Read on Twitter
Reading now DC appellate court ruling that mostly upholds gag order on Trump.
One thing is very clear: This panel strongly refuted the media's description of the order as "narrow."
"The district court’s order, however, sweeps in more protected speech than is necessary."
One thing is very clear: This panel strongly refuted the media's description of the order as "narrow."
"The district court’s order, however, sweeps in more protected speech than is necessary."
On balance--while the Dem judges certainly take their shots at Trump--the decision is a defeat for Judge Chutkan and Jack Smith in particular.
As far as public statements re potential witnesses--Chutkan prohibited all comments on those individuals including former WH officials.
"The district court’s ban on speech that 'targets' witnesses and trial personnel reaches too far. The ordinary meaning of statements that 'target' a person is statements aimed at or directed toward a person or entity."
This ruling narrows the scope to include statements "concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding."
Noting that potential witnesses including individuals who speak critically of Trump (Bill Barr, Mark Milley, Mike Pence), the judges argue Trump has a right to fight back as long as it doesn't pertain to the trial.
"Mr. Trump has a First Amendment interest in publicly debating those individuals’ commentaries in a way that is independent of and disassociated from any role they might have in the trial. Yet the Order would proscribe such speech because it would speak about someone who is a reasonably foreseeable witness, even if Mr. Trump’s speech would have nothing to do with their witness role or the possible content of any testimony."
As far as public statements re potential witnesses--Chutkan prohibited all comments on those individuals including former WH officials.
"The district court’s ban on speech that 'targets' witnesses and trial personnel reaches too far. The ordinary meaning of statements that 'target' a person is statements aimed at or directed toward a person or entity."
This ruling narrows the scope to include statements "concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding."
Noting that potential witnesses including individuals who speak critically of Trump (Bill Barr, Mark Milley, Mike Pence), the judges argue Trump has a right to fight back as long as it doesn't pertain to the trial.
"Mr. Trump has a First Amendment interest in publicly debating those individuals’ commentaries in a way that is independent of and disassociated from any role they might have in the trial. Yet the Order would proscribe such speech because it would speak about someone who is a reasonably foreseeable witness, even if Mr. Trump’s speech would have nothing to do with their witness role or the possible content of any testimony."
OMG LOL this is so embarrassing for Jack Smith.
Recall--Smith is the one who asked for a gag order prohibiting Trump from posting mean things about him.
3 Dem judges basically said: put your big boy pants on
Recall--Smith is the one who asked for a gag order prohibiting Trump from posting mean things about him.
3 Dem judges basically said: put your big boy pants on
Chutkan gag order on left.
DC appellate court version on the right.
The framework of Chutkan's order mostly remains in tact but by narrowing prohibitions on public statements regarding witnesses and eliminating Jack Smith from the order's scope, the appellate court effectively debunks claims by Smith, Chutkan, and the media that her order was narrow. Anything but.
DC appellate court version on the right.
The framework of Chutkan's order mostly remains in tact but by narrowing prohibitions on public statements regarding witnesses and eliminating Jack Smith from the order's scope, the appellate court effectively debunks claims by Smith, Chutkan, and the media that her order was narrow. Anything but.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
