Recently, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon criticized Special Counsel Jack Smith pertaining to the case against former President Donald Trump and his alleged mishandling of classified documents. Judge Cannon voiced her concerns in a recent statement about Smith’s handling of “sealed materials.”
“The Court deems it necessary to express concern over the Special Counsel’s treatment of certain sealed materials in this case,” Cannon stated. Jack Smith has sparked controversy after requesting redactions in public filings, supposedly intended to protect the justice system. However, the Trump-appointed judge rebuked this assertion.
“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 addition, subject to further unsealing as becomes necessary, this Order marks the resolution of the limited disclosure issues transferred to this Court by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,” according to the filing. “The Court also notes that the Superseding Indictment contains numerous quotes from grand jury testimony, the balance of which the Special Counsel continues to maintain require sealing.”
Judge Cannon sounded off on the special counsel for sealing the documents, stating Smith could still protect his office and witness safety. Cannon added, “Fair enough. But 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.”
Reportedly, Jack Smith initially supported unsealing the documents but eventually backtracked, maintaining that they must be kept confidential. The special counsel and the defense had previously agreed to disclose the documents in question.
Smith’s reneging on the agreement led Cannon to express her disappointment, calling for consistency in the sealing and redacting of documents. “The Court is disappointed in these developments. The sealing and redaction rules should be applied consistently and fairly upon a sufficient factual and legal showing. And parties should not make requests that undermine any prior representations or positions except upon full disclosure to the Court and appropriate briefing,” she said.
Last month, The American Tribune reported on comments from former President Trump, who sounded off on Jack Smith after “attacking” Judge Cannon. Smith had reportedly argued in a brief that the court was working under a flawed premise regarding the Presidential Records Act.
“Deranged ‘Special’ Counsel Jack Smith, who has a long record of failure as a prosecutor, including a unanimous decision against him in the U.S. Supreme Court, should be sanctioned or censured for the way he is attacking a highly respected Judge, Aileen Cannon, who is presiding over his FAKE Documents Hoax case in Florida.”
Trump further argued, disputing Smith’s claims, that the Presidential Records Act is applicable. He said, “He is a lowlife who is nasty, rude, and condescending, and obviously trying to “play the ref.” He shouldn’t even be allowed to participate in this sham case, where I, unlike Crooked Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and all the rest, come under the Presidential Records Act. I DID NOTHING WRONG, BUT BIDEN DID, AND THEY LET HIM OFF SCOT-FREE. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN, JACK? A TWO TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE. ELECTION INTERFERENCE!”
Featured image credit: By United States Department of Justice – This file has been extracted from another file, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=132849708
"*" indicates required fields