In the Florida case, the government filed an ex parte exhibit - an FBI 302 that demonstrated an ongoing investigation regarding threats against a witness in the documents case. Canoon initially gave permission for the government to file it, but them promptly ordered the government to hand it over to defense counsel (which presumably they have done by now). Just generally, is what Cannon is doing regarding disclosure of witness names and related investigations within the norm, or is she stepping out of line?
When the 11th circuit overruled her last time, they emphasized that Trump was not entitled to special treatment just because of his status as a former POTUS, which she had explicitly afforded him in her written decisions in that case. I've been hoping she does something similar so that instead of just arguing bias the government could arguing she is repeating the same error she made before.
In the Florida case, the government filed an ex parte exhibit - an FBI 302 that demonstrated an ongoing investigation regarding threats against a witness in the documents case. Canoon initially gave permission for the government to file it, but them promptly ordered the government to hand it over to defense counsel (which presumably they have done by now). Just generally, is what Cannon is doing regarding disclosure of witness names and related investigations within the norm, or is she stepping out of line?
When the 11th circuit overruled her last time, they emphasized that Trump was not entitled to special treatment just because of his status as a former POTUS, which she had explicitly afforded him in her written decisions in that case. I've been hoping she does something similar so that instead of just arguing bias the government could arguing she is repeating the same error she made before.