I would think her ruling on testimony would be another red flag. Actual trial testimony can’t be made public, but witness statements that won’t be part of testimony can be? So if a witness says outside of court “DT never asked me to do anything inappropriate,” but says under oath on the stand “Yes, DT ordered me to do (corrupt thing #31 here),” only the first one can be made public.
Also:
The reversal from Cannon ultimately granting the motion appeared to be an acknowledgement of the embarrassment and potential ammunition she could give prosecutors to have her removed from the case if she denied their request and then got overturned on appeal.
But in doing so, she rebuked prosecutors in scathing terms and blamed prosecutors for placing her in such a position. “Special counsel’s newly raised arguments could have and should have been raised previously,” she wrote in one terse subhead.
WTF is that? Didn’t he respond to her original ruling within hours, if not minutes?
ETA: @txlawyer, would love to know if I am misinterpreting something here. Tx.