General Category > Trump Legal Investigations

Judge bars Trump from 'smear campaign' against prosecutors, witnesses

(1/1)

libertybele:
Judge bars Trump from 'smear campaign' against prosecutors, witnesses

A federal judge on Monday barred Donald Trump from verbally attacking U.S. prosecutors, court staff and potential witnesses involved in a criminal case that accuses him of trying to overturn his 2020 election loss.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, pointing to disparaging social media posts, said she would not allow the former U.S. president, who has pleaded not guilty, to "launch a pretrial smear campaign" against people involved in the case.

"No other criminal defendant would be allowed to do so, and I’m not going to allow it in this case," Chutkan said as she issued the order.

Speaking at a campaign rally in Iowa on Monday, Trump called the judge's order "unconstitutional" and vowed to appeal it.

"I'll be the only politician in history that runs with a gag order where I'm not allowed to criticize people," Trump told supporters.

The order bars Trump, frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, and attorneys in the case from personally targeting Special Counsel Jack Smith, prosecutors working with him and court staff.

It also prevents Trump from discussing potential witnesses as relates to their testimony at trial.

Trump's trial is due to begin in five months. He is charged with conspiring to interfere in the counting of votes and block the certification of the 2020 election, which he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.....................

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/judge-highlights-disparaging-trump-comments-election-case-2023-10-16/

Kamaji:
Most likely the gag order is not unconstitutional.  See U.S. v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2000) (affirming imposition of gag order on indicted public official to avoid tainting the jury, amongst other reasons).

Maj. Bill Martin:
@Kamaji

Just took a look at that case, and it turns out that the court had essentially lifted the gag order during the campaign.  It was only the re-imposition of the gag order after the election that was being challenged:


--- Quote ---On September 28, 1999, the district court temporarily lifted the gag order in this case to avoid interfering with Brown's re-election campaign for Insurance Commissioner. Shortly thereafter, various defendants[1] released to the media recordings (as well as transcripts of recordings) of telephone conversations relevant to the case, and also conducted interviews while playing the recordings...
The court also invited the parties to suggest modifications to the order if they believed any modifications were necessary. None did so.

On November 18, 1999, the district court reimposed the original gag order, to be effective in its entirety when the polls closed on November 20, voting day for the Insurance Commissioner run-off election.[2] At a status conference conducted on November 18, Brown objected to the gag order....

--- End quote ---

And then this:


--- Quote ---We do not find compelling Brown's argument that his newly re-elected position as Insurance Commissioner requires him, for the good of the state insurance industry and the people of Louisiana, to engage in the same unfettered dialogue about the charges pending against him. The urgency of a campaign, which may well require that a candidate, for the benefit of the electorate as well as himself, have absolute freedom to discuss his qualifications, has passed.
--- End quote ---

Also worth noting that the gag order was considered appealable.

To me, the weakest part of the order against Trump is forbidding criticism of the prosecutor.  Trump's indictments certainly are a central issue in the campaign.  So of course if he is going to assert his innocence, the logical follow-on question is why he is being charged at all if he is truly innocent.   That necessarily leads right to the prosecutor's decision to bring the charges in the first place,

I think criticism of the prosecutor is a legitimate element of defending Trump's own reputation during the campaign, and in advancing his political argument that the justice system has been weaponized.

I'd be surprised if they didn't challenge the scope of that order, and if they do, I think they'll be at least partially successful.

Navigation

[0] Message Index