" at which the investigation proceeded; and how he was responsible for overseeing the production of Vol II of Mueller report, which addressed potential obstruction charges against the president.

If I were the DOJ, this guy would be toward the top of a government witness list. So how can he represent Comey when he likely will be questioned as part of the obstruction/false statements case against him?

cafe.com/insider-podcas…
Read 4 tweets
Oct 5
So in 48 hours, Judge Karin Immergut (Trump) determined the president acted unconstitutionally in federalizing and deploying Natl Guard troops to protest Portland ICE facility; claimed the move violated Oregon's 10th Amend rights; and concluded there was no "rebellion" taking place to justify the president's order.

If you read carefully how Immergut described illegal immigrants, you might pick up a slight bias...as well as her claims of "mostly peaceful" protests:Image
The way federal judges so casually downplay examples of criminal behavior represents another part of the escalating crisis in the judicial branch. Even if you take the word of local law enforcement--Immergut's pooh-poohing of sustained violence to any degree is stunning: Image
Immergut--relying heavily on determinations made by Judge Charles Breyer in a similar lawsuit in California--decides on her own that no "rebellion" is underway.

I mean, surely Immergut is aware of attacks on ICE agents and facilities in other cities including Los Angeles and Chicago...right?

Her arrogance here reminds me of the words of Judge Andrew Oldham of the 5th Circuit in his dissent in an Alien Enemies Act opinion. Oldham repeatedly warned of judicial overreach in matters exclusive to the executive branch:

Oldham: "It transmogrifies the least-dangerous branch into robed crusaders who get to playact as multitudinous Commanders in Chief."

Immergut LARPing:Image
Read 4 tweets
Sep 8
It's hard to know where to start--or end-- in covering the batsh*t meltdown last week by DC Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui. (I made the full transcript available to my paid subscribers on Substack)

Faruqui was presiding over a hearing in the case of Edward Dana, a career criminal with 9 prior convictions and 23 arrests who was on probation and arrested by DC police for vandalizing property in a drunken rage on August 17.

During his arrest, Dana said he wanted to kill the president (among other crazy statements.) DC US attorney Jeanine Pirro sought to indict Dana on a federal felony of making threats to the president.

But once again--in a rarity now commonplace in DC--a grand jury made up of DC voters (93% for Kamala in 2024) refused to indict him. So prosecutors had to drop the charge.

This enraged Faruqui, who not only misrepresented Dana's case (making him a victim rather than the longtime perp he is) and he berated the prosecutor for about 20 minutes or so.

But Faruqui's tirade had less to do with Dana and more to do with President Trump. Time and again, Faruqui--who was appointed in 2020 but not confirmed by the Senate--blasted the president's policies related to using federal law enforcement agencies and the National Guard in DC and warnings to do the same in other cities to combat crime.

Faruqui:

"How do we reestablish faith in people in DC that they're not going to be wrongly arrested, when the hobby, or whatever, the interest of the moment, if we move to Chicago or whatever city, Baltimore, or whatever next thing it is that catches the administration's interest, what are we, the people left here in Washington, DC, who have actually lived here, had to suffer through whatever is happening, how am I supposed to reestablish confidence in every defense lawyer and defendant that they are being treated fairly and rightly?"

Have to "suffer," the judge says.
As I have noted repeatedly, Faruqui signed hundreds of arrest warrants for J6ers including the unlawful 1512c2 felony. In one case, Faruqui found a woman in criminal contempt after she refused to answer his questions and willingly submit to conditions of release on her nonviolent misdemeanors charges.

He raised no such objections (to my knowledge) about the treatment of J6ers or berated Biden's DOJ for bringing near-daily cases to the DC courthouse.

Faruqui:

"I'm absolutely just beyond words as to what is happening and that we are just acting like this is normal. This is not only abnormal, it is now we are at past the question of constitutional crisis and academic thinking.

This is not hypothetical. What is being done? It is implausible, illegal, immoral for one person in our country to be treated like this, and now we are getting into double digits. What is being done?"

Faruqui misrepresents why these cases are being dismissed--he refuses to aknowledge the partisan bias at work by DC grand juries who are protesting the Trump administration by refusing to bring criminal indictments sought by Trump's DOJ. (I believe there are six such known cases as of now.)

Faruqui: "There seems to be just a complete disregard for the impact this is having on the people who are getting arrested and then released or dismissed. They are our fellow citizens.

This is not how we treat criminals, we don't treat them that way. We certainly do not treat presumed innocent people this way, let alone people who are our fellow Americans."

Keep in mind--Dana has a rap sheet a mile long:

Faruqui: "There seems to be a complete disregard for the traumatic effect that's having not just on the city, its citizens, the court, the AUSAs who are working all night and day to satisfy some sort of, you know, whatever this fantasy is or idea that there's going to be some great showing.

There are consequences. And right now, Mr. Dana is suffering those consequences."
Faruqui lauds the idea of a "deep state" of career prosecutors internally protesting the president's approach and the authority of AG Pam Bondi.

This is truly WILD:

"So if the United States Attorney [Pirro] wants to take this as a new tactic to just arrest people and detain them, she will find the court will hold a line." (Dana was not held by the feds but by local DC police. The prosecutor tried to raise that important fact with Faruqui but he did not care.)

"And I know that the U.S. Attorney's Office is full of U.S. attorneys who are continuing to hold the line and fight to hold the line. And I give great credit to the courage of the AUSAs who stay there, because the court can't do it on its own. We need dedicated -- what other people call the deep state, I would call that principled AUSAs, principled Department of Justice employees, the ones who didn't get fired for no reason apparently. (No reason--another lie.)

The ones who stay there, I am deeply grateful that you had the courage to come here today, stand in front of me and listen to me be appalled by what is happening in your office. That takes true courage."
Read 4 tweets
Sep 1
Here are some of the declarations filed by the National Immigration Law Center who is suing the Trump adm to prevent sending back home hundreds of unaccompanied minors here illegally from Guatemala:

A 16 year old who was either pregnant or became pregnant on her trek here: Image
A 10-year-old here under unknown circumstances.

I want to know who brought her to the US and why.

(And to answer someone's question on 1st post, all were written by Spanish interpreters--as is the case in all of these deportation/removal lawsuits.) Image
Well this seems sketchy as hell...

Does Judge ✨want to take him in? Image
Read 4 tweets
Aug 29
Hearing underway now before Judge Jia Cobb in DC related to Lisa Cook's lawsuit against the president and Fed chief Jerome Powell over her firing as a member of the Federal Reserve Board.

Cook, appointed by Biden in 2022 and confirmed by the Senate with a tie-breaking vote cast by Kamala Harris, is being credibly accused of mortgage fraud related to three separate mortgages (!) she took out in 2021.

She is fighting her firing claiming the loan applications were filed prior to her appointment to the Fed board and that the president didn't follow the law in removing her. She wants Judge Cobb to enter a temp restraining order to keep her on the board.
Cobb starts hearing by asking Cook atty whether they intend to file a motion for a preliminary injunction (usually the next step after request for a temp restraining order). Attorney--I believe Abbe Lowell is speaking but hard to tell--says yes. Cobb says she is prepared to set an "expedited" briefing schedule to determine the merits of the case.

He keeps referring to Cook as "governor" 🙄

DOJ says they don't object to converting TRO motion to motion for prelim injunction.

Here is Cook's proposed TRO order for Judge Cobb to consider:Image
Cook atty attempting to dismiss allegations of mortgage fraud and those allegations do not represent "cause" needed to justify removal.

Cook atty raises Humphrey's Executor case--one that keep coming up in nearly all the lawsuits against the president related to firings/dismissals--that "cause" needs to be specific.

Judge Cobb asks for citation to back up Cook's claims any malfeasance prior to appointment cannot represent "cause" for firing. Cook atty doesn't have one and doesn't really rule it out but ponders whether the allegations were known at time of confirmation.

Cobb: "Where do I get the authority for that?" She's asking for case law to support his position that past behavior does not represent "cause."

Cook atty doesn't have an answer.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(