Trump begs Judge Cannon to deny Jack Smith's bid to keep witness data secret in docs case

Trump filed papers on Friday to compel federal judge in Florida presiding over his criminal classified documents obstruction case to brush aside special counsel Jack Smith's motion to keep various content and identities under seal and instead hold tough on her initial order to permit them to be shared with him and his legal team.

Friday's filed document, titled "PRESIDENT TRUMP’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION," attempts to undermine Jack Smith and his team's privacy concerns over the evidence they collected and have been trying to keep protected from not only the public eye, but also former President Donald Trump and his attorneys Todd Blanche and Christopher Kise.

The former president has groused about the overkill over access to the super secret material through a so-called SCIF – a sensitive compartmented information facility – in order to be able to huddle with his attorneys about the classified evidence discovery in his case, first reported by The Guardian's Hugh Lowell.

ALSO READ: How Donald Trump is spreading a dangerous mental illness to his supporters

"The Special Counsel’s Office has repeatedly demonstrated that they believe themselves to be entitled to disclose selective details of this case to try to support President Biden’s campaign efforts, while relegating to SCIFs, ex parte proceedings, and sealed filings the defense arguments that reveal unconstitutional, illegal, and unethical behavior by participants in the investigation and prosecution," according to the motion, which is joined with his Florida co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.

They then ask U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who decided to unseal two dozen potential witnesses' identities and sensitive information they provided, to deny Smith's efforts to reverse it as "procedurally defective."

It's suggested that Smith's efforts were faulty, stating "reconsideration is only appropriate if there is 'newly discovered evidence,' or a court committed “manifest errors of law or fact.”

What's more, Trump's camp insinuates Smith and company have been culpable of leaking material in the case.

"We find it hard to believe that Jack Smith could credibly swear under penalty of perjury, based on conversations with his staff, that no member of the Office has uttered that witness’s name to a member of the media," according to the document, adding that they had "no knowledge of any leaks stemming from his team."

Kise and Blanche contend that Smith and his team can't demand everything remain shrouded in secrecy when they submit some are have already been "disclosed in FOIA releases relating to the underlying investigation, and have offered no evidence that harassment resulted."