Trump seeks to delay federal gag order, Judge Chutkan grants temporary relief.
OAN’s Daniel Baldwin
4:38 PM – Friday, October 21, 2023
Former President Donald Trump’s legal team has made a bold move by filing a motion to lift the gag order imposed by a federal judge in Washington, DC this week.
“No Court in American history has imposed a gag order on a criminal defendant who is campaigning for public office—least of all, on the leading candidate for President of the United States,” wrote Trump attorney John Lauro.
District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, has temporarily stayed the order. Chutkan has given the prosecution until Wednesday, October 25th to file any opposition, and the Trump team until Saturday, October 28th to reply.
“At bottom, the Gag Order violates virtually every fundamental principle of our First Amendment jurisprudence,” Lauro wrote. “It imposes an overbroad, content-based prior restraint on the leading Presidential candidate’s core political speech—notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s instruction that First Amendment rights have their fullest and most urgent application precisely in the conduct of campaigns for political office. Likewise, by restricting President Trump’s speech, the Gag Order eviscerates the rights of his audiences, including hundreds of millions of American citizens who the Court now forbids from listening to President Trump’s thoughts on important issues.”
Chutkan had previously imposed a gag order on “any interested parties” from attacking Special Counsel Jack Smith, his staff, any staff of the court, or any possible witness in the case.
“The prosecution did not present any evidence that President Trump harassed or intimidated anyone,” Lauro wrote. “Rather, the prosecution relied exclusively on the allegation that third parties, with no relationship to President Trump, engaged improperly with political actors—most of whom had already been criticized by millions of people across the country before President Trump commented on them.”
“The prosecution also did not submit any evidence that: (1) any member of its team has been threatened or harassed; (2) that any potential witness has actually felt threatened or harassed by President Trump’s core political speech; (3) that President Trump made any public statement about any “court staff,” other than the district judge herself; or (4) that any alleged threat, harassment, or intimidation by third parties could not be addressed by means less restrictive than an expansive prior restraint on President Trump’s speech,” Lauro continued.
Lauro explained in the filing that the court relied on the theory that when Trump attacked people, such as Smith, they subsequently faced harassment and threats. He argued that logic was heavily flawed.
“But the Court cited no evidence that President Trump’s statements—as distinct from the statements of millions of others—caused such alleged threats or harassment, let alone that the statements were directed to inciting imminent lawless action,” he wrote.
Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
Pro-Terrorism Jew haters are ripping down flyers portraying the hundreds of innocent young women and children kidnapped by Hamas.
A House Subcommittee takes a look at the impact immigration and crime has been having on the country’s national parks.
An iconic New York City Jewish deli that has publicized its support for Israel following the recent attacks from Hamas is vandalized with a Swastika.
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton releases a new documentary on big tech censorship of topics such as the 2020 election and COVID-19.
Elon Musk said the social media platform X will soon launch two new tiers of premium subscriptions.
Bitcoin jumped on Friday above $30,000 for first time since July, taking gains for the week past 10%.
Meta and TikTok have been given a week to provide details on measures taken to counter the spread of terrorist, violent content and hate speech on their platforms.
Netflix increased subscription prices for some streaming plans as it shattered expectations for new customers.
rnrn
What is the significance of imposing a gag order on a criminal defendant who is campaigning for public office?
Former President Donald Trump’s legal team has filed a motion to lift the gag order imposed by a federal judge in Washington, DC this week. The team argues that no court in American history has imposed such a gag order on a criminal defendant who is campaigning for public office, especially on the leading candidate for President of the United States.
The motion was filed by Trump attorney John Lauro, who wrote, “The gag order violates virtually every fundamental principle of our First Amendment jurisprudence.” Lauro further argues that the order imposes an overbroad, content-based prior restraint on the leading Presidential candidate’s core political speech. He emphasizes that First Amendment rights have their fullest and most urgent application precisely in the conduct of campaigns for political office. Additionally, he states that by restricting President Trump’s speech, the gag order also eviscerates the rights of his audiences, including hundreds of millions of American citizens who are now forbidden from listening to his thoughts on important issues.
District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, has temporarily stayed the order. She has given the prosecution until October 25th to file any opposition, and the Trump team until October 28th to reply.
This is not the first gag order imposed by Judge Chutkan in this case. Previously, she had imposed a gag order on “any interested parties” from attacking Special Counsel Jack Smith, his staff, any staff of the court, or any possible witness in the case. However, Trump’s legal team argues that the prosecution did not present any evidence that President Trump harassed or intimidated anyone. They claim that the prosecution relied exclusively on allegations that third parties, who had already been criticized, engaged improperly with political actors. They further argue that the prosecution did not submit any evidence of threats or harassment directed at their team or potential witnesses by President Trump himself.
Lauro explains in the filing that the court’s reliance on the theory that Trump’s statements led to subsequent harassment and threats is flawed. He argues that there is no evidence to support the claim that Trump’s statements, distinct from the statements of millions of others, caused such alleged threats or harassment, let alone incited imminent lawless action.
The outcome of the motion to lift the gag order remains uncertain, but the legal team’s argument highlights the importance of free speech and the potential infringements on constitutional rights when restrictions are placed on political candidates.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
