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
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:
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.)
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:
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."
So J6 celeb cop Danny Hodges is back doing media hits blasting Trump adm for trying to keep DC safe. Hodges is still a DC police officer but appears to have done little else over a four year period besides do interviews and show up at J6 court proceedings as a witness and “victim.”
Here is how Hodges once again misrepresents his experience on January 6. But he was not a victim…
Here is Hodges body worn camera footage. He and his fellow DC cops arrived around 2pm dressed like storm troopers ready to crack heads. This was about 50 minutes after cops had been attacking Trump supporters outside.
Listen to the reaction…
More from Hodges—whose checkered shirt nice guy soft spoken routine belies the thuggery he demonstrated on Jan 6…
While all eyes focus on Comey/Brennan/Clapper related to new disclosures on Russiagate and potential criminal liability, let's not forget lesser known figures who are just as culpable in the decade-long abuse of power against President Trump.
One individual is Lisa Monaco...
Here is part one of my two part series covering Monaco's dirty fingerprints stretching from Russiagate to Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation.
It is not a coincidence Pres Trump's called out Monaco twice by name last month...
According to responses to Judicial Watch FOIA on infamous Jan 5, 2017 White House meeting with Obama, Brennan, Comey, Clapper, and Biden--Monaco also attended.
In fact, she kept notes in a notebook from Jan 3 to Jan 20, 2017. Those entries are under seal. Hopefully not for long
So the latest spin against Tulsi Gabbard's release is AKSHULLY NO ONE SAID THE RUSSIANS HACKED ELECTION SYSTEMS AND CHANGED VOTES
But that is EXACTLY what everyone from Pres Obama down--including the media--intimated. So did Brennan's ICA regardless of how he wants to worm out of it.
Further, another reason why this Dec 8 PBD was pulled is because Trump, as president-elect-would have received it.
Following the Dec 9 in the WH after the president's daily briefing was pulled and the conspirators plotted their next move, James Clapper's office produced this outline "per the President's request" on Russian election interference.
Top item: HACKING
Another item: CYBER ACTIVITY AGAINST VOTING SYSTEMS
This is directly from ICA.
Note the sleight of hand. And why would this only be attributed to DHS? Why not a stronger statement given the IC's conclusion the previous month?
This left the door open for Obama, his toadies, and the media to beat the drum about "Russian hacking."