Author Topic: Judge orders hearing after Trump's lawyers say proposed protective order would infringe on Trump's f  (Read 516 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Elderberry

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,284
ABC News By Katherine Faulders and Alexander Mallin

Judge orders hearing after Trump's lawyers say proposed protective order would infringe on Trump's free speech

The special counsel on Friday asked for a protective order against Trump.

Former President Donald Trump's legal team says that a protective order proposed by special counsel Jack Smith would infringe on Trump's right to free speech.

Trump's attorneys made the argument in their response Monday to the special counsel's motion for a protective order over the discovery evidence in the case against Trump for allegedly seeking to overturn the 2020 election.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a "criminal scheme" to overturn the results of the 2020 election by enlisting a slate of so-called "fake electors" targeting several states; using the Justice Department to conduct "sham election crime investigations"; and trying to enlist the vice president to "alter the election results" -- all in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.

The former president has denied all wrongdoing and has dismissed the probe as politically motivated.

Monday's filing argues for narrower limits on the protective order, which Trump's attorneys say would protect sensitive materials while ensuring Trump's right to free speech.

"In a trial about First Amendment rights, the government seeks to restrict First Amendment rights," Trump's attorneys wrote in their filing. "Worse, it does so against its administration's primary political opponent, during an election season in which the administration, prominent party members, and media allies have campaigned on the indictment and proliferated its false allegations."

More: https://abcnews.go.com/US/proposed-protective-order-infringe-trumps-free-speech-lawyers/story?id=102084393

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,716
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
Definitely on Trump's side on this issue.  The Democrats, and some Republicans, are openly using these indictments against him politically as evidence that he is unfit.  They are not bound by any such orders issued by the court, and are free to continue attacking him.  By definition, this is not just a legal issue but also a political one.

Depriving Trump of the right to defend himself politically would be a direct violation of the First Amendment.   And I think the point this judge may be missing is that this is an issue on which he might be able to get an interlocutory appeal.

In other words, him speaking out about the case in defiance of any gag order may be specifically calculated to challenge it in a higher court.

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,889
Definitely on Trump's side on this issue.  The Democrats, and some Republicans, are openly using these indictments against him politically as evidence that he is unfit.  They are not bound by any such orders issued by the court, and are free to continue attacking him.  By definition, this is not just a legal issue but also a political one.

Depriving Trump of the right to defend himself politically would be a direct violation of the First Amendment.   And I think the point this judge may be missing is that this is an issue on which he might be able to get an interlocutory appeal.

In other words, him speaking out about the case in defiance of any gag order may be specifically calculated to challenge it in a higher court.

Interesting point.

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,716
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
I don't believe a judge's right to issue gag orders regarding cases before them is unlimited. A gag order by definition is a limitation of a First Amendment right, so courts would have to employ a balancing test.  In the vast majority of cases, the importance of the legal proceeding would outweigh whatever temporary harm to reputation the normal defendant might incur.

But if the dude is a candidate running for President of the United States, I think that balance shifts significantly. Theoretically, Trump could be in a debate with other Republican candidates, all of whom would be answering questions on what they thought about his indictments and trial, but Trump would be prevented from responding.  I just don't think a judge can get away with that.

So like I said, if I was Trump's lawyer, I'd be letting him shoot off his mouth as much as he wanted.  Dare the the judge to try to silence him so you can get it up on appeal.

If this judge was smart/savvy, she'd see that coming and not issue that order.   Trump winning a determination from a court of appeals that this prosecution is inherently political would be a big propaganda win for him.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2023, 03:17:09 pm by Maj. Bill Martin »

Offline DefiantMassRINO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,942
  • Gender: Male
It's probably best if Trump avoided using proper names of prosecutors, judges, jurors, and potential witnesses.
Self-Annointed Deplorable Expert Chowderhead Pundit

I reserve my God-given rights to be wrong and to be stupid at all times.
"If at first you don’t succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried." - Steven Wright

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,716
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
It's probably best if Trump avoided using proper names of prosecutors, judges, jurors, and potential witnesses.

Jurors, sure.  Prosecutors and judges are matters of public record, though.  Perhaps some witnesses.

But the basic idea of trying to prevent him from discussing publicly evidence that he believes to be exculpatory, or that shows a weakness in the evidence offered by the prosecution, shouldn't stand.

Offline DefiantMassRINO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,942
  • Gender: Male
How is railing that Smith is "deranged" exculpatory?

It's a personal attack ... to what end, who knows.

He could have easily made the same point by alluding to the "prosecutor" versus "Jack Smith".

Using proper names brings Trump that much closer to a potential obstruction, interference, or intimidation charge.
Self-Annointed Deplorable Expert Chowderhead Pundit

I reserve my God-given rights to be wrong and to be stupid at all times.
"If at first you don’t succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried." - Steven Wright

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,716
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
How is railing that Smith is "deranged" exculpatory?

It's a personal attack ... to what end, who knows.

He could have easily made the same point by alluding to the "prosecutor" versus "Jack Smith".

Using proper names brings Trump that much closer to a potential obstruction, interference, or intimidation charge.

It's inartful, but calling Smith "deranged" is another way of saying the indictment is politically-motivated sham.  And he is certainly entitled to name the prosecutor so that people can do their own research on him and determine whether or not they believe he is biased.

Again, there is no prohibition on any one other than Trump and his attorneys doing any of this. There is nothing preventing Fox News or Breitbart, or various pro-Trump bloggers from saying all any of that.  The judge is just trying to prevent Trump from saying that, and he's the guy running for office.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2023, 03:50:11 pm by Maj. Bill Martin »