Judge denies Trump’s request for gag order in federal election case.
Attorneys for former President Donald Trump have taken action to lift the gag order imposed on him in the federal criminal case. They filed a motion on Friday, seeking temporary relief while awaiting a ruling from an appeals court. In a surprising turn of events, Judge Tanya Chutkan approved an administrative stay on her gag order, allowing President Trump to make his appeal.
The government has until October 25th to respond, and President Trump will then have three days to reply to any opposition. The motion argues that no court in American history has ever imposed a gag order on a criminal defendant who is campaigning for public office, especially not on a leading candidate for President of the United States. This unprecedented gag order is the first of its kind.
If Judge Chutkan does not approve lifting the gag order, President Trump is requesting a ruling by October 24th. After that, he will seek an emergency stay from the appellate court to pause the gag order.
“Such expedited consideration is highly warranted in a case raising First Amendment questions of enormous consequence,” the new filing reads.
No Evidence of Witness Intimidation
Following a request by special counsel Jack Smith to limit President Trump’s remarks about the case, Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a gag order. This order prohibited any remarks targeting the prosecution and defense legal teams, court staff, and potential witnesses.
“Given its extraordinary nature, one would expect an extraordinary and compelling justification for the Gag Order. But that is conspicuously absent. Instead, the Court generically states it must enter the Gag Order to prevent supposed ‘threats’ and ‘harassment.’ This theory falters under even minimal scrutiny,” the new filing states. The attorneys are also seeking a pause in administrative proceedings during the trial while they appeal the gag order.
Several individuals, including the special counsel and potential witnesses like former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr, regularly make negative remarks about President Trump in the media. However, under the gag order, President Trump would not be able to address those comments or refute their claims.
“In doing so, the Gag Order shields public officials in the highest echelons of government from criticism, including key political rivals,” the motion argues.
Attorney John Lauro argued in court that President Trump is currently in the midst of a political campaign, and the court order would benefit his political opponents. Former Vice President Mike Pence, who is running against President Trump for the Republican nominee in the primaries, is another potential witness.
The attorneys pointed out that prosecutors failed to provide any evidence of witnesses feeling threatened or intimidated by President Trump’s actions. During the hearing, prosecutors admitted that their concerns were speculative and that they wouldn’t know for sure if a witness felt intimidated until they testified, and even then, it might not be clear.
“These are fatal omissions. A prior restraint cannot be based on speculation,” the filing emphasizes.
The court cited a gag order imposed on President Trump in New York, where he is facing a fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. In that case, a New York judge issued a gag order after President Trump made a social media post about his clerk, prohibiting both parties from making statements targeting his staff.
Judge Chutkan wrote in her order and opinion that President Trump’s statements “pose a significant and immediate risk” of witness intimidation and harassment towards court and attorney staff members.
In response, the attorneys argue that the prosecutors and the judge did not consider alternative methods to prevent witness intimidation and instead opted for an “overbroad” gag order.
The defense also noted that the judge dismissed First Amendment defenses during the hearing. They argue that the gag order violates fundamental principles of First Amendment jurisprudence. The motion states that it restricts protected political speech and denies the rights of President Trump’s audiences who want to hear his remarks.
First Amendment
Attorney John Lauro made several First Amendment arguments during the hearing before Judge Chutkan issued the gag order.
“At bottom, the Gag Order violates virtually every fundamental principle of our First Amendment jurisprudence,” the new filing asserts. The attorneys argue that it restrains what should be protected political speech and infringes on the rights of President Trump and his supporters.
In her written opinion, Judge Chutkan dismissed the First Amendment defenses, stating that the obligation to protect the proceedings from outside interference takes precedence over First Amendment rights.
“In order to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings, it is necessary to impose certain restrictions on public statements by interested parties,” she wrote. “The defense’s position that no limits may be placed on Defendant’s speech because he is engaged in a political campaign is untenable, and the cases it cites do not so hold.”
“This court has found that even amidst his political campaign, Defendant’s statements pose sufficiently grave threats to the integrity of these proceedings that cannot be addressed by alternative means, and it has tailored its order to meet the force of those threats,” she added. ”Thus, limited restrictions on extrajudicial statements are justified here.”
In their filing, the defense notes that the cases cited by the judge in her opinion protected the civil rights of criminal defendants, which they describe as “a dizzying irony.”
“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” the attorneys wrote, quoting the case Elrod v. Burns.
What are the attorneys’ arguments regarding President Trump’s rights to free speech?
Tes President Trump’s rights to free speech and his ability to effectively campaign for public office. They argue that the gag order is an unprecedented restriction on a criminal defendant’s ability to engage in political speech.
Furthermore, the filing highlights the lack of evidence presented by the prosecutors to justify the gag order. The attorneys argue that the prosecutors failed to provide any specific instances of witnesses feeling threatened or intimidated by President Trump’s actions. They emphasize that a prior restraint cannot be based on speculation and that the prosecutors’ concerns are unsubstantiated.
The attorneys also criticize the court
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
