Donald Trump 'Wants to Intimidate Potential Witnesses': Attorney

Donald Trump has been accused of attempting to intimidate potential witnesses at his classified materials trial by trying to get redacted versions of documents made public.

Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor and legal analyst, was reacting to the recent ruling of Judge Aileen Cannon—who is overseeing the case in which the former president has pleaded not guilty to 40 charges—as part of the ongoing Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) discussions around the trial, which deal with how the sensitive materials connected to the case should be handled during proceedings.

In January, Trump's legal team filed a motion asking the court to order Special Counsel Jack Smith to turn over more discovery ahead of the trial. In response, Smith's team urged that the parts of the materials sought by Trump's lawyers remain redacted over concerns they would otherwise reveal the names of potential government witnesses, or that disclosing their names in advance of the trial would risk "infecting the testimony of other witnesses or unnecessarily influencing the jury pool."

But in a ruling on Tuesday, Cannon rejected Smith's arguments, stating the federal prosecutor did not put forward a "sufficient factual or legal basis" argument to warrant the details not being made public.

Writing in her Civil Discourse blog, Vance suggested that the former president had reasons for wanting the names of potential witnesses to be made public while also criticizing Cannon, a judge nominated to the bench by Trump who has faced calls to recuse herself from the classified documents case over alleged bias to the Republican.

"It's plain that Trump wants to intimidate potential witnesses and suggest that the classified material he and his co-defendants are accused of mishandling and withholding from the government isn't of any particular significance," Vance wrote.

"Most Judges would give serious consideration to protecting this type of information, at least at this stage of the proceedings. Judge Cannon decided to protect some, but not all of it."

Trump's legal team has been contacted for comment via email.

In her ruling, Cannon wrote: "Although substantiated witness safety and intimidation concerns can form a valid basis for overriding the strong presumption in favor of public access, the Special Counsel's sparse and undifferentiated Response fails to provide the Court with the necessary factual basis to justify sealing."

The judge did rule that some personal details of those who feature in the filings, such as addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, and social security numbers, be redacted, and ordered Trump's legal team to "comb the materials carefully" to redact this information.

"The ruling is a mixed bag," Vance added. "Although reasonable people can (and I do) disagree with her decision to leave witness identities and confidential FBI information exposed to public view, this isn't likely the kind of decision, standing alone, that prosecutors would seek to appeal. Cannon granted DOJ's request to redact the national security information—the most important information in the motion.

"The real problem with her ruling is that in ordering the disclosure of other information, she held the government to an unrealistically high standard for protecting information—and witnesses."

Vance also suggested that it is time for Smith to "decide whether to actively seek Cannon's recusal" because of her frequent rulings in Trump's favor in the case, including ones which could potentially delay the start of the trial, or at least suggest to the courts that such a move is "merited."

Ted Spaulding, an Atlanta-based trial attorney and founder of Spaulding Injury Law, suggested that any calls to recuse Cannon from the classified documents case may fall flat.

"It would be surprising if the judge is actually removed based on a delay-of-case argument," Spaulding told Newsweek.

"Usually, judges are only removed for conflicts of interest or other egregious behaviors in the case. Most state's procedural rules build in quite a bit of discretion in how the sitting judge handles discovery and deadlines in a case."