U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who is presiding over Special Counsel Jack Smith's classified documents prosecution of former President Donald Trump, has faced withering criticism and scrutiny from the left for allegedly ruling too favorably on pre-trial motions for the defendant who appointed her to the bench.

Even when Cannon recently ruled largely in favor of the prosecution following a months-long dispute, she was still derided for having initially been "snookered" and fooled by Trump into siding with him, according to left-leaning Salon.

To keep everything secret or not

At issue here is an argument that has been ongoing since January about whether and to what extent information about potential witnesses should be kept secret from the general public.

It began when former President Trump's attorneys filed a motion to compel discovery and make public certain information about the prosecution and some of the evidence they planned to use in the case, a motion that was vehemently opposed by Special Counsel Smith.

Judge Cannon was accused of siding with Trump and being "on the wrong side of the law" for not automatically ruling against the motion -- even as a coalition of media outlets joined the fray and cited First Amendment freedoms in urging the information to made public.

As noted, Smith vigorously opposed the effort, albeit initially in a fairly generalized manner, but later provided more detailed arguments in a motion to reconsider that appear to have at least partially won over the judge.

Partial win mixed with sharp criticism for Smith

On April 9, in a 24-page order, Judge Cannon ruled in part in favor of Special Counsel Smith in that certain identifying information about potential government witnesses, such as their names, could be filed under seal by the prosecution and kept secret from the public ahead of the trial.

But she also ruled in part in favor of former President Trump, in that other disputed information must be publicly filed, albeit with appropriate redactions.

In doing so, according to The Washington Post, Cannon also chastised Smith for the initial vagueness and generalities he used to oppose Trump's motion, and wrote, "As a preliminary point, the arguments and evidence advanced in the Special Counsel’s Motion could have, and should have, been raised in prior filings. Denial of the Motion would be appropriate on that basis."

"[T]he Special Counsel had two opportunities to raise these arguments and failed to do so in both instances," she continued. "The Special Counsel’s initial Seal Request failed to offer a governing legal framework or any factual support for the relief sought; instead, it contained only conclusory and
unsubstantiated assertions about witness safety, the integrity of the proceedings, and privacy interests."

"Later, in response to the Press Coalition’s Motion, the Special Counsel failed to engage with -- let alone refute -- the Press Coalition’s argument that the First Amendment attached to the subject materials," Cannon added as she went on to chide Smith for "only now" being forthcoming in his reasoning after insinuating that the court made a "clear error" and "manifest injustice" by not blindly acquiescing to his earlier vague arguments.

Judge was "snookered" by Trump into accepting "totally wrong legal standard"

Salon noted that former federal prosecutor Harry Litman, an avowed Trump-hater, seemingly took a victory lap in a brief video about Judge Cannon "overruling herself" after earlier siding with the former president's legal team.

"The Trump team basically snookered her into applying the totally wrong legal standard and therefore granting their motion to release information to the public at this discovery stage," Litman said.

He later added of the special counsel's team, "They had her dead to rights. And she could have just graciously said 'Oops, my bad!' but she didn't. So it's very defensive and thin-skinned, but it does force [Cannon] to do the right thing and change the tune."