Afternoon hearing in classified docs case in FLA ended around 3pm. As expected, both sides clashed over unsealing redacted information--Trump wants swath of discovery unsealed, Jack Smith does not--with Judge Cannon pressing both sides for clarity.
Cannon is no nonsense, very low key, only got animated once or twice.
The biggest dispute was over the release of names of witnesses and their statements. Jack Smith's team wants names and statements kept secret--prosecutor David Harbach claimed that witnesses are harassed, intimidated, and threatened "in any case where Donald Trump is a defendant."
Cannon pushed back on that claim, arguing that it would be "unprecedented" to keep names of witnesses and their substantive statements under seal in court motions--particularly names and statements of government officials.
Cannon said she understood the need to protect the safety of witnesses but that it is "not possible to shield everyone from the internet." She had asked for proof of legitimate threats to potential witnesses; Smith's team came back with one example (they also tried to keep under seal) of a potential witness who received social media "threats" after the indictment was announced.
Useful to note Judge Cannon is the only official involved in any of the Trump cases that received death threats legit enough to land one woman in prison:
Witness lists are made public before trial--even Smith's team acknowledged that reality. DOJ just resists making the list and statements public now.
At first, DOJ said it had 87 potential government witnesses (they also asked to file that list under seal months ago, Cannon said no.)
Now Smith's team says it will call 40 witnesses and wants the names of 25 witnesses redacted.
Defense also wants Mar-a-Lago application and search warrant fully redacted.
Also some thornier and as Judge Cannon and Smith's team acknowledged "complicated" 1A considerations in releasing discovery materials. There is a protective order in place as well (common practice) but Smith's team sort of apologized at the beginning for over-relying on the protective order to keep filings under seal. "We could have done a better job. We are owning that," Harbach said.
Recall that Jack Smith used the "witness intimidation" claim to seek a gag order preventing Trump from making public statements about "prospective witnesses" in the DC J6 case. Chutkan agreed but the DC appellate court tweaked that part of her gag order to only prevent Trump from making derogatory public comments about potential witnesses about the case.
My guess is Cannon agrees to redact a good chunk of the motion to compel and limits release of witness names/statements to government officials, past or present. Then we will really see Jack Smith's head explode bc that is EXACTLY what he wants to conceal.
HAPPENING NOW: Hearing underway in Judge Chutkan's courtroom related to temp restraining order sought by Climate United against EPA and Citibank forcing disbursement of $6.9 billion in "climate" funds sheltered at Citi in Nov 2024. Funds are frozen.
EPA adm Lee Zeldin cancelled financial agreements with Climate United and 7 other climate "nonprofits."
The "Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund" is under investigation by DOJ and EPA inspector general.
"As I see it, EPA has to take certain procedural steps before it can terminate the awards," Chutkan says.
Includes written notice of termination and reason for termination.
"It looks like EPA does this in the letter...but EPA must provide evidence of waste, fraud or abuse. EPA has not proffered that information."
Chutkan clarifies Climate United asking for TRO forcing Citi to disburse the funds. "What would maintaining the status quo look like," she asks Climate United lawyer.
Climate lawyer says status quo would require Citi to issue funds as the bank did before EPA/DOJ froze funds in mid-February.
Claims--as Chutkan suggested--the termination of the grants was unlawful and did not meet terms of agreement. Climate lawyer also claims many projects underway and the nonprofit faces "extreme irreparable harm" if they don't get their money.
"At the end of this week, we are out of money."
Keep in mind--this "nonprofit" was formed in June 2023. It took in about $640,000 in 2023 and spent about $550,000. So Climate United had less than $100,000 in the bank--until Biden/Harris selected it to receive $6.9 billion in April 2024.
Chutkan asks how much has been committed. Climate lawyer says he doesn't know but court filings claim about $390 million.
NEW: A lawsuit filed yesterday by newly-formed Climate United--headed by former Obama aide Beth Bafford and stacked with Dem activists--that received $7 billion from Biden EPA's climate slush fund confirms Citibank has frozen disbursements to the fund:
Every time I dig into this scandal, it gets worse.
As @epaleezeldin disclosed last month, Biden's EPA "parked" $20 billion at Citi in November 2024--a first of its kind arrangement clearly intended to keep funds away from GOP Congress and potential Trump White House.
Climate United is seeking a temporary restraining order against EPA and Citi to force the bank to dole out the funds (our tax money, obviously).
Case is before Judge Tanya Chutkan.
Climate United claims it has already committed $392 to "qualified" projects.
What are they, you might ask? More from lawsuit:
"The first is a $31.8 million pre-construction loan to support solar power projects across rural communities in Arkansas, which was announced in October 2024. Through this project, Climate United is financing pre-construction costs for 18 solar projects comprising the largest commercial and industrial solar deployment in Arkansas history, which is projected to save more than $120 million in energy costs over the project’s life and create hundreds of jobs.
The second is a program to offer affordable leasing options for battery electric heavy-duty trucks to small fleets and independent operators. Climate United issued a request for proposals in October 2024 from qualified U.S. auto manufacturers to deliver up to 500 electric drayage trucks, which Climate United intends to begin leasing at the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. When completed, these orders will represent some of the largest-ever purchases of domestically manufactured battery electric trucks in U.S. history. Climate United intends to expand this program nationally. This program will not only reduce the cost per mile of operating drayage trucks for small businesses, but it will also reduce air pollution in port communities and create demand for U.S. manufacturing in factories across the country.
The third is $63 million in committed pre-construction financing for projects to design and develop solar power plants in partnership with Tribal governments and communities. These projects bring access to affordable energy to rural communities and Indigenous people in addition to quality jobs and local economic development. Initial projects will be located in Eastern Oregon and Idaho."
Hearing about to get underway in Judge Tanya Chutkan's courtroom related to blue state lawsuit against Elon Musk/DOGE seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting Musk from:
(1) Accessing or continuing to access any data systems and the information and code contained within those systems, including but not limited to systems containing sensitive or confidential agency and personnel data at the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Commerce, or any components of any of those agencies, or copying, transferring, or in any way disseminating any data from any of the agencies identified in this paragraph.
(2) Terminating, furloughing, or otherwise placing on involuntary leave—whether paid or unpaid—any officers or employees of the federal government working within any of the Departments and agencies identified above.
Apparently lots of tech difficulties but Chutkan notes the urgent nature of the matter (LOL) so she set this remote hearing on a federal holiday.
"TROs are extraordinary remedies," Chutkan notes. She says harm must be imminent to justify a TRO pending a preliminary injunction. She asks states' lawyer why they said they needed to collect more discovery and doesn't it undercut their argument for a TRO?
Lawyer points to news reports justifying the "imminent harm" claims--Chutkan pushes back, says lots of reporting and she can't rely on news reports as evidence.
"Our concerns is how the defendants are using the data," state lawyer says.
Chutkan wants more clarity on harms to the states by Musk's work--lawyers says Musk is using data to determine cuts such as Dept. of Education which would harm the states. Lawyer says they rely on Dept of Ed money for education programs.
Chutkan asks if program has been cut? Lawyer says they are waiting for confirmation. "What is the irreparable harm here," Chutkan asks again. Notes that if a program is cut and she issues a prelim injunction, program funding can be restored at that point.
Chutkan says harm has to be "so serious" to justify a TRO--says their claims are "serious" but doesn't demonstrate imminent harm.
Chutkan says DOGE is not proceeding in an "orderly and deliberate fashion" but a "general fear" this is going to happen is not enough for a TRO. "I am not seeing it so far."
She notes that several of her colleagues have issued TROs--"this case is not the same as those," Chutkan tells states lawyer.
"If I deny TRO and put this on prelim injunction schedule, why can't you come back in a few days when these things actually start happening. This is a prophylactic TRO and that's not allowed," Chutkan says.
Lawyer points to tweets and memos as proof of imminent harm and that cuts to federal programs that will impact states are coming soon.
Hearing now before Judge Jia Cobb on 2 lawsuits filed by anonymous FBI employees and agents.
Plaintiffs are seeking a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump DOJ from collecting and sharing names of those involved in Jan 6 investigation/prosecution.
Mark Zaid, Brad Moss, and Norm Eisen among the lawyers in court representing FBI.
Judge Cobb explaining why she wants to consolidate the 2 lawsuits--one filed by FBI agents association and one filed by 9 anonymous FBI employees.
Initial argument is related to a temp restraining order then a briefing on a preliminary injunction related to releasing the names of survey respondents. DOJ appears to say they don't plan to make names public.
Important to note that Chief Judge Boasberg has allowed the filing of the anonymous lawsuits even after admitting that is not the normal process.
FBI attorney now suggesting "quasi-governmental" officer" (Musk?) could access "confidential information" about the FBI employees