• Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Is this the one that Trump wanted to be massively redacted? And Jack Smith said “We should only redact the names of witnesses and other persons not already identified”?

    • kmartburrito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Actually, here’s the awesome and ironic part - Jack Smith wanted this to all be under seal, Judge Chutkan disagreed and took Donald’s older request to have the previous filings only redacted for sensitive info, like witness names, and had the rest be publicly available.

      Of course now Donald didn’t want this one to be public, lol. Can’t have it both ways, Diaper Don.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        No, Smith’s desire was only to redact names of persons in this oversized filing, nothing else.

        • kmartburrito@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          You’re not quite correct, It’s actually much more nuanced than that. I’ll reply as soon as I’m off work and can put the right amount of effort into it.

          EDIT - Here’s where your reply is incorrect -

          Trump says it would be unfair to air this info before the election because he has a gag order, and because the government wants to release everything and Trump isn’t allowed to say anything. Judge Chutkan said that none of that is true - the gag order doesn’t say that, and the government’s position was ACTUALLY that they wanted to seal everything in this case a year ago when they were going over the protective order to determine what to release to the public. At that time, Jack Smith wanted to seal ALL the sensitive AND non-sensitive evidence. Trump opposed this and stated that there needed to be transparency and that the public needed to see the information (because he wanted to get the witness list down in florida). Back then Judge Chutkan ruled that only sensitive material should be redacted, ruling against Jack Smith’s desire to redact EVERYTHING. Judge Chutkan’s reasoning here was that for transparency reasons, the public had the right to see the non-sensitive material, which at the time Trump saw as a win for him.

          Trump has now changed his position on this, since August of last year. Jack Smith wanted it all sealed, Trump wanted it all public, arguing that the sealing of it would violate his first amendment rights (because he wanted to use the evidence to intimidate witnesses and try the case in the court of public opinion). Now he wants it all under seal because there’s an election coming. Judge Chutkan replied that “defendent’s concern with the political consequences of these proceedings does not bear on the pre-trial schedule - what needs to happen before or shouldn’t happen before the election is not relevant.”

          So, because she ruled on Trump’s behalf in this case back in August, same rules apply now. She ruled against Jack Smith’s ask to seal everything - he wanted ALL info redacted in his original request.

          So, again I will say, you don’t get it both ways Diaper Don!

          I got this information from former FBI Deputy Director Andy McCabe and Dr. Allison Gill on the Jack podcast, Episode 96.