Federal District Court Judge Aileen Cannon agreed with special counsel Jack Smith's request to keep the witnesses' names secret in the case involving sensitive papers from former President Donald Trump.
After Smith fought for months that releasing the names could put them in danger, the ruling ends the long story. If Trump was allowed to put finding information about witnesses on the public court record, the names of many witnesses would have been made public.
“That discovery material, if publicly docketed in unredacted form as the Court has ordered, would disclose the identities of numerous potential witnesses along with the substance of the statements they made to the FBI or the grand jury, exposing them to significant and immediate risks of threats, intimidation, and harassment,” prosecutors said in a 22-page March filing.
Agents from the FBI, the Secret Service, and other agencies have been helping Smith defend witnesses.
In her 24-page decision, which the Washington Post got, Cannon both sided with Smith and said bad things about him.
For now, Cannon wrote, "the Court is satisfied that the Special Counsel has made an adequate showing on this issue, even though the Special Counsel's request remains broad in nature as it applies to all potential government witnesses without differentiation."
But in another part of the decision, she said that the special counsel should have done more to help a group of news outlets that wanted to make all the information in the case public.
The Special Counsel's answer did not say anything against the Press Coalition using First Amendment rights, did not really deal with any of the legal standards, and did not add any new facts, Cannon wrote.
Selecting a trial date is the next step in the case. It should start as soon as possible, according to Smith's team, but Trump's team wants to delay it.
After Smith fought for months that releasing the names could put them in danger, the ruling ends the long story. If Trump was allowed to put finding information about witnesses on the public court record, the names of many witnesses would have been made public.
“That discovery material, if publicly docketed in unredacted form as the Court has ordered, would disclose the identities of numerous potential witnesses along with the substance of the statements they made to the FBI or the grand jury, exposing them to significant and immediate risks of threats, intimidation, and harassment,” prosecutors said in a 22-page March filing.
Agents from the FBI, the Secret Service, and other agencies have been helping Smith defend witnesses.
In her 24-page decision, which the Washington Post got, Cannon both sided with Smith and said bad things about him.
For now, Cannon wrote, "the Court is satisfied that the Special Counsel has made an adequate showing on this issue, even though the Special Counsel's request remains broad in nature as it applies to all potential government witnesses without differentiation."
But in another part of the decision, she said that the special counsel should have done more to help a group of news outlets that wanted to make all the information in the case public.
The Special Counsel's answer did not say anything against the Press Coalition using First Amendment rights, did not really deal with any of the legal standards, and did not add any new facts, Cannon wrote.
Selecting a trial date is the next step in the case. It should start as soon as possible, according to Smith's team, but Trump's team wants to delay it.
