DC Judge Sides With Trump On DOJ Request For Broad ‘Protective Order’ (Update)
“At this point, I’m not persuaded that the government has shown good cause to subject to the protective order all the information in this case.”
As previously posted, the DOJ sought an extremely broad ‘protective order’ covering all materials turned over to Trump’s defense in the case. Trump objected that such a request was overly broad, that Trump had no objection so ‘sensitive’ information being subjected to a protective order, but that it would violate his first amendment rights (particularly in the middle of a campaign) to prevent him from disclosing ANY information related to the charges against him.
A hearing took place in federal court this morning, and according to reports, the Judge sided with Trump on the scope of the protective order, but reminded him that the terms of his release prohibit him from intimidating witnesses.
We will have to await a formal order to see how the judge defines where the line gets drawn on what can and cannot be disclosed, and to whom.
CHUTKAN emphasizes Trump is subject to pretrial release conditions, which include bar on harassing or intimidating witnesses. "All his behavior and statements are governed by conditions of release.
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 11, 2023
CHUTKAN says she'll include language requiring anyone who reviews discovery for Trump to sign a statement promising to protect info.
LAURO: "This is a massive case and it's impossible to get readyy [on special counsel timeline] unless we're able to enlist the help" of others.
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 11, 2023
MORE TO FOLLOW
The Judge said she would not take Trump’s political needs into account, but how can you not do that? It’s almost certain that we will see multiple attempts by the prosecution to claim that something Trump says on the campaign trail or on Truth Social constitutes witness intimidation.
During a debate, if a question is asked about J6 or witness Mike Pence makes a statement about what happend, is Trump supposed to say, hold on, let’s get the Judge on the phone to tell me what I can or can’t say so as not to cross the line into witness intimidation? That’s the whole absurdity of DOJ having waited so long to bring these charges.
CHUTKAN says Lauro is "conflating what your client need sto do to defend himself and what your client wants to do politically. Your client’s defense is supposed to happen in this courtroom, not on the internet."
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 11, 2023
LAURO again says Trump is concerned his campaign trail comments will trigger complaints of witness intimidation even in normal camapign discourse.
CHUTKAN: "He’s a criminal defendant. He is going to have restrictions like every single other defendant.”
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 11, 2023
MORE CHUTKIN: "I could see the possibility for a lot of problems here. … I could see how in advance of trial, [Trump could make a statement] that is going to — in and of itself– going to affect the orderly admin of justice … and could run afoul of his release conditions."
— Steven Portnoy (@stevenportnoy) August 11, 2023
CHUTKAN WARNS TRUMP:
"The more a party makes inflammatory statements … the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial *quickly* … to ensure an impartial jury."
— Steven Portnoy (@stevenportnoy) August 11, 2023
UPDATE 8-12-2023
On August 11 the Judge entered a Protective Order pretty much along the lines outlined above during oral argument.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Typo in the subhead boss. “ahs” -> “has”
What’s absurd is that this is even a case 😡🤬
The public record alone is damning, what’s absurd is your position
Isn’t the appearance of impartiality in a witch hunt nice?
If there really was impartiality, the judge should recuse and the special counsel should have been someone above reproach, if at all.
And now another special counsel for the Bidens that is NOT above reproach.
COVER UP!
She didn’t seem strong on treating J6 defendants like any other defendant.
Chutkhan – Mr. Trump’s campaign for President will not be a factor in my decision.
Me – Great. Another constitutionally illiterate Obama appointee on the bench,
“Protection of political speech is the very stuff of the First Amendment. “ ‘[I]t can hardly be doubted that the constitutional guarantee [of the freedom of speech] has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.’ ” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 15, 96 S.Ct. 612 (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272, 91 S.Ct. 621, 28 L.Ed.2d 35 (1971)). That is because our constitutional form of government not only was borne of the great struggle to secure such freedoms as political speech, but also because such freedom helps assure the continuance of that constitutional government. “In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential, for the identities of those who are elected will inevitably shape the course that we follow as a nation.” Id. at 14–15, 96 S.Ct. 612.”
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (8th Cir. 2005) 416 F.3d 738, 748
Exactly. His campaign should be a factor. It has to be a factor. I don’t know the correct answer to the dilemma the judge was in (assuming, for the sake of argument, that she can’t simply dismiss the indictment), but this is not it.
That’s just nonsense, the US is always in campaign season. Your effectively saying if you are running for office you are exempt from the criminal process. That a ludicrous position to take. Campaigns cannot be considered to take precedent over a criminal proceeding. And no the 1st amendment has nothing to do with this, speech in furtherance of a crime isn’t protected.
Don’t be stupider than you have to be. If you are running for office, the court cannot treat you like any other criminal suspect; you have a first amendment right to say what you need to in order to conduct your campaign, and no court has the authority to restrict that right, and thus hamper your campaigning. Any court order restricting your speech must be very carefully tailored so as not to hamper your political campaigning.
People who are not political candidates have exactly the same rights, but not the same needs, so orders restricting their speech are unlikely to get in their way and thus don’t need such careful tailoring, that’s all.
Let me see if I can translate the judge’s statements into English: There’s no need for the DOJ to have an official protective order, because I’ll drop on the defense any time they say anything I don’t like, or if they say anything. Also, any leaks by the prosecution will be immediately blamed on the defense, and I’ll yank the court date around whenever I want. All the motions by the defense will likewise get slammed with “Officially we’re doing this but in reality we’re doing that” which will make it very difficult to appeal. This railroad will run on time, straight through with none of this silly “presumed innocent” stuff to interfere.
Yes, that’s exactly how I read it. I was surprised that so many people have been calling this a win for Trump. If I were Trump’s lawyer I would not be feeling that I had won anything.
“That’s the whole absurdity of DOJ having waited so long to bring these charges.”
Nope, it’s the whole absurdity of DOJ *having brought such charges at all.*
Since every last one of them is meritless, there’s no point in arguing over whether they constitute election interference or otherwise questioning the timing.
Absolutely! However the big brains here at LI can’t quite bring themselves to say this out loud!
WHAT’S a VERY WELL Connected Kid’s LIFE vs a PRESIDENT amd present CANDIDATE’S in Comparison
By THE CONSTITUTION – EQUAL JUSTICE
( BUT, that WAS ALREADY SUBVERTED by the Manner in Which the FTX Investigation / MONEY LAUNDERING was Handled )
All caps doesn’t help your disjointed bizarro world haiku sound more normal. /Just saying.