'In the bag for Trump': Ex-federal prosecutor slams Cannon’s 'bias' after judge denies Jack Smith request

Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann was quick to call out Judge Aileen M. Cannon in response to a decision she handed down in special counsel Jack Smith's Mar-a-Lago documents case on Thursday, November 16.

The Guardian's Hugo Lowell reported that Cannon, a Donald Trump appointee, has denied Smith's "request…. that she set (a) CIPA Section 5 deadline" in the case — meaning that the "defendant is required to disclose what classified info he intends to use at trial."

Cannon has ruled that "CIPA Section 5 deadlines" in the case "will be set following the March 1, 2024 scheduling conference."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

CIPA is short for the Classified Information Procedures Act. According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), "The linchpin of CIPA is section 5(a), which requires a defendant who reasonably intends to disclose (or cause the disclosure of) classified information to provide timely pretrial written notice of his intention to the Court and the Government."

On X, formerly Twitter, Weissmann posted, "Breaking: Judge Cannon's bias is showing over and over again. Smith has to be weighing whether, when, and how to seek her reversal by the Ct of Appeals and her removal."

The former federal prosecutor also tweeted, "Not scheduling a CIPA section 5 hearing, which is routine, is a clear sign she is just as much in the bag for Trump as when she issued her horrendous pretrial rulings (both reversed in scathing language by the conservative 11th Circuit). What a piece of work is she."

Smith alleges that Trump endangered the United States' national security by storing highly classified government documents at Mar-a-Lago after he left the White House. Trump has argued that the documents he had at Mar-a-Lago were declassified, while Smith has maintained that under federal law, those documents should have remained in Washington, D.C.

READ MORE: Jack Smith just tore apart Trump's 'startling' absolute immunity argument