Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 75,721
- 73,477
- 3,605
Here is the sequence of events in plain language. This Twitter account is from a former high-ranking DoJ official who wrote a lot of the Mueller Report, hence the name of her account.
Trumpers claim that the Mueller Report totally exonerated Trump, so they should love her.
I used Thread Reader rather than post individual Tweets. I include the Tweet from Lisa Rubin that she retweeted.

4h •12 tweets • 2 min read •
Read on X
THREAD: there's an inception-level thing going on with the latest paperless order from Judge Cannon. So here's a quick explanation. 1/
First, trump added some protected discovery supplements (two dozen witness names and other evidence) to a motion to compel, then asked Cannon to UNSEAL those supplements. Cannon said YES, and that the witness names and evidence would be UNSEALED today. 2/
Two days ago, Jack Smith said "hey, tomorrow, we're gonna file our opposition to you unsealing these, but we'd like to add some evidence supporting our position, so can we file that evidence under seal and ex parte? It's part of an its own ongoing investigation." 3/
Cannon said "sure you can file that under seal". So yesterday, Jack Smith filed his motion to stop Cannon from UNSEALING the two dozen witnesses and evidence, and added their sealed evidence of witness intimidation. Evidence they were told would be ex parte and sealed. 4/
This morning, Cannon said "okay, I won't UNSEAL the witness list and evidence today, and I'm giving trump until 2/23 to respond to your motion asking to keep the witness list and evidence sealed." 5/
And then a couple of hours ago, Cannon said "oh, by the way, that sealed evidence of witness intimidation that's currently under federal investigation? I'm ordering you to give that to trump's team by tomorrow. I know I said it would be ex parte, but I changed my mind" 6/
SO. I think Jack Smith will OPPOSE giving trump the evidence of witness intimidation. Whether he does that with her or the 11th circuit, I don't know. But that has nothing to do with the two dozen witnesses and evidence thing. 7/
Keeping the two dozen witnesses and evidence under seal won't be decided until after trump gets to respond on 2/23. But right now, the evidence of witness intimidation currently under investigation is due to trump tomorrow, and thats NUTS. 8/
Smith ASKED her if he could file it under seal and EX PARTE - meaning NOT PUBLIC and NOT FOR TRUMP TO SEE. And yesterday, she GRANTED that. But TODAY, she's reneging on the "ex parte" part and ORDERING Smith to give it to trump's team by tomorrow. 9/
Like, what the fuck? The DoJ had HER WORD that it could be filed without trump knowing, and now that she's "reviewed it", she's CHANGING HER MIND. 10/
I hope Jack Smith appeals to the 11th circuit and asks for a writ of mandamus asking the circuit court to ORDER Cannon to reverse her decision to give this witness intimidation evidence to the trump team. 11/
Again, this is separate from the broader issue of her wanting to unseal the two dozen witness names and evidence. Perhaps DoJ will include that in their filing to the 11th circuit, but it may not be ripe for hearing yet because she hasn't ruled on it. END/
Trumpers claim that the Mueller Report totally exonerated Trump, so they should love her.
I used Thread Reader rather than post individual Tweets. I include the Tweet from Lisa Rubin that she retweeted.

Mueller, She Wrote
@MuellerSheWrote4h •12 tweets • 2 min read •
Read on X
THREAD: there's an inception-level thing going on with the latest paperless order from Judge Cannon. So here's a quick explanation. 1/
First, trump added some protected discovery supplements (two dozen witness names and other evidence) to a motion to compel, then asked Cannon to UNSEAL those supplements. Cannon said YES, and that the witness names and evidence would be UNSEALED today. 2/
Two days ago, Jack Smith said "hey, tomorrow, we're gonna file our opposition to you unsealing these, but we'd like to add some evidence supporting our position, so can we file that evidence under seal and ex parte? It's part of an its own ongoing investigation." 3/
Cannon said "sure you can file that under seal". So yesterday, Jack Smith filed his motion to stop Cannon from UNSEALING the two dozen witnesses and evidence, and added their sealed evidence of witness intimidation. Evidence they were told would be ex parte and sealed. 4/
This morning, Cannon said "okay, I won't UNSEAL the witness list and evidence today, and I'm giving trump until 2/23 to respond to your motion asking to keep the witness list and evidence sealed." 5/
And then a couple of hours ago, Cannon said "oh, by the way, that sealed evidence of witness intimidation that's currently under federal investigation? I'm ordering you to give that to trump's team by tomorrow. I know I said it would be ex parte, but I changed my mind" 6/
SO. I think Jack Smith will OPPOSE giving trump the evidence of witness intimidation. Whether he does that with her or the 11th circuit, I don't know. But that has nothing to do with the two dozen witnesses and evidence thing. 7/
Keeping the two dozen witnesses and evidence under seal won't be decided until after trump gets to respond on 2/23. But right now, the evidence of witness intimidation currently under investigation is due to trump tomorrow, and thats NUTS. 8/
Smith ASKED her if he could file it under seal and EX PARTE - meaning NOT PUBLIC and NOT FOR TRUMP TO SEE. And yesterday, she GRANTED that. But TODAY, she's reneging on the "ex parte" part and ORDERING Smith to give it to trump's team by tomorrow. 9/
Like, what the fuck? The DoJ had HER WORD that it could be filed without trump knowing, and now that she's "reviewed it", she's CHANGING HER MIND. 10/
I hope Jack Smith appeals to the 11th circuit and asks for a writ of mandamus asking the circuit court to ORDER Cannon to reverse her decision to give this witness intimidation evidence to the trump team. 11/
Again, this is separate from the broader issue of her wanting to unseal the two dozen witness names and evidence. Perhaps DoJ will include that in their filing to the 11th circuit, but it may not be ripe for hearing yet because she hasn't ruled on it. END/