NEW: Months ago, Judge Aileen Cannon ordered the unsealing of materials attached to Trump's motion for more discovery materials in the Mar a Lago docs case. Among the information to be unsealed were the names of nearly 24 witnesses--so the government asked her to reconsider. 1/
She has now ruled on that motion for reconsideration, and while chastising the Special Counsel for its failure to abide by local procedural rules and raise certain arguments and facts earlier, she concedes those witness names shouldn't become public record after all. 2/
But the decision's not entirely a win. The Special Counsel's office also asked that she not unseal the prior statements of potential government witnesses, which were provided to the defense months even though under the pertinent statute, the feds were not obligated to do so. 3/
Cannon says redactions to those statements are OK to ensure witnesses' identities are not compromised; the parties should not only redact dates of birth, Social Security numbers, email addresses, and phone numbers, but should also protect "professional titles; detailed biographical or professional background information . . . and other specific information which would obviously and directly identify a potential witness."
But the substantive content of those statements? Those will be fully public--and my guess is that their publication will fuel needless speculation about who said what, notwithstanding her allowance for some redactions. 5/
Some former prosecutors in my orbit had predicted that if Cannon denied the motion for reconsideration, thereby forcing the revelation of witness names, the Special Counsel would take an immediate appeal to the 11th Circuit & might ask for Cannon's removal too. 6/
But that's not what happened tonight--and it's unclear to me what Smith does next, especially considering that their biggest concern -- the safety of witnesses and the integrity of their testimony -- appears to have been addressed. Watch this space. FIN.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
NEW: DOJ sent Congress a six-page “report,” as required by Section 3 of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. But DOJ’s list of “government officials” and “politically exposed persons” included in the produced materials is, like the redactions themselves, too much and not enough. 1/
On one hand, the letter is missing multiple boldfaced names — like former Norwegian Prime Minister Thorbjorn Jagland and Steve Tisch — who are under fire because of their dealings with Epstein. 2/
And on the other? The inclusion of pop cultural figures who died decades ago, including Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, and Michael Jackson. 3/
NEW: As the FBI executes a search warrant at a Fulton County board of elections office, it's worth remembering that there is existing litigation between DOJ and Fulton County over DOJ's attempt to obtain records pertaining to the 2020 election. 1/
In October, and at the request of the Georgia Election Board, DOJ issued a subpoena to Fulton County for "all used and void ballots, stubs of all ballots, signature envelopes, and corresponding envelope digital files from the 2020 General Election in Fulton County." 2/
In its December 2025 civil lawsuit, DOJ claims it sought these records due to "unexplained anomalies in vote tabulation and storage related to the 2020 election.” justice.gov/crt/media/1420…
NEW: Folks have been asking why Attorney General Pam Bondi, in her letter to Tim Walz, fixated on DOJ’s obtaining MN’s voting data. The answer may lie in Trump’s public statements—and MN’s last three elections. 1/
On Jan. 9, Trump met with oil and gas executives at the White House in a meeting his administration then posted to YouTube. Roughly 54 minutes in, Trump was asked about the feds’ failure to share evidence of Renee Good’s killing with state officials. 2/
Trump started by criticizing Gov. Walz and complaining about the “$19 billion” fraud uncovered in MN and mostly, according to him, perpetrated by Somali immigrants. But within a minute or so, he was talking about the elections. 3/
NEW: Comey moves to dismiss on grounds of multiple alleged instances of grand jury misconduct, stating that because the two-count indictment was never presented to the full grand jury, there was no actual indictment within the five-year statute of limitations for the two charged crimes.
This is hardly Comey's only effort to dismiss the indictment. He has two fully briefed and already argued motions to dismiss: one on grounds of selective/vindictive prosecution and the other due to Lindsay Halligan's allegedly unlawful appointment.
Some expected that Comey would wait for Judge Michael Nachmanoff to decide whether, as a magistrate judge previously ruled, he should get the transcripts and other grand jury materials.
NEW: In order to prove vindictive prosecution, a defendant has to show they have been charged due to a genuine animus toward them on account of their exercise of constitutional or statutory rights. That's usually a very tough road to hoe. 1/
Enter Tish James (and her legal team, led by Abbe Lowell). Their brief tonight cites to an Exhibit A, a 112-page compilation of 360 of Trump's public statements dating back to the day after she opened her investigation of the Trump Org and him. 2/
That exhibit reflects a LOT of work but everything in it was already public. What I don't recall seeing before is Exhibit G, an August 2025 letter to Lowell from DOJ's "special attorney for mortgage fraud" Ed Martin. 3/
As I was looking for information about the appointment of Kelly Hayes, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, I found an interesting DOJ press release. It describes how U.S. Attorney vacancies should be filled. 1/
Specifically, it explains: “Pursuant to the Vacancy Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 546, the Attorney General has the authority to name a U.S. Attorney to serve on an interim basis for up to 120 days.” 2/
The press release continues, “After that time, if a successor isn’t nominated and confirmed, it falls to the district court to appoint a U.S. Attorney to serve until the confirmation of his or her successor.” 3/