Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onenote

(46,086 posts)
36. Couple of responses
Sun Feb 11, 2024, 09:01 PM
Feb 2024

First there was no bait and switch. cannon only granted the request to accept the exhibit on a “temporary “ basis until she had a chance to review it, which she did pretty quickly.

Second, if Smith did wanted to avoid disclosure of the exhibit he could have withdrawn it. Presumably he felt having it as part of the record was more important — particularly if he needed to appeal an adverse decision on his motion. For cannon to strike it would have been prejudicial to Smith’s motion. The appropriate thing was to order its disclosure and give smith the opportunity to fight her order, comply with it or withdraw the exhibit and let consideration of the reconsideration motion proceed

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

This is scary. What's being allowed to happen BlueKota Feb 2024 #1
Yes. I mean WTF! ananda Feb 2024 #9
Different order. See post 15 onenote Feb 2024 #21
It is bizarre considering how Florida goes out of its way to shut down public records Baitball Blogger Feb 2024 #27
Witnesses will be scarce in the future if there is no protection. Deuxcents Feb 2024 #2
With this, witnesses would be crazy to testify. slightlv Feb 2024 #3
And why aren't multiple US media sources talking about this? Good for The Guardian. pnwmom Feb 2024 #4
To the extent US media sources have discussed this, they've screwed it up as did the Guardian. onenote Feb 2024 #22
Thank you. That makes me less upset! BlueKota Feb 2024 #23
The OP's article was talking about sharing info about THREATS to a WITNESS pnwmom Feb 2024 #33
Apparently Smith doesn't share your level of concern or he would have withdrawn the exhibit rather than disclose it. onenote Feb 2024 #44
Again, this story wasn't about witness lists. This story was about DOJ asking the judge to keep under seal pnwmom Feb 2024 #45
I was responding to your statement that you "think there is good reason to be concerned " onenote Feb 2024 #46
I don't see the contradiction between the Guardian's piece and what you're saying. pnwmom Feb 2024 #28
Thank you for clearing this up MustLoveBeagles Feb 2024 #41
They're too busy with Hur's Bettie Feb 2024 #32
I like the Guardian, but could this be news from yesterday slightlv Feb 2024 #5
You can bet Trump or someone he orders to will try to intimidate the witnesses in some way and if that happens the cstanleytech Feb 2024 #6
I just read this article and found it confusing. Will re-read tonight when house is quiet. riversedge Feb 2024 #7
This contradicts other reports saying Cannon issued a stay of her order. Nt Fiendish Thingy Feb 2024 #8
Thanks.. where did you see that? Would there be any links? Cha Feb 2024 #11
Somebody posted it here on DU. Nt Fiendish Thingy Feb 2024 #12
OK.. I just googled and the only source Cha Feb 2024 #16
Here's a previous article I can find: muriel_volestrangler Feb 2024 #13
No contradiction. There are two orders. One was stayed. The other wasn't even challenged by Smith. onenote Feb 2024 #15
Thank you Fiendish Thingy Feb 2024 #18
No. The second order resulted in Trump getting access to the Exhibit to Smith's Motion for Reconsideration onenote Feb 2024 #20
And we know blabbermouth gonna blab GreenWave Feb 2024 #10
As I expected. Smith wasn't going to prevail in keeping the exhibit from Trump. onenote Feb 2024 #14
Can i ask, Does TFG and lawyers actually have hands on access right now? bluestarone Feb 2024 #17
I think you are confusing two different orders. onenote Feb 2024 #19
TY Your last sentence has me worried. (should i be?) bluestarone Feb 2024 #25
They've had it awhile without releasing it and if that was their plan onenote Feb 2024 #35
I think Cannon's action is inappropriate HariSeldon Feb 2024 #34
Couple of responses onenote Feb 2024 #36
There was no appeal filed to challenge Judge Cannon's order last night LetMyPeopleVote Feb 2024 #24
Probably because this was primarily a way to delay the trial. Kablooie Feb 2024 #42
hem. AllaN01Bear Feb 2024 #26
Unfortunately, this is far too common. It's hard to keep evidence from defense. Silent Type Feb 2024 #29
Witness, poll workers, judges, DA's et al are now fair game for lethal threats. When did this happen? Ahem. Evolve Dammit Feb 2024 #30
How so? The witness information hasn't been made public onenote Feb 2024 #37
I was speaking of the overall trend towards attacking the aforementioned... Evolve Dammit Feb 2024 #47
Why does the defense need to see information about threats made to a witness? Novara Feb 2024 #31
Because smith needed to provide concrete evidence that making witness information public onenote Feb 2024 #38
You are correct..not good..MSNBC interview Andrew Wiessman.. asiliveandbreathe Feb 2024 #39
This message was self-deleted by its author AverageOldGuy Feb 2024 #40
Shades of Trump's mentor Roy Cohn ... get to the jurors or in this case the witnesses to try to effect Botany Feb 2024 #43
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Trump gets access to seal...»Reply #36