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
Sen. Rand Paul just published records showing the FBI's two-year surveillance of an American citizen suspected of entering the Capitol on Jan 6. The spying included physical surveillance of her home and movements; she, like thousands of others were placed on a TSA "terror" watch list...
Christine Crowder is a Catholic school teacher and her husband a federal air marshal. Paul released 70 pages of docs related to the FBI's full throated investigation into an innocent American.
Just imagine how many times this happened--and not just to J6ers--under Chris Wray:
Outrageously--DC US Attorney Matt Graves wanted to pursue a criminal prosecution of Crowder DESPITE the FBI finally admitting it did not have enough evidence to bring a case against Crowder.
Why Graves is still off the hook for his handling of J6 prosecution in beyond me:
🧵on his misrepresentations, falsehoods, and straight up lies told by the special counsel to House Judiciary Committee on Dec 17.
Smith had no evidence that any of the so-called "classified documents" he claimed to have found were in boxes temporarily stored in MAL ballroom or bathroom after the president left the White House.
Lie #2:
Smith was extremely aware of the 2024 election calendar--which is why he took what he himself described as the "extraordinary" step in asking the Supreme Court to bypass the DC appellate court--the next normal step-- in considering Judge Chutkan's Dec. 2023 order denying all forms of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution and take up the immunity question immediately. (SCOTUS denied his request, Chutkan's order was upheld by 3-judge panel in Feb. 2024, which was then considered by SCOTUS in April. On July 1, 2024, SCOTUS issued its decision providing for a broad swath of immunity for acts in office, resulting in a major gutting of Smith's J6 indictment.)
Lie #3: That the unarmed protest at the Capitol on Jan 6 was an "attack" incited by the president and the still unsubstantiated allegation that 140 officers were injured by protesters.
Keep in mind: Smith's J6 indictment was four counts: two related to 1512(c)(2)--a corporate fraud statute unlawfully used in J6 cases according to SCOTUS in the Fischer decision--and two other VERY vague conspiracy counts, conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy against "rights."
Hearing about to start in Jeb Boasberg courtroom as the embattled judge resumes contempt proceedings against the Trump DOJ related to Alien Enemies Act declassified.live/p/the-contempt…
Boasberg says appellate court gave him permission to "go forward" with another contempt inquiry.
Authorized to pursue a criminal contempt factual finding against the Trump DOJ, which he is "preparing" to do as he did "seven months ago." (His April 2025 probable cause finding was vacated but the appellate court kicked the matter back to him to start over.
Boasberg says there are "new developments" since his first determination and raises allegations by Erez Reuvini, the so called DOJ "whistleblower" who accused former acting DAG Emil Bove of saying the DOJ might have to say "fuck you" to the courts. Boasberg says Reuvini might be called as a witness as the judge plans to require testimony from various parties.
"I believe justice requires me to move promptly on this."
Lee Gelernt, ACLU attorney representing illegal Venezuelans covered by AEA.
DOJ prosecutor - "the government objects to criminal contempt proceedings." Boasberg immediately grills prosecutor as to whether he believes the full DC appellate court gave him permission to restart contempt inquiry.
"I will be going forward with it," Boasberg.
Boasberg says he will seek testimony from those who "defied" his order to return planes carrying AEA subjects on the evening of March 15. The problem for Boasberg is the directive represented an "oral order" that was not reflected in his later written order.
He wants proposals from both sides by Monday on how to proceed including a list of witnesses in his fact finding exercise including Reuvini and Drew Ensign, the DOJ who represented the government during early stage of litigation.
"I certainly intend to find out what happened that day."
On his radio show today, Glenn Beck appears to walk back The Blaze’s audacious outing of the alleged J5/6 pipe bomber.
He refused to mention the individual’s name on air and said “a match is not guilt, comparison is not proof.”
There’s more…
After recklessly putting this individual’s name out in the public last week and endangering her safety, Beck now insists that she must be protected and claims she was low man on the totem pole in any inside operation. Not what was being said last week when story was pitched:
“If the story is true.”
Now I’ve been told for days that no one can raise questions about the veracity of the piece or express doubt over the identification of this individual.
🤷🏼♀️
(Btw this individual works campus security for CIA. She’s not exactly a top tier official.)
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.
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?