Judge Aileen Cannon, the jurist overseeing Donald Trump's criminal case over stashed documents in Florida, has some harsh words for the prosecutors in that case in a new filing Sunday.
Cannon, who has been criticized for purportedly slow-playing the federal case over the former president's alleged hoarding and refusal to return confidential documents from the White House, has become known for her rulings for Trump, and against Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought the case. This weekend was no different.
Josh Gerstein, a senior legal affairs reporter for Politico, flagged the filing.
ALSO READ: Delay, delay: Lauren Boebert keeping personal finances secret until after GOP primary
"JUST IN: Judge Cannon again dings Special Counsel Smith's office in Trump classified docs case," Gerstein wrote on Sunday. "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 itself is an order directing the public docketing of "outstanding undocketed pre-trial motions." It also resolves related motions.
"In closing," the order reads, "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 judge wrote. "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."
The filing continues:
"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. 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 further states 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.
