The U.S. judge overseeing Donald Trump’s prosecution for allegedly criminally conspiring to overturn Joe Biden’s election victory said that while every American has a First Amendment right to free speech, it is “not absolute” and that even the former president’s campaign statements must yield to protecting the integrity of the judicial process.
In her first hearing over Trump’s federal case in D.C., U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan said that “the fact that he is running a political campaign” will have no bearing on her decisions and “must yield to the orderly administration of justice.”
“If that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say about witnesses in this case, then that’s how it’s going to be,” Chutkan said Friday, repeatedly warning the former president and his defense about limits on what he can potentially reveal about government evidence in the case. “To the extent your client wants to make statements on the internet, they have to always yield to witness security and witness safety.”
“I caution you and your client to take special care in your public statements about this case,” the judge said after the 90-minute hearing, “I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings.”
Chutkan’s warnings laid down an early marker in the case, even as she settled a fight between the sides over a protective order needed to speed the prosecution’s handover of materials and the court’s setting of a trial date, which special counsel Jack Smith’s team has proposed for Jan. 2.
In the hearing, Chutkan rejected the government’s request for a blanket protective order limiting sharing of all evidence released in the case. However, she mostly sided with prosecutors in granting them leeway to define “sensitive” materials subject to greater protections, adding that Trump’s defense had agreed to similar conditions in his pending special counsel prosecution in Florida on charges of mishandling classified documents and obstruction.
I feel like “Threatening the life of others” falls under the same category as Crying fire in a theater. You can’t claim first amendment when you’re actively endangering others.
Exactly. This wouldn’t even be a blip in the news if he weren’t a former president. Judges lock people up for contempt all the time for way less than he’s already said.
Most sane people agree you can’t tamper with witnesses or threaten prosecutors (or anyone). He just has a loud cult of rabid defenders who would believe the sky was purple if he said it.
Unfortunately, he has a cult of rabid followers who will try to get rid of anyone he labels “a priest”, leaving him to claim that he never did nothing, yer honor, I swears. Just like a mob boss, or Henry II.
Unfortunately it’s actually constitutional to tell “fire” in a crowded theater 😞
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
Check out “legacy”
So what you’re saying is we have to wait until his cries cause actual harm… Like Jan 6
So being tried for doing this already, and he’s doing it running up to his trial, we’re supposed to wait for what… a judge to die? Then we can charge him again but still not be able to censor him?
No I was just sharing my picayune knowledge of the “fire in a crowded theater” trope.
If Trump does things that can be seen as a threat or attempt to intimidate, he can be punished for it. He can have his ability to contact the outside world curtailed.
For better or worse we don’t have “pre crime” in America. He has to either do a crime or attempt to do a crime before we can sanction him.