Protective order poses dilemma for Tanya Chutkan as Trump could use it to falsely attack the criminal case as political

A federal judge is expected to consider on Monday whether to impose a limited gag order on Donald Trump in the criminal case over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, potentially restricting what he can say about potential trial witnesses and prosecutors.

The decision for US district judge Tanya Chutkan at the hearing, scheduled for 10am in Washington, comes with unique challenges given the potential for Trump to test the limits of a protective order or even flout it outright – opening the explosive sanctions question of whether to jail him in response.

Since Trump was charged in August with conspiring to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power, prosecutors have complained in court filings that Trump has made dozens of prejudicial statements that could intimidate people from testifying against him at trial and poison the jury pool.

    • nucleative@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is probably a lot of truth to this. Nobody wants to be in the middle of whatever would become of that situation.

      • Nougat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        At this point, it does not matter what the court does. There will be violence. It’s just a matter of when, and to what degree. Postponing that only makes the inevitable violence worse.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Every judge in the country would likely be shitting themselves at the prospect of being the one to cross the Rubicon of imprisoning a former president and current presidential candidate

  • Bernie Ecclestoned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    A gag order would not be a good thing, this cretin keeps confessing to crimes in public, don’t stop him.

    • scratchee@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Otoh, if they tell him to keep quiet and he doesn’t (is he even capable of shutting up? His own lawyers have never stopped him flapping his jaw so far), that makes things much easier: contempt of court is a simple matter to resolve.

      • Bernie Ecclestoned
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Caveat that I’m not American, but wouldn’t that be spun as a free speech violation?

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          @BraveSirZaphod nailed it, but I wanted to add: Free speech is not unlimited, and it never has been. There are all sorts of classes of speech which rightly result in civil or criminal penalties. This notion that, when there is a conflict between rights, “free speech” always wins, is simply false.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            What you said is correct, but just to elaborate:

            The courts have established very specific categories where speech can be punished and/or restricted, including things like defamation, false advertising, and limited gag orders.

            At the same time, they have made it nearly impossible to establish new categories of speech restriction. That’s why courts uniformly reject arguments along the lines of “We have already restricted X speech, therefore free speech is not absolute, therefore we can now restrict Y speech”.

        • scratchee@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Neither am I, but yes, probably it would be spun that way.

          Possibly I was voicing my wish for a karmic result, rather than a politically pragmatic decision.

    • Cheradenine
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The gag order would be to keep him from unleashing his sycophants on the Judge, jury, and potential witnesses to sway them, or prevent their testimony.

    • dumdum666@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      For every additional crime he commits and confesses to, his base loves him more. This gag order would be there to protect the lives/livelihood of everyone involved in this case, from trumps base.

  • TipRing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    It looks like the order was narrowly crafted, but I’d be willing to bet that Trump still violates it by the end of the week.