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.”
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY