This week, Judge Aileen Cannon recently issued a court order that struck down Special Counsel Jack Smith’s calls for confidentiality in FBI interviews. The Trump appointee criticized Smith’s “sweeping request” to censor FBI interviews in the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump.
According to recent reports, Cannon labeled the special counsel’s request as “inadequate,” stating, “The Court finds the Special Counsel’s sweeping request and generalized rationales inadequate to overcome the public’s common-law interest in access to these materials.”
The order issued on April 10 refused to honor the request to censor interviews with a former personal assistant of Trump’s Walt Nauta, who is accused of hiding classified documents on Trump’s behalf. For context, the former president faces allegations of mishandling classified information at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. Trump claims to be innocent, insisting that the documents in question were personal.
Nauta and another Mar-a-Lago maintenance employee, Carlos De Oliveira, allegedly moved boxes containing sensitive information at the Florida residence supposedly to hinder FBI agents from discovering them. Furthermore, the Trump employees are accused of deliberately deleting security footage that had been requested via subpoena. Nauta and Oliveira have pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against them.
Jack Smith claimed that he did not want the names of FBI witnesses made known to the public because of potential witness intimidation that could arise from supporters of the former president. However, Trump’s lawyers have disagreed with this assertion.
Last week, Judge Cannon agreed to the conditions of anonymity for the FBI witnesses, granting Smith’s request to censor them in government documents. “The Court finds that the Special Counsel’s asserted witness safety and harassment concerns are sufficient, at this juncture, to (1) shield the names of potential government witnesses and ancillary names in the Motions and in the attached transcript of Defendant Nauta’s voluntary FBI interview, and (2) replace those names as applicable with anonymous descriptors,” Cannon wrote.
Cannon further explained her decision to side with Smith on the concealment of the witness identities. “The Court is satisfied that the Special Counsel has made an adequate showing on this issue under Rule 16, at least at this juncture pending final trial preparations,” according to the Daily Caller’s analysis of court documents. “The Court directs the Special Counsel … to file under seal an index containing the name of each potential government witness and a corresponding pseudonym/anonymization for use in the redactions of Defendants’ MTC.”
"*" indicates required fields
However, she firmly denied other censorship requests from Smith, such as the dialogue between Nauta and the FBI. “With respect to the substantive statements contained in Defendant Nauta’s FBI interview, the Court reaches a different conclusion,” she wrote.
Cannon further stated that the Special Counsel had prior opportunities to bring forth an adequate argument against a press coalition fighting that sought to prevent the censorship of the documents relating to the case.
“The Special Counsel had two opportunities to raise these arguments and failed to do so in both instances. The Special Counsel’s initial Seal Request failed to offer a governing legal framework or any factual support for the relief sought,” she said. “Later, in response to the Press Coalition’s Motion, the Special Counsel failed to engage with—let alone refute—the Press Coalition’s argument that the First Amendment attached to the subject materials.”
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