Image 01 Image 03

Chutkan Gag Order: Trump Cannot Criticize Anyone Involved in the D.C. J6 Case

Chutkan Gag Order: Trump Cannot Criticize Anyone Involved in the D.C. J6 Case

Chutkan believes his words “pose sufficiently grave threats to the integrity of these proceedings that cannot be addressed by alternative means.”

Judge Tanya Chutkan, the presiding judge in President Donald Trump’s D.C. case, released the full gag order she placed on him.

Trump cannot criticize those involved with the case:

Accordingly, and pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c), it is hereby ORDERED that:

All interested parties in this matter, including the parties and their counsel, are prohibited from making any public statements, or directing others to make any public statements, that target (1) the Special Counsel prosecuting this case or his staff; (2) defense counsel or their staff; (3) any of this court’s staff or other supporting personnel; or (4) any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of their testimony.

Chutkan started the gag order with decisions that allow courts to implement gag orders:

Under binding Supreme Court precedent, this court “must take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect [its] processes from prejudicial outside interferences.” Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966). The First Amendment does not override that obligation. “Freedom of discussion should be given the widest range compatible with the essential requirement of the fair and orderly administration of justice. But it must not be allowed to divert the trial from the very purpose of a court system to adjudicate controversies, both criminal and civil, in the calmness and solemnity of the courtroom according to legal procedures.” Id. at 350– 51 (cleaned up); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 32 n.18 (1984) (“Although litigants do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the courthouse door, those rights may be subordinated to other interests that arise in this setting. For instance, on several occasions this Court has approved restriction on the communications of trial participants where necessary to ensure a fair trial for a criminal defendant.”)

OK, sure. There are legitimate reasons why judges hand out gag orders.

Yes, Trump unleashes his anger on his opponents during TV interviews and on social media. He tells it like it is and doesn’t hold back. Not diplomatic.

Therefore, Chutkan decided to keep Trump quiet:

In order to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings, it is necessary to impose certain restrictions on public statements by interested parties. Undisputed testimony cited by the government demonstrates that when Defendant has publicly attacked individuals, including on matters related to this case, those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed. See ECF No. 57 at 3–5. Since his indictment, and even after the government filed the instant motion, Defendant has continued to make similar statements attacking individuals involved in the judicial process, including potential witnesses, prosecutors, and court staff. See id. at 6–12. Defendant has made those statements to national audiences using language communicating not merely that he believes the process to be illegitimate, but also that particular individuals involved in it are liars, or “thugs,” or deserve death. Id.; ECF No. 64 at 9–10. The court finds that such statements pose a significant and immediate risk that (1) witnesses will be intimidated or otherwise unduly influenced by the prospect of being themselves targeted for harassment or threats; and (2) attorneys, public servants, and other court staff will themselves become targets for threats and harassment. And that risk is largely irreversible in the age of the Internet; once an individual is publicly targeted, even revoking the offending statement may not abate the subsequent threats, harassment, or other intimidating effects during the pretrial as well as trial stages of this case.

Chutkan made these decisions even though Trump is running for president. He leads the other Republican nominees by at least 50%. No one is going to catch up to him.

But Chutkan believes his words “pose sufficiently grave threats to the integrity of these proceedings that cannot be addressed by alternative means.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


You must not criticize Big Brother say the minions of the police state.

“pose sufficiently grave threats to the integrity of these proceedings that cannot be addressed by alternative means.”
Lady, the only person threatening the integrity of these proceeding is you.

I am not gagged so I will say it for him. Chutkan is a dishonest Skagg.

Someone posted a transcript of the hearing on twitter. I would say she crossed the line in a clear way. If the appeals court does not remove her for that reason, I don’t see what will.

“Under binding Supreme Court precedent, this court “must take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect [its] processes from prejudicial outside interferences.”

And the prejudiced interferences of the judge? I guess those are okay.

Trump did the provocation, the Judge did the overreaction, and now will see the consequences.

“His Presidential candidacy does not give him carte blanche to vilify public servants”

The fact that he is an American Citizen does.

Like when BLM, antifa, and the entire Democrat Party were attacking Trump and didn’t get arrested for it. See how that works?

    gonzotx in reply to Gosport. | October 17, 2023 at 4:07 pm

    Her parents are immigrants from Haiti , I’m not sure she isn’t too

    Notice most of these judges and DA’s are black

      Please throw away your racist card. You are not helping.

        alaskabob in reply to JR. | October 17, 2023 at 6:34 pm

        Hum…NY, D.C., Ga, Chicago,….. Oh there are both racial and gender points to be made in the attack by the Left with their spearheads being either double or triple minorities. Black females specifically selected for SCOTUS and Ca senator.

        caseoftheblues in reply to JR. | October 17, 2023 at 6:57 pm

        Well there is a genuine cultural difference/prejudices that exist…. Or are you saying all cultures are the same?

        walls in reply to JR. | October 17, 2023 at 7:28 pm

        What’s racist about that? He merely pointed out she’s black. Not racist.

          Milhouse in reply to walls. | October 17, 2023 at 11:11 pm

          First of all, it is completely racist to “point that out”, because it’s irrelevant to the topic. “Pointing it out” is intended to imply, clearly and loudly, that she and “most of these judges and DAs” are acting as they are because they are black. That is racist.

          But she didn’t “merely” point that out. She also make the utterly false and unfounded assertion that the judge’s family came from Haiti, and suggested that she herself might have as well. This is of course contrary to the very well known and easily ascertained facts, thus discrediting her and anything else she has to say. For the umpteenth time.

        Wim in reply to JR. | October 18, 2023 at 9:38 pm

        Actually, he may have a point there.

    Concise in reply to Gosport. | October 17, 2023 at 10:06 pm

    Uh, wasn’t Donald Trump the President? Maybe I’m mistaken here but that would mean he was a public servant. The highest ranking public servant in the country. And this hack had no problem vilifying him, on the record, in her own court room. What a frigging disgrace to the judiciary.

    CDR D in reply to Gosport. | October 18, 2023 at 11:37 am

    Vilifying “public servants” has been a National Sport since the beginning of the Republic.

      bhwms in reply to CDR D. | October 18, 2023 at 2:27 pm

      I always get a kick out of the Adams and Jefferson attacks on each other – well, by their surrogates. They were vicious compared to most political ads these days.

This is going to end up backfiring on the democrats.

Cannot “criticize” a witness or the substance of their testimony? What the @#$!!???? Why isn’t a separate action being filed to remove this biased, incompetent hack?

    Gosport in reply to Concise. | October 17, 2023 at 6:16 pm

    Now, let’s see her put the same restrictions on the prosecution and their minions in the press.

    Despicable leaks to the press from the govt side will be ignored by the court, as usual.

      Milhouse in reply to Gosport. | October 17, 2023 at 11:13 pm

      She did put it on the prosecution. Didn’t you read the article?!

      Members of the news industry are not parties to the case, so they’re not bound by the injunction.

        Gosport in reply to Milhouse. | October 17, 2023 at 11:25 pm

        I misspoke. To clarify, I meant let’s see her hold the prosecution to the same restrictions. Historically that hasn’t been the case in situations involving Trump, as I alluded to in the second sentence.

          Milhouse in reply to Gosport. | October 18, 2023 at 12:02 am

          In that case I agree with you. I don’t expect fairness from her, only as much appearance of fairness as she thinks sufficient to provide her with plausible deniability. She knows that appeals courts will review her decisions with a presumption in her favor, and she’s taking full advantage of that.

Now that a precedent has been set, can judges now prohibit journalists, movie producers, radio shows, podcasts and other media from speaking if that judge determines deems their actions may be detrimental to their case in their own little corner of the world?

    caseoftheblues in reply to George S. | October 17, 2023 at 7:00 pm

    Apparently judges are our new dictators. No law or or document like the Constitution or voter decision on what they want can impede their decrees

      Read the article. Nobody disputes that properly made gag orders are valid, and override the freedom of speech. The supreme court has said so multiple times, and in no uncertain terms. The dispute is only over whether this order is properly made. It seems to me that it is not, but that will be for an appeals court to decide, if and when Trump chooses to appeal it.

    Milhouse in reply to George S. | October 17, 2023 at 11:19 pm

    First of all, this does not set any precedent. That judges can gag parties to a trial is solidly established black-letter law, as the citations quoted in this article clearly show. NOBODY DISPUTES THAT. The only possible dispute is over whether this particular order is in line with the already-established precedents and limits on such orders. It seems to me that it is not, and should be overturned. But nobody disputes that such orders, if properly made, are valid and enforceable, and override the freedom of speech.

    Second, the people you name are not parties to the case. As far as I know nonparties cannot be subject to gag orders because they’re not under the judge’s jurisdiction.

So DJT doesn’t have constitutional rights because he is DJT ??

Sounds like lefties are making up the rules as they go.

How on Earth can Donald Trump taint the jury or the justice process anymore than they’re already tainted.

Chutkan is a documented racist who blames all her problems in life on white people.

Woke trash.

ugottabekiddinme | October 17, 2023 at 8:26 pm

I read that Local Crim Rule 57 for the DC District Court that she cites.

As to statements made outside the courtroom, it provides that an order can curtail those, but expressly for the purpose of protecting the DEFENDANT’s right to a fair and impartial trial.

In other words, gag orders usually apply to the prosecution, not the defense. The defendant ordinarily has an implicit motivation not to badmouth those who are prosecuting because anything said “can and will be used against” the defendant in court. But this is a president whose colorful language is often a quite effective communication. And I doubt he’ll be cowed.

Unfortunately, matters such this are largely left in the sole discretion of the trial judge, so I question whether it is even an appealable order before the trial.

Kangaroo Courts dowhat they want to win

I just watched Tucker Carlsons interview w/ Ken Paxton. Many similarities in the tactics used against him, the gag order being the biggie. Paxton blames Biden administration & Karl Rove.

“… or (4) any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of their testimony.”

How many Democrats in Washington are reasonably foreseeable as potential witnesses?

And… he’s prohibited from making any public statements at all regarding their testimony against him, or having anyone make such statements. Seems incredibly broad.

Does that mean he’s in violation of this order if anyone on his Campaign staff says that he is innocent? Presumably some witness or other is going to testify that he isn’t.

    Milhouse in reply to clintack. | October 18, 2023 at 8:47 am

    That sounds about right. Which means this order is not narrowly tailored, it’s incredibly broad, and it should be overturned on those grounds. Nobody is disputing that the judge has the right to make gag orders, but not like this one.

    Gosport in reply to clintack. | October 18, 2023 at 9:36 am

    Here’s another angle to consider. Her court isn’t the only one where Smith and his people are prosecuting Trump. So does her suppression order apply to actions in or related to other courts? If not how does one differentiate and who does the differentiation?

      Milhouse in reply to Gosport. | October 19, 2023 at 2:07 am

      It only applies to the case before her. What differentiation is needed? Either a person belongs to the categories she specified, or they don’t. What role, if any, they may play in a different case is irrelevant.

This bozo of a judge isn’t worthy of her own “People’s Court” program.

And she was rewarded for this by being passed another case where BLM is suing him, from what I understand. I’m certain she will be just as neutral and fair there as she is here. (zero being zero no matter how you measure it)

As a comment unrelated to any of Trumps legal or other problems and thoughts … I think we’d all be better off if he STFU in general …

This needs to go to appeals immediately. The Judge is gagging Trump but has done nothing to block Smith from letting info out that should not be out.

During the civil trial of former President Donald Trump on Wednesday, a court employee was arrested after attempting to approach the former President.

Court employee huh, would that be one of those “court staff” that the judge decided needed protecting from Trump’s WORDS?