In the ongoing legal saga surrounding Donald Trump’s concealed documents in Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon has unleashed a blistering critique of the prosecution team, led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, in a recent court filing.
Judge Cannon’s handling of the case, which has drawn criticism for its perceived bias towards Trump, took center stage once again as she publicly admonished Smith’s office for its handling of sealed materials. The filing, made public on Sunday, underscored Cannon’s contentious relationship with Smith and her tendency to rule in favor of the former president.
Josh Gerstein, a senior legal affairs reporter for Politico, wasted no time in highlighting the latest clash, tweeting, “JUST IN: Judge Cannon again dings Special Counsel Smith’s office in Trump classified docs case. Says she’s ‘disappointed’ Smith asked her to keep info secret to protect grand jury secrecy and witness safety but ignored those concerns at other times.”
The filing, primarily an order for the public disclosure of outstanding pre-trial motions and related resolutions, concluded with a sharp rebuke of the Special Counsel’s actions regarding sealed documents.
The judge wrote: “In closing, the Court deems it necessary to express concern over the Special Counsel’s treatment of certain sealed materials in this case.”
“In two separate filings related to sealing, the Special Counsel stated, without qualification, that he had no objection to full unsealing of previously sealed docket entries related to allegations of prosecutorial misconduct,” the order reads. “In light of that repeated representation, and in the absence of any defense objection, the Court unsealed those materials consistent with the general presumption in favor of public access.”
“Subsequently, in the course of adjudicating continuing redaction disputes leading to this Order, the Court inquired about those now unsealed filings, which contain material as to which the Special Counsel has voiced (and continues to voice) objections to unsealing,” the ruling continued. “In response to those inquiries, counsel explained that the Special Counsel took the position on unsealing in order to publicly and transparently refute defense allegations of prosecutorial misconduct raised in pretrial motions.”
Cannon added that “nowhere in that explanation is there any basis to conclude that the Special Counsel could not have defended the integrity of his Office while simultaneously preserving the witness-safety and Rule6(e) concerns he has repeatedly told the Court, and maintains to this day, are of serious consequence, and which the Court has endeavored with diligence to accommodate in its multiple Orders on sealing/redaction.”
“The Court is disappointed in these developments,” she added.
