Judge Chutkan Reinstates Trump Gag Order in D.C. Case
Trump: “The Obama appointed Federal Judge in D.C, a TRUE TRUMP HATER, is incapable of giving me a fair trial. Her Hatred of President DONALD J. TRUMP is so great that she has been diagnosed with a major, and incurable, case of TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME!!!”
Judge Tanya Chutkan reinstated her gag order on President Donald Trump in relation to the D.C. January 6th case.
“As the court has explained, the First Amendment rights of participants in criminal proceedings must yield, when necessary, to the orderly administration of justice—a principle reflected in Supreme Court precedent, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Local Criminal Rules,” wrote Chutkan. “And contrary to Defendant’s argument, the right to a fair trial is not his alone, but belongs to the government and public.”
Chutkan issued the gag order on October 17. It says that Trump cannot criticize those with the case, including Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Chutkan believes his words “pose sufficiently grave threats to the integrity of these proceedings that cannot be addressed by alternative means.”
Trump appealed the gag order.
The judge froze the order on January 20 as “Smith’s team and Trump’s attorneys litigated whether it should be paused indefinitely during the appeals process.
Smith asked Chutkan to reinstate the gag order since Trump resumed posting about the case on Truth Social.
Trump lashed out at the decision last night:
I have just learned that the very Biased, Trump Hating Judge in D.C., who should have RECUSED herself due to her blatant and open loathing of your favorite President, ME, has reimposed a GAG ORDER which will put me at a disadvantage against my prosecutorial and political opponents. This order, according to many legal scholars, is unthinkable! It illegally and unconstitutionally takes away my First Amendment Right of Free Speech, in the middle of my campaign for President, where I am leading against BOTH Parties in the Polls. Few can believe this is happening, but I will appeal. How can they tell the leading candidate that he, and only he, is seriously restricted from campaigning in a free and open manner? It will not stand!
More: “The Corrupt Biden Administration just took away my First Amendment Right To Free Speech. NOT CONSTITUTIONAL! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN…”
This morning: “The Obama appointed Federal Judge in D.C, a TRUE TRUMP HATER, is incapable of giving me a fair trial. Her Hatred of President DONALD J. TRUMP is so great that she has been diagnosed with a major, and incurable, case of TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME!!!”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Chutkan is a documented racist who blames all her problems in life on white people.
Woke trash.
Is she? Where can one find this documentation?
I think DJT is pushing her to issue an arrest and incarceration order for violating the “gag’. If so, an interesting problem for the Secret Service. IMO, if DJT is jailed, his poll numbers will jump again.
The entire concept on which she bases this gag order, i.e. if someone is criticized by the defendant they cannot do their job properly, is ludicrous.
I cannot believe there is any legal precedent for this.
when applied to Trump legal precedents are whatever the judge wants them to be
BTW, what’s the hold up with the appeal of the gag?
Wasn’t there also a story out recently that the “Special Counsel” is spending ~10 million on security? Seems like he has adequate protection and is just crying to the judge to advance his political agenda and muzzle Trump.
Especially since she ALREADY cannot do her job properly.
All legal aspects of the J6 cases are extra-Constitutional. From Trump’s gag order to people who have not been convicted of a crime being jailed for 3 plus years awaiting trial. Right to a speedy trial? D.C. is where justice goes to die.
Congressmen cannot prohibit people from criticizing his staff.
The President cannot prohibit people from criticizing his staff.
In both those cases, the Judiciary would immediately declare that as Unconstitutional.
“… the right to a fair trial is not his alone, but belongs to the government and public.””
Anyone care to expound on this gem?
Sort of off subject, I now regret dismissing all those chances to “Draw Lucky.” Believing it was a short cut to entering art school. I now see it was also a means of achieving a coveted spot in the law school of my choice. Others more attentive to fine print obviously took advantage of this opportunity. Way to go ,girl!
I’m reminded of a phrase from “Hogan’s Heroes”:
You will be given a fair trial, and then you will be shot.
For years (until Heller), the left insisted that the only meaning of the Second Amendment was to allow the government to have guns.
In fact, they’re still saying it:
“The Second Amendment has always been about the militia and since 1903 the National Guard. It is not about the right to buy guns.”
That’s from just last week, in a NY newspaper!
Outrageous, but this is how statists actually think.
since the government is the ons conducting the trial,…….
What’s to expand? It’s very obviously correct. The government and the public are entitled to a fair trial. The right to one does not belong to the defendant alone, so he cannot waive it; at least not without the government’s consent. That’s straightforward and well-established.
The government and the public are not being tried, idiot.
When the Constitution speaks of a right to a fair trial it is speaking to the person on trail.
It is telling that person that the government that is trying them will act fairly, legally, and constitutionally.
It is not, in any way, saying that the person on trial must provide a ‘fair trial to the judge and the prosecuting attorneys.
But you continue speaking about things you clearly know nothing about.
How does the government—possessing ultimate power to harass the accused (as amply demonstrated in President Trump’s many cases)—have the gall to claim it can be put at any disadvantage? The government is the only group that can create the conditions for an unfair trial (unless we include mobsters’ and drug dealers’ ability to kill witnesses). This bizarre notion that government has some “right” to a fair trial is so vague it can be used indiscriminately, as it is here, to stop a defendant speaking out against injustice. Can’t see how this is fair or constitutional.
A “principle reflected” in supreme court precedent is not the same thing as a ruling from the supreme court.
Gag orders originated from courts prohibiting people on the inside from talking about what is going on inside to the outside — to protect the accused’s rights to a fair trial.
The government does not have any right to a fair trial. Or any rights for that matter. A right by definition is a freedom from government intervention. Who does the government need to be protected from?
In a perfect world, this gag order alone would have been more than sufficient for the Congress to impeach the judge right out of office followed by disbarment.
>In a perfect world, this gag order alone would have been more than sufficient for the Congress to impeach the judge right out of office followed by disbarment.
Unfortunately we live in the world where this radical judge was confirmed 95-0 by the Senate.
That is not true.
Nor is that.
The government has a right to a fair trial WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS ON TRIAL. And it is the government who must provide that fair trail– not the defendant.
I am not a lawyer but have been joined at the hip to more lawyers that I can count.
It seems to me that there are many issue about abuse like this that are actionable, including “Color of Law”.
What does it take to remove people like this from positions of authority, and then prosecute them?
It almost guarantees a mistrial. She should recuse herself and the venue should be changed. Trump is a threat to the jobs of almost all federal DC employees.
The Kangaroo Courts in session
The Kangaroo Courts in session
Now Here come the Judge
Here come the Judge
Remember the former President of the United States is being judged by a immigrant, legal but still a immigrant
There’s zero wrong with that and posting such is just a stupid distraction.
What’s wrong is that she’s a water-carrying Obama zombie and creature of the left. That’s her disqualifier.
So? Why should a former president not be judged by an immigrant?
I saw that on the Trump Trial in FL that Jack Smith’s team had to admit to the Judge they had not given all the required information to Trump’s Lawyers. Now we have in DC this biased Judge gag Trump, which is against the law and Smith’s team has not given all the required information to Trump’s Lawyers, but this DC Judge has no issue with it.
It clearly shows difference between two Judges, one in FL that is following the law and one in DC that is biased. In all Trump Trials they will end up in the Supreme Court.
I wonder why Trump didn’t ask the Fl judge to dismiss on the same grounds that he implored the DC judge?
Huh? They’re completely different cases. What would the grounds be for dismissal?