The U.S. judge overseeing Donald Trump’s prosecution for allegedly criminally conspiring to overturn Joe Biden’s election victory said that while every American has a First Amendment right to free speech, it is “not absolute” and that even the former president’s campaign statements must yield to protecting the integrity of the judicial process.
In her first hearing over Trump’s federal case in D.C., U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan said that “the fact that he is running a political campaign” will have no bearing on her decisions and “must yield to the orderly administration of justice.”
“If that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say about witnesses in this case, then that’s how it’s going to be,” Chutkan said Friday, repeatedly warning the former president and his defense about limits on what he can potentially reveal about government evidence in the case. “To the extent your client wants to make statements on the internet, they have to always yield to witness security and witness safety.”
“I caution you and your client to take special care in your public statements about this case,” the judge said after the 90-minute hearing, “I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings.”
Chutkan’s warnings laid down an early marker in the case, even as she settled a fight between the sides over a protective order needed to speed the prosecution’s handover of materials and the court’s setting of a trial date, which special counsel Jack Smith’s team has proposed for Jan. 2.
In the hearing, Chutkan rejected the government’s request for a blanket protective order limiting sharing of all evidence released in the case. However, she mostly sided with prosecutors in granting them leeway to define “sensitive” materials subject to greater protections, adding that Trump’s defense had agreed to similar conditions in his pending special counsel prosecution in Florida on charges of mishandling classified documents and obstruction.
I feel like “Threatening the life of others” falls under the same category as Crying fire in a theater. You can’t claim first amendment when you’re actively endangering others.
Exactly. This wouldn’t even be a blip in the news if he weren’t a former president. Judges lock people up for contempt all the time for way less than he’s already said.
Most sane people agree you can’t tamper with witnesses or threaten prosecutors (or anyone). He just has a loud cult of rabid defenders who would believe the sky was purple if he said it.
Unfortunately, he has a cult of rabid followers who will try to get rid of anyone he labels “a priest”, leaving him to claim that he never did nothing, yer honor, I swears. Just like a mob boss, or Henry II.
Unfortunately it’s actually constitutional to tell “fire” in a crowded theater 😞
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
Check out “legacy”
Ultimately, whether it is legal in the United States to falsely shout fire in a theater depends on the circumstances in which it is done and the consequences of doing it. The act of shouting fire when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise. However, if it causes a stampede and someone is killed as a result, then the act could amount to a crime, such as involuntary manslaughter, assuming the other elements of that crime are made out.
So what you’re saying is we have to wait until his cries cause actual harm… Like Jan 6
So being tried for doing this already, and he’s doing it running up to his trial, we’re supposed to wait for what… a judge to die? Then we can charge him again but still not be able to censor him?
No I was just sharing my picayune knowledge of the “fire in a crowded theater” trope.
If Trump does things that can be seen as a threat or attempt to intimidate, he can be punished for it. He can have his ability to contact the outside world curtailed.
For better or worse we don’t have “pre crime” in America. He has to either do a crime or attempt to do a crime before we can sanction him.
How long before he breaks this? And what units should we measure this in: weeks, days, hours?
I give him 0.7 Mooches, 0.8 tops.
That’s a lot. My bet is it will be 0.1 mooch. 0.2 tops.
I’m going with like, 9pm EDT tonight. I’m guessing that’s maybe .025 mooches, depending on what time the ruling was made.
9pm is too early. 2am-4am is his prime time
I think this should be measured in blabbings per second per second.
Millimooches
Legit, I should have said centimooches. I’m gonna lose the bet, aren’t I?
I believe “heads of lettuce” is becoming the standard for political gaffes.
Didn’t we define mooches for situations just like this?
You posted your comment about an hour ago so I’m just going to assume he already broke it
I’m gonna wager that he breaks it in one covfefe.
More importantly, what are the consequences when he does?
It seems it was a condition of release. With that said, i I’m assuming it would be breaking the terms of his release from jail. Whether that is exactly correct or if anyone would enforce it is another issue.
If we truly had an equal justice system he would already be in jail awaiting trial
I’m surprised he’s not breaking it right now.
-5 minutes
I’ll honestly be shocked if they can get him to shut up about the trial.
Throw him in jail if he doesn’t, like the regular citizen that he is.
He will never see the inside of a cell.
I know, because while we say ‘no one is above the law’, that saying is a load of bullshit.
I’m honestly looking forward to watching him clamor to get in front of a news camera to break the order.
We all know from the E. Jean Carroll case that he’s physically incapable of stopping himself from talking shit. Because the very first thing he did after losing that defamation case was jump in front of a news camera and defame her again.
At a certain point, the lawyers will simply need to resort to documenting all of their communications with Trump, so they can start distancing themselves with the “against the advice of legal council, our client…” lines. Basically make it abundantly clear that when Trump breaks the order, that he has been warned and that the lawyers tried to stop him. Because if Trump tries to say that his lawyers okayed it, they’ll also be in some deep shit.
Oh, they already document their meetings. Some have resorted to recording them. There was one set from like 2010 or so who refused to meet with him unless there were two of them present, so that they could be witnesses against whatever bullshit he ended up saying later on.
There’s one way to do that
e; Yeah, what @snooggums@kbin.social said
Throw him in jail if he doesn’t, like the regular citizen that he is.
Imagine being this guy’s lawyer.
“Sir, you are the defendant in a criminal trial. There will be witnesses testifying in that trial. You do not, in fact, have the right to threaten those witnesses to get them to do what you want them to do.”
“But I wanna!”
Donny would say “Sure, fine, I’ll keep my mouth shut.” then as soon as the guy has his back turned, make the wanking gesture at him.
Oh he’s going to blab everything to anyone that is brain-dead enough to listen to him. There’s no fucking way that dude is even remotely capable of listening to anything anyone says that he thinks may take him out of the spotlight that he so desperately to be in to justify his treasonous bullshit.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The U.S. judge overseeing Donald Trump’s prosecution for allegedly criminally conspiring to overturn Joe Biden’s election victory said that while every American has a First Amendment right to free speech, it is “not absolute” and that even the former president’s campaign statements must yield to protecting the integrity of the judicial process.
Chutkan’s warnings laid down an early marker in the case, even as she settled a fight between the sides over a protective order needed to speed the prosecution’s handover of materials and the court’s setting of a trial date, which special counsel Jack Smith’s team has proposed for Jan. 2.
However, she mostly sided with prosecutors in granting them leeway to define “sensitive” materials subject to greater protections, adding that Trump’s defense had agreed to similar conditions in his pending special counsel prosecution in Florida on charges of mishandling classified documents and obstruction.
Prosecutors have proposed adopting similar rules to a recent federal criminal case in Washington, prohibiting disclosure of government-provided materials to anyone outside his legal team, potential witnesses, their lawyers or others approved by the court.
They also sought to widen disclosure to include “volunteer attorneys” or others not directly employed by his lawyers, and asked Chutkan for the freedom to cite sensitive information in public court filings or hearings without prior approval as long as it was redacted.
Chutkan has taken a firm stance toward Trump’s attorneys regarding deadlines at the outset of his case — declining to a grant extensions to respond to the government’s late-night Aug. 4 motion for a protective order or for setting Friday’s hearing — and has earned a reputation as the toughest sentencer in the federal court in Washington of defendants charged in the riot.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
So… trying to place restrictions on someone with all the self-restraint of a two-year-old.
This should be amusing.
