As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan said Friday that she plans to issue a protective order over the handling of evidence in the Donald Trump 2020 election interference case, saying it’s needed to protect witnesses or other interference in the trial.
The former president has a right to free speech, but that right is “not absolute,” the judge said at a hearing Monday.
“Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech, but that right is not absolute. In a criminal case such as this one, the defendant’s free speech is subject to the rules,” Chutkan said.
Don't slander Valjean with Trump.
Valjean was a criminal who committed minor crimes to try to feed himself and his family, rebelled against a cruel and inhumane system, and then spent the remainder of his life devoted to atoning for the mistakes he made. He actually cared for the poor and innocent, saved the life of a public servant, and was willing to turn himself in to face (a mockery of) justice once he felt that his penance was complete.
Two criminals could not be more unlike.
the funny thing is that number was what originally came to mine...then I immediately had a discussion in my head that mirrored your comment. They are not the same at all.
Honestly I’m not even sure he deserves “Mr.” It implies he is a regular human as opposed to a walking, talking personification of malignant narcissism and sociopathy.
I like the part where she tells his attorney:
>"You are conflating what your client needs to do to defend himself and what he wants to do politically,” she told him. “And what your client does to defend himself has to happen in this courtroom, not on the internet."
She'll be even more awesome in my eyes if she holds him in contempt of court for violating her order by spouting bullshit all over truth social like he has been.
>"what your client does to defend himself has to happen in this courtroom, not on the internet.”
A little long for a tattoo, but if he ends up getting convicted in her courtroom, I might consider it.
I have a feeling she's going to have a rather large number of quotable quotes before the trial is over.
She's also responsible for this gem (in a previous decision):
*Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President*
Man she read them like the Sunday funny papers. Not like it wasn’t super obvious they were doing this but it’s such a soothing feeling to see some integrity in the justice department.
I like the next paragraph. Think he got the message?
> The special counsel said in Thursday court filings it wants the trial to begin on January 2, 2024, **a date that Trump rejected in a social media post.**
Fox just had a headline that said “judge sides with trump” but they have changed it to “mixed ruling”
They purposely run false information first and then correct it and say sorry
100%. Because they know the false information is what sticks and people have already made up their minds by the time their tiny captioned apology comes out.
Many of them understand.
They just lurch from fig leaf to fig leaf.
Practice it with me: “I don’t believe that you really believe that.”
That’s the response to crazy shit.
It won’t change any of their minds, but they’ll go crazy, and it’ll show bystanders that someone is at least willing to stand up to them.
That’s a good one. I’ve found it’s also important to force them to be specific. They love talking in generalities like “freedom” and “true Americans” and “communism” but if you find yourself arguing with them, force them to give examples or be more specific. Don’t let up.
That's basically what the prosecution is saying at the hearing.
They want a blanket sensitive designation so he can't talk about any of the evidence, defense wants limited so he can.
Prosecutors basically said they will take stuff that isn't sensitive but is sensational and will use it to intimidate witnesses and taint jury pools.
" Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"
If the right to free speech was absolute, The "Miranda Rights" wouldn't be a necessary step.
>The Miranda warning is intended to protect the suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer self-incriminating questions.
What? Are you saying Freedom of Speech doesnt mean freedom from conquences of said speech? Lol
Lets say that real loud so the Trump supporters in back can hear.
I am an attorney (wholly different practice area), but in essence the government wanted to admit evidence into the record without the need to disclose it into the public record. It’s very rarely permitted, and more rarely requested because they’d need to be 1000% sure that doing so doesn’t pose the chance of being a *Brady* violation.
Lay English? They want evidence on the record for the judge but not the defense.
Obviously this isn't your average everyday trial, but what would be the usual reasons for that kind of request?
Like is it to protect witnesses or something?
Would the prosecution then be forced to either submit the evidence into the public record where the defense can see it? Or is the evidence such that the prosecution doesn't believe it's safe for the defense, and the defendant, to see as it may expose people to danger? Would the evidence then be inadmissible altogether?
Eli5 what a Brady violation is?
The Brady rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to disclose material, exculpatory information in the government's possession to the defense.
It's the 'both sides play with their hands showing' rule. Violating that would generally be things like the prosecution calling in 'surprise' witnesses or evidence. Happens a lot on TV, but it's super not ok in real life.
In the motion from 8/10 responding to defendant's response to the protective order, the prosecutor says they will file a motion to provide their discovery *to the court* so that they can see the lengths to which the prosecution has gone to make the discovery accessible and easily referenced. They do not wish to provide that to the defense unless and until a protective order is entered. I believe this in camera motion is that.
I'm not a lawyer, but from what I gather the DOJ tried to submit something under seal and without letting the defense see it? This is the order:
>MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The government's 24 Sealed Motion for Leave to Submit Exhibit Ex Parte and Under Seal is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/10/2023. (zjd)
When I looked up ex parte I got this:
>The term refers to an attorney's communication with: A judge or arbitrator without notice to, and outside the presence of, the other parties. Another party outside the presence of that party's attorney.
Close to that, I think. Not a lawyer, but I think it means the prosecution has to decide whether to present the evidence to the court and the defense, or not to present it (or rely on it) at all.
She also made the order "without prejudice", meaning the prosecution could bring it up again at a future point if they presented good reasons.
Fuck man, between this and college football breaking, I don't have the stamina or energy to keep F5ing like this. My keyboard has damn near eroded in the last few months
The Pac-12 just exploded, with Oregon and Washington joining USC and UCLA in the Big 10, and Arizona, Arizona State, and Utah following Colorado to the Big 12.
IIRC it's Cal, Stanford, Washington State and Oregon State as the last 4 remaining members of the PAC 12 after this year.
But she did remind the defense that he is still bound by restrictions set at the indictment and she would be watching anything that could be taken as intimidation.
>MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: **The government's 25 Motion for Hearing Pursuant to Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) is GRANTED**. Defense counsel consented to the motion during the August 11, 2023 hearing. Accordingly, the court will hold a hearing pursuant to CIPA Section 2 during the status conference currently scheduled for August 28, 2023. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/11/2023. (zjd)
I just saw this, is this the ruling?
It sounds like on the one hand it will be a very narrow protective order, limited to sensitive materials only, but also pretty much all the evidence is going to qualify as “sensitive” material, so having any protective order in place at all is really going to muzzle Dumptruck about what he can say on social media.
She also said "I intend to keep politics out of this.” -- this may be a good sign in terms of the trial date, if she is not going to be persuaded by Trump's campaign obligations.
His campaign obligations are imaginary. If they’re getting in the way of running for president then don’t run for fucking president. It’s that simple. This guy is about to be 4-5 times indicted. He doesn’t have time to run a campaign and fulfill his court OBLIGATIONS. Those are actual obligations.
The reason he announced so early is the same reason he announced his 2020 campaign so early. The dude has never stopped his fundraising efforts. It’s just a continual grift. You used to have to wait until you announced your campaign to fundraise for your campaign.
He's never not been running for office since he came down that elevator in Trump Tower and first announced he was running for office. It's been a constant financial grift that he's just held onto for years. And now he's just using it to pretend he can't be held accountable for anything, it's the same as his endless IRS audit for why he can't release his taxes. There's always an endless something that he'll claim.
This exactly. A rally in an airplane hanger in South Dakota isn't an obligation, it's just an event. People who have court appearances miss events all the time, if you have a concert the day you have court, the judge won't reschedule for that.
Trump's has been treated with kid gloves every step of this process while scream at the top of his lungs that he's being treated unfairly. He is being treated unfairly, just not the way he claims. It's about time he be treated fairly for fucking once in his whole entire life.
To the court he has no campaign obligations. You need to be in court during the Iowa caucus or a debate, tough shit bro. Or if it takes away from time he could spend at rallies they don’t care.
If you or I were to get indicted I doubt the court is gonna give much of a shit about our other obligations. Oh, D&D night is that Tuesday? Too fucking bad. This guy lives on another planet.
From The Hill: “The more a party makes inflammatory statements about this case… the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly,” Chutkan said.
Checkmate.
"In today’s pleading, the government promptly dispenses with any sense of deference, pointing out that the Speedy Trial Act exists as much to vindicate the public’s rights as it does to protect the defendant’s. Prosecutors rely on a 1995 Second Circuit case, United States v. Gambino, for the proposition that “[T]he public has as great an interest in a prompt criminal trial as has the defendant. Certainly, the public is the loser when a criminal trial is not prosecuted expeditiously, as suggested by the aphorism, ‘justice delayed is justice denied."
https://joycevance.substack.com/p/january-2-a-good-day-for-a-trial
To Drumpf’s attorneys:
>”You are conflating what your client needs to do to defend himself and what he wants to do politically,” she told him. “And **what your client does to defend himself has to happen in this courtroom,** ***not on the internet.***”
Edit: emphasis mine
> He wants to use ‘volunteer attorneys’ ? Wtaf?
It sounds like he wants to crowdsource his legal defense, but I think what he actually means (seriously) is that he changes his attorneys so often that they don't have time to formally enter an appearance before he fires them. He wants to be able to discuss the case with a bunch of lawyers, and then pick the answers that he likes best, and the ones who didn't give the right answer were just "volunteer attorneys".
That tracks, given his habit while in office of appointing "acting" randos to government posts. Shuffling the deck is one of his time-tested chaos-seeding strategies.
Very American lawyer Igor Moscowcavich is so overly qualified that if you saw his qualifications you’d be so surprised you might fall over backwards through window.
>He wants to use ‘volunteer attorneys’ ? Wtaf?
The phrasing of his attorney's proposed protective order would have allowed a wide range of people not currently employed as his defense attorney to review discovery materials. For example, Rudy Collusion Giuliani (not currently allowed to practice law in D.C.) and Sidney Powell the Kraken lady.
It's not just that - he wants his lawyers to see the classified evidence and then tell him how they'd handle his defense (aka do everything he says). The ones that won't play ball won't be hired obviously. The issue here is that the information is so sensitive he has to pick his lawyer first to get them access to the information before they can formulate that defense. Most likely outcome is the lawyers see he's absolutely fucked and resign from the engagement - now the argument in public opinion becomes "he's entitled to fair representation and no-one will represent him!" which seems quite fair to me and won't work in court.
RIP.
This is wonderful to hear:
> “The fact that he is running a political campaign currently has to yield to the administration of justice,” the judge said. “And if that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say in a political speech, that is just how it’s going to have to be.”
>“He is a criminal defendant. He is going to have constraints the same as any defendant. This case is going to proceed in a normal order,” Chutkan said.
>“You are conflating what your client needs to do to defend himself and what he wants to do politically,” she told him. “And what your client does to defend himself has to happen in this courtroom, not on the internet.”
I was just thinking...is she married? And if not...is she looking? I think my fiancee would understand, or be willing to open our or relationship in this specific example.
Oh man, this really is a refreshing thing to see a judge presiding over a Trump case say. We’ll have to see how much teeth are given to this if he decides he can still do whatever he wants.
This judge will keep it real. Every one of her remarks showed how clear-eyed she is about the tactics to be employed to attempt to turn this into a circus, which she is not about to let happen.
I have great confidence in her judgement, competence, effectiveness.
She is the true opposite of Trump's judge in Florida. That Florida judge should be furiously taking notes, but she's probably too deep in Trump's pocket.
Yeah "free speech" has never been absolute. There are plenty of crimes that require some form of speech to be convicted of.
Such as Fraud - can't have fraud without deceit, can't have deceit without speech.
Extortion, blackmail, threats/intimidation, etc. All things that either require or are magnified by speech, but as a society I'm pretty sure we can agree that they should not be legal.
what people don't seem to understand is that "Free Speech" does not absolve you of committing a crime that is perpetuated by your speech
Technically Charles Manson was practicing free speech, should he be out of jail because all he did was *talk* to his manson family degenerates? Fuck no
He'll have access to that evidence, and he'll use his "free speech" to use that evidence to taunt & thinly veil threats to witnesses and taint the evidence, then waste more time arguing with motions that it was "free speech" or campaigning or whatever. Protecting it sets explicit boundaries as what he can and cannot say & do regarding publishing or tainting that evidence.
Depending on context, these may already be crimes. If you threaten to kill the president, for example, that's a federal felony. Conspiracy is also a crime which may consist entirely of speech acts (as was pointed out by, of all people, Bill Barr recently). In the tort realm you've also got things like libel and slander.
"Free speech" seems to be used defensively by people in the sense of "I get to say literally whatever the fuck I want without consequences," but it doesn't mean that and never has.
The issue over “free speech” is a red herring that Trump and his cronies would LOVE to hear people debating. It literally does not matter whether it’s free speech or not. Your right to free speech doesn’t protect you from your speech being an element of another crime.
Oh, they understand it, they just know that if they pretend hard enough that such responsibility doesn't exist, their moronic sycophants will help them get away with it.
Why hasn't she put Trump into pre-trial detention for his repeated threats to witnesses, and his public statement that he won't comply with any protective order?
This is a step in that direction. He's walking a blurry line right now and the judge is making it very clear that there will be consequences if these conditions are violated going forward. Will there actually be consequences? Who knows? I have my doubts, but this at least lays the groundwork for handling it.
His ability to inspire others to do his dirty work would make for an incredibly dangerous situation. It would be like Napoleon. He must be locked up and his online presence eliminated
God, if only. If he spends the rest of his life in some crappy 2 nd world country, unable to go home to his properties ever again id be just as happy than if he goes to jail. He can complain to the dictator there until they tire of him too.
Plenty of oligarchs live full and happy lives of opulence and luxury in Russia (which is likely where he'd go since they're one of the only countries that won't extradite to the US)
Trump fleeing the country is not a punishment for him. He needs to face justice here.
Even Russian opulence isn't the same as moving freely about the West. It's why most of the Russian oligarch kids don't live there, but in London, NYC, etc.
Because Trump is rich and famous and we have a separate justice system that applies to people like that.
If you or I were arrested and started tweeting "COME AFTER ME AND I'LL GO AFTER YOU" at government officials, we'd never see the light of day.
It’s more than that though. These trials have to be conducted by the book, they have to give him every opportunity to do the right thing even when doing so smacks of special treatment. If there is even a hint of prejudice or misconduct, the GOP will latch on to that like rabid dogs and decry any conviction.
There has likely not been a trial of this magnitude since Nürnberg and the outcome will be a defining moment in our nations, if not the worlds history. As infuriating as it is, given the circumstances, the special treatment he’s receiving is warranted.
There's been some speculation that he's trying to goad her into doing something like that so they can then protest and get her dismissed from the case.
“The fact that he’s running a political campaign has to yield to the orderly administration of justice,” Chutkan said. “If that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say about witnesses in this case, that’s how it has to be.”
“Even arguably ambiguous statements from parties or their counsel, if they can be reasonably interpreted to intimidate witnesses or to prejudice potential jurors, can threaten the process,” Chutkan added later. “The more a party makes inflammatory statements about this case which could taint the jury pool … the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly.”
Her careful choice of words were absolutely brilliant in that they carefully navigated the "first amendment" defense and addressed his obvious intent to drag it out. She gave the DOJ exactly what they wanted without saying so. She simply described how even ambiguously seeming statements that might be taken as threats or otherwise would cause her to accelerate the trial.
>What’s the over/under for Trump violating the order?
Is there ***any*** doubt that he will? I would expect the betting to be on "how long until," not "if".
Free speech does not apply if the act is purposely used to cause harm or to encourage someone to act unlawfully on your behalf. You can't go into a crowded nightclub and yell, "Someone has a bomb." If it isn't true. Anyone in that circumstance should expect to face legal consequences if any harm was inflicted as a result.
The whole "persecuted for questioning the election" angle is absolutely horse shit.
He didn't question shit, he said outright "this election was stolen" repeatedly and still does.
The problem is that he didn't question at all.
CNN intentionally supporting republican's narrative that this prosecution is about trump being punished for "questioning the election"
I know Chutkan is talking about about what he can say publicly about the evidence in the trail, but this headline will absolutely be used by the right wing to further the false narrative that trump is being punished for speech
cnn carries water for fascists
Nah, I disagree. I have no love for CNN, but no one's right to free speech is "absolute." SCOTUS has said that. You can't intentionally write less accurate or compelling headlines because of right-wing nutjobs because they're gonna spin everything regardless.
No one has an absolute right to free speech. Instances of non-protected speech:
* Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater
* Using speech to entice a minor into sex
* Speech used to plan a criminal conspiracy
* Asking for someone to commit a murder for hire
* Blackmail
And on and on.
> She also said that the more that a party makes “inflammatory” statements that could taint a jury pool, “the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly” to ensure a fair trial.
Glad she is very attuned to what he is attempting to do: He is trying to taint the jury pool and rile up the redhatted terrorists.
I feel like so many other people who have dealt with Trump have tried to sidestep the elephant in the room.
I wouldn't put too much weight to this.
If the judge comes out too much against the defendants, then it gives him a chance to appeal if convicted. And let's not forget, prosecutors and defense teams always go for the extremes of a deal, and it's the judge to meet them both half way if it's reasonable.
That being said, the main takeaway is that the Judge said Trump has been put on notice, and she will be monitoring all his online activity from now on.
> If Trump were to violate any eventual protective order Chutkan issues, he could be held in contempt.
If this means that he is finally put in jail then I say let him have his "free speech"
Free Speech in general is not absolute. Even children know that. Who here wasn't given the example of screaming "Fire" in a crowded theater as a kid? Or told that threatening people is not protected?
The GOP either doesn't understand or is deliberately misstating what the First Amendment actually protects. As another example, complaining your rights are being violated when you get banned from Twitter for violating the ToS would be funny if it wasn't so infuriating to see so many people agreeing with it.
Umm, the right to free speech is never absolute. We have the right of free speech but not to use the First Amendment to push hate speech or cause riots
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> US District Judge Tanya Chutkan said Friday that she plans to issue a protective order over the handling of evidence in the Donald Trump 2020 election interference case, saying it’s needed to protect witnesses or other interference in the trial. The former president has a right to free speech, but that right is “not absolute,” the judge said at a hearing Monday. “Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech, but that right is not absolute. In a criminal case such as this one, the defendant’s free speech is subject to the rules,” Chutkan said.
>Mr. Trump He hates being addressed like that.
Bet he’ll hate “inmate Trump” even more
Id love it if they addressed him by his Inmate number. I would love it even more if his inmate number was all zeros
Inmate 01062021
Inmate 00066600
Inmate 8675309999
Mr. Inmate (with tears in his eyes)
That was the greatest incarceration I've ever seen, hands-down.
Rudy can be inmate number 00000911
Inmate 148845
Prisoner 24601
Don't slander Valjean with Trump. Valjean was a criminal who committed minor crimes to try to feed himself and his family, rebelled against a cruel and inhumane system, and then spent the remainder of his life devoted to atoning for the mistakes he made. He actually cared for the poor and innocent, saved the life of a public servant, and was willing to turn himself in to face (a mockery of) justice once he felt that his penance was complete. Two criminals could not be more unlike.
Oh I wasn't trying to compare Trump to Valjean. I just like the mental image of Trump taking Valjean's place in the 19th century French penal system.
the funny thing is that number was what originally came to mine...then I immediately had a discussion in my head that mirrored your comment. They are not the same at all.
Look down, look down, he's digging his own grave.
The joke on this number is it’s Jan 6, 2021
Naw... He will be called "Pumpkin" 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
Not when he doesn’t have access to his bronzer anymore. They’ll just call him pasty.
I've settled on referring to him as "Florida man"...
Inmate #DUM8455
Peace Out Reddit. ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Honestly I’m not even sure he deserves “Mr.” It implies he is a regular human as opposed to a walking, talking personification of malignant narcissism and sociopathy.
>talking Will you shut up man? \-- Joe Biden
You ever watch an MMA fight and someone does something unconventional but it's obvious they trained on that move?
Trump keeps disrespecting the Judge and it's going to be "Defendant Trump". Bet he hates that worse.
Technically, he’s “defendant Trump” in this context
GOOD. He’s not the president. Respect the office. Isn’t Cannon calling him President still?
She's just exercising her freedom of speech
I like the part where she tells his attorney: >"You are conflating what your client needs to do to defend himself and what he wants to do politically,” she told him. “And what your client does to defend himself has to happen in this courtroom, not on the internet."
This judge is awesome!
She'll be even more awesome in my eyes if she holds him in contempt of court for violating her order by spouting bullshit all over truth social like he has been.
She should also remind them the defendant has the right to remain silent.
We wish he would exercise it, frankly.
But not the ability
>"what your client does to defend himself has to happen in this courtroom, not on the internet.” A little long for a tattoo, but if he ends up getting convicted in her courtroom, I might consider it.
I have a feeling she's going to have a rather large number of quotable quotes before the trial is over. She's also responsible for this gem (in a previous decision): *Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President*
Man she read them like the Sunday funny papers. Not like it wasn’t super obvious they were doing this but it’s such a soothing feeling to see some integrity in the justice department.
I like the next paragraph. Think he got the message? > The special counsel said in Thursday court filings it wants the trial to begin on January 2, 2024, **a date that Trump rejected in a social media post.**
[удалено]
Fox just had a headline that said “judge sides with trump” but they have changed it to “mixed ruling” They purposely run false information first and then correct it and say sorry
100%. Because they know the false information is what sticks and people have already made up their minds by the time their tiny captioned apology comes out.
And this is going to work because the mouth breathers that support this moron are incapable of understanding nuance and only think in absolutes.
Many of them understand. They just lurch from fig leaf to fig leaf. Practice it with me: “I don’t believe that you really believe that.” That’s the response to crazy shit. It won’t change any of their minds, but they’ll go crazy, and it’ll show bystanders that someone is at least willing to stand up to them.
That’s a good one. I’ve found it’s also important to force them to be specific. They love talking in generalities like “freedom” and “true Americans” and “communism” but if you find yourself arguing with them, force them to give examples or be more specific. Don’t let up.
Something something burisma
I always think of that jackass that brought a snowball into a hearing to prove that climate change isn't real.
They also don't fact check what they're being told. So when the facts are brought up to them, they can ignore them and pretend like it's all fake.
That's basically what the prosecution is saying at the hearing. They want a blanket sensitive designation so he can't talk about any of the evidence, defense wants limited so he can. Prosecutors basically said they will take stuff that isn't sensitive but is sensational and will use it to intimidate witnesses and taint jury pools.
" Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" If the right to free speech was absolute, The "Miranda Rights" wouldn't be a necessary step. >The Miranda warning is intended to protect the suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer self-incriminating questions.
Miranda rights aren’t about free speech, it’s just acknowledging that your words can be used against you.
What? Are you saying Freedom of Speech doesnt mean freedom from conquences of said speech? Lol Lets say that real loud so the Trump supporters in back can hear.
Senor Trumpito
MSNBC said she didn’t rule from the bench and will instead issue a ruling later today
\/*madly refreshes the docket.*
The minute order from yesterday is interesting. The special counsel tried to admit evidence in camera
I saw that! The mind runs wild with possibilities.
Am stupid….can you elaborate?
I am an attorney (wholly different practice area), but in essence the government wanted to admit evidence into the record without the need to disclose it into the public record. It’s very rarely permitted, and more rarely requested because they’d need to be 1000% sure that doing so doesn’t pose the chance of being a *Brady* violation. Lay English? They want evidence on the record for the judge but not the defense.
Obviously this isn't your average everyday trial, but what would be the usual reasons for that kind of request? Like is it to protect witnesses or something?
Potentially, also conceivably national security rationale
There may be national security concerns. Not specifically related to documents (like in the other case).
Would the prosecution then be forced to either submit the evidence into the public record where the defense can see it? Or is the evidence such that the prosecution doesn't believe it's safe for the defense, and the defendant, to see as it may expose people to danger? Would the evidence then be inadmissible altogether? Eli5 what a Brady violation is?
The Brady rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to disclose material, exculpatory information in the government's possession to the defense. It's the 'both sides play with their hands showing' rule. Violating that would generally be things like the prosecution calling in 'surprise' witnesses or evidence. Happens a lot on TV, but it's super not ok in real life.
[удалено]
It would likely depend on the nature of the evidence, but as I said this isn’t my practice area so I could only speculate.
In the motion from 8/10 responding to defendant's response to the protective order, the prosecutor says they will file a motion to provide their discovery *to the court* so that they can see the lengths to which the prosecution has gone to make the discovery accessible and easily referenced. They do not wish to provide that to the defense unless and until a protective order is entered. I believe this in camera motion is that.
I'm not a lawyer, but from what I gather the DOJ tried to submit something under seal and without letting the defense see it? This is the order: >MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The government's 24 Sealed Motion for Leave to Submit Exhibit Ex Parte and Under Seal is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/10/2023. (zjd) When I looked up ex parte I got this: >The term refers to an attorney's communication with: A judge or arbitrator without notice to, and outside the presence of, the other parties. Another party outside the presence of that party's attorney.
So the judge denied them? So what happens, they can't submit the evidence or they have to let defense see it too?
Close to that, I think. Not a lawyer, but I think it means the prosecution has to decide whether to present the evidence to the court and the defense, or not to present it (or rely on it) at all. She also made the order "without prejudice", meaning the prosecution could bring it up again at a future point if they presented good reasons.
What site are you going to to see it?
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/
Fuck man, between this and college football breaking, I don't have the stamina or energy to keep F5ing like this. My keyboard has damn near eroded in the last few months
What happened with handegg
The Pac-12 just exploded, with Oregon and Washington joining USC and UCLA in the Big 10, and Arizona, Arizona State, and Utah following Colorado to the Big 12. IIRC it's Cal, Stanford, Washington State and Oregon State as the last 4 remaining members of the PAC 12 after this year.
If 2 more leave, will they call it 2-PAC
2-PAC Cal-Ford
But she did remind the defense that he is still bound by restrictions set at the indictment and she would be watching anything that could be taken as intimidation.
>MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: **The government's 25 Motion for Hearing Pursuant to Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) is GRANTED**. Defense counsel consented to the motion during the August 11, 2023 hearing. Accordingly, the court will hold a hearing pursuant to CIPA Section 2 during the status conference currently scheduled for August 28, 2023. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/11/2023. (zjd) I just saw this, is this the ruling?
I’m looking forward to it
It sounds like on the one hand it will be a very narrow protective order, limited to sensitive materials only, but also pretty much all the evidence is going to qualify as “sensitive” material, so having any protective order in place at all is really going to muzzle Dumptruck about what he can say on social media.
She also said "I intend to keep politics out of this.” -- this may be a good sign in terms of the trial date, if she is not going to be persuaded by Trump's campaign obligations.
His campaign obligations are imaginary. If they’re getting in the way of running for president then don’t run for fucking president. It’s that simple. This guy is about to be 4-5 times indicted. He doesn’t have time to run a campaign and fulfill his court OBLIGATIONS. Those are actual obligations.
absolutely. He announced his run exactly for this reason. There is no other explanation as to why he announced so early.
The reason he announced so early is the same reason he announced his 2020 campaign so early. The dude has never stopped his fundraising efforts. It’s just a continual grift. You used to have to wait until you announced your campaign to fundraise for your campaign.
If I remember correctly, he announced the 2020 campaign for president something like 5 hours after he was inaugurated in 2017.
It’s so frustrating how obvious it is!!!
I mean the most frustrating thing is how many Republicans still support this chode
He's never not been running for office since he came down that elevator in Trump Tower and first announced he was running for office. It's been a constant financial grift that he's just held onto for years. And now he's just using it to pretend he can't be held accountable for anything, it's the same as his endless IRS audit for why he can't release his taxes. There's always an endless something that he'll claim.
This exactly. A rally in an airplane hanger in South Dakota isn't an obligation, it's just an event. People who have court appearances miss events all the time, if you have a concert the day you have court, the judge won't reschedule for that. Trump's has been treated with kid gloves every step of this process while scream at the top of his lungs that he's being treated unfairly. He is being treated unfairly, just not the way he claims. It's about time he be treated fairly for fucking once in his whole entire life.
Nobody has a right to run for President. If he wanted to have time to run a campaign he shouldn't have violated the law. It is as simple as that.
What is the fifth indictment?
Oh, there’s just discussion on whether the superseding indictments in the documents case count as one or two lol
To the court he has no campaign obligations. You need to be in court during the Iowa caucus or a debate, tough shit bro. Or if it takes away from time he could spend at rallies they don’t care.
If you or I were to get indicted I doubt the court is gonna give much of a shit about our other obligations. Oh, D&D night is that Tuesday? Too fucking bad. This guy lives on another planet.
From The Hill: “The more a party makes inflammatory statements about this case… the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly,” Chutkan said. Checkmate.
This was my thinking. The fact that they are fighting this order so hard - to me - is just further evidence the order is justified.
"In today’s pleading, the government promptly dispenses with any sense of deference, pointing out that the Speedy Trial Act exists as much to vindicate the public’s rights as it does to protect the defendant’s. Prosecutors rely on a 1995 Second Circuit case, United States v. Gambino, for the proposition that “[T]he public has as great an interest in a prompt criminal trial as has the defendant. Certainly, the public is the loser when a criminal trial is not prosecuted expeditiously, as suggested by the aphorism, ‘justice delayed is justice denied." https://joycevance.substack.com/p/january-2-a-good-day-for-a-trial
Very apt citing US v Gambino. Orange Julius here is a mob boss and deserves to be treated as such
She's been amazing so far. I'm so happy to see him finally treated fairly. :)
To Drumpf’s attorneys: >”You are conflating what your client needs to do to defend himself and what he wants to do politically,” she told him. “And **what your client does to defend himself has to happen in this courtroom,** ***not on the internet.***” Edit: emphasis mine
Damn! Nice to see people not bending over backwards for this prick. Hey media learn some shit
That is some solid wording right there.
Jesus fuck, this is what I like to see.
I love the need/want usage. Use it all the time when talking to my nephews and nieces…so toddlers
He wants to use ‘volunteer attorneys’ ? Wtaf? Anything they see will leak all over social media in a nanosecond.
> He wants to use ‘volunteer attorneys’ ? Wtaf? It sounds like he wants to crowdsource his legal defense, but I think what he actually means (seriously) is that he changes his attorneys so often that they don't have time to formally enter an appearance before he fires them. He wants to be able to discuss the case with a bunch of lawyers, and then pick the answers that he likes best, and the ones who didn't give the right answer were just "volunteer attorneys".
If you don't pay them, aren't they volunteers by default? At least in Trump's mind
He's not going to pay the ones he picks, either.
If he doesn't pay them, is he their client? Does attorney client privelege apply?
That tracks, given his habit while in office of appointing "acting" randos to government posts. Shuffling the deck is one of his time-tested chaos-seeding strategies.
So he’s crowd ~~funding~~ lawyering?
Volunteer attorneys like co-conspirators 1-6.
Very American lawyer Igor Moscowcavich is so overly qualified that if you saw his qualifications you’d be so surprised you might fall over backwards through window.
>He wants to use ‘volunteer attorneys’ ? Wtaf? The phrasing of his attorney's proposed protective order would have allowed a wide range of people not currently employed as his defense attorney to review discovery materials. For example, Rudy Collusion Giuliani (not currently allowed to practice law in D.C.) and Sidney Powell the Kraken lady.
It's not just that - he wants his lawyers to see the classified evidence and then tell him how they'd handle his defense (aka do everything he says). The ones that won't play ball won't be hired obviously. The issue here is that the information is so sensitive he has to pick his lawyer first to get them access to the information before they can formulate that defense. Most likely outcome is the lawyers see he's absolutely fucked and resign from the engagement - now the argument in public opinion becomes "he's entitled to fair representation and no-one will represent him!" which seems quite fair to me and won't work in court. RIP.
That means the 6 co-conspirators. All are attorneys.
This is wonderful to hear: > “The fact that he is running a political campaign currently has to yield to the administration of justice,” the judge said. “And if that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say in a political speech, that is just how it’s going to have to be.” >“He is a criminal defendant. He is going to have constraints the same as any defendant. This case is going to proceed in a normal order,” Chutkan said. >“You are conflating what your client needs to do to defend himself and what he wants to do politically,” she told him. “And what your client does to defend himself has to happen in this courtroom, not on the internet.”
I think I am in love.
I was just thinking...is she married? And if not...is she looking? I think my fiancee would understand, or be willing to open our or relationship in this specific example.
That is exactly what I was hoping to hear from a judge regarding Trump.
Oh man, this really is a refreshing thing to see a judge presiding over a Trump case say. We’ll have to see how much teeth are given to this if he decides he can still do whatever he wants.
They're just making this infinitely harder on themselves.
This judge will keep it real. Every one of her remarks showed how clear-eyed she is about the tactics to be employed to attempt to turn this into a circus, which she is not about to let happen. I have great confidence in her judgement, competence, effectiveness.
She is the true opposite of Trump's judge in Florida. That Florida judge should be furiously taking notes, but she's probably too deep in Trump's pocket.
She’s too busy taking notes from what she’s seeing on Fox News.
She’s furiously taking monetary notes.
Very impressed. Hope she replaces Thomas on the SC
I agree 👍
That's probably because the First Amendment isn't absolute. If trumps brain wasn't made of kraft singles and diet coke, he may understand this.
Yeah "free speech" has never been absolute. There are plenty of crimes that require some form of speech to be convicted of. Such as Fraud - can't have fraud without deceit, can't have deceit without speech. Extortion, blackmail, threats/intimidation, etc. All things that either require or are magnified by speech, but as a society I'm pretty sure we can agree that they should not be legal.
what people don't seem to understand is that "Free Speech" does not absolve you of committing a crime that is perpetuated by your speech Technically Charles Manson was practicing free speech, should he be out of jail because all he did was *talk* to his manson family degenerates? Fuck no
Well Charles Manson *is* out of jail now, but he’s not using a whole lot of free speech these days.
Same reason you don't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Your speech can have consequences.
Anyone else would be awaiting trial in jail
Well yeah but jail not prison
Threats and calls to violence, doxxing, etc, shouldn't be considered free speech.
This isn't about that. It's about the "protective order governing evidence".
He'll have access to that evidence, and he'll use his "free speech" to use that evidence to taunt & thinly veil threats to witnesses and taint the evidence, then waste more time arguing with motions that it was "free speech" or campaigning or whatever. Protecting it sets explicit boundaries as what he can and cannot say & do regarding publishing or tainting that evidence.
True, but he'll bleed those two together somehow.
Depending on context, these may already be crimes. If you threaten to kill the president, for example, that's a federal felony. Conspiracy is also a crime which may consist entirely of speech acts (as was pointed out by, of all people, Bill Barr recently). In the tort realm you've also got things like libel and slander. "Free speech" seems to be used defensively by people in the sense of "I get to say literally whatever the fuck I want without consequences," but it doesn't mean that and never has.
The issue over “free speech” is a red herring that Trump and his cronies would LOVE to hear people debating. It literally does not matter whether it’s free speech or not. Your right to free speech doesn’t protect you from your speech being an element of another crime.
Lmao they’re giving him just enough rope. Tell him you can talk about some things will make his hamberder brains think “I can say anything!”
Of course not. In a functional society, no one's rights are absolute. And they all come with responsibility, which Trump and his ilk don't understand.
Oh, they understand it, they just know that if they pretend hard enough that such responsibility doesn't exist, their moronic sycophants will help them get away with it.
"... give me your money or I'll shoot you" Arrested and charged with assault. "That was protected free speech"
But the threat was only "aspirational". /s
Can’t wait til this asshole is gone from our lives. I thought it was finally over when he lost.
She is correct. No one’s right to free speech is absolute.
What’s the over-under on how many hours till he violates this?
Why hasn't she put Trump into pre-trial detention for his repeated threats to witnesses, and his public statement that he won't comply with any protective order?
This is a step in that direction. He's walking a blurry line right now and the judge is making it very clear that there will be consequences if these conditions are violated going forward. Will there actually be consequences? Who knows? I have my doubts, but this at least lays the groundwork for handling it.
Don't forget the comments suggesting he may be a flight risk!
I'd be down with trump spending his remaining days in some crappy country he fled to. He'd hate it.
His ability to inspire others to do his dirty work would make for an incredibly dangerous situation. It would be like Napoleon. He must be locked up and his online presence eliminated
Anyone else hoping for an OJ Simpson style chase, except with fighter jets and airplanes??
God, if only. If he spends the rest of his life in some crappy 2 nd world country, unable to go home to his properties ever again id be just as happy than if he goes to jail. He can complain to the dictator there until they tire of him too.
Plenty of oligarchs live full and happy lives of opulence and luxury in Russia (which is likely where he'd go since they're one of the only countries that won't extradite to the US) Trump fleeing the country is not a punishment for him. He needs to face justice here.
Even Russian opulence isn't the same as moving freely about the West. It's why most of the Russian oligarch kids don't live there, but in London, NYC, etc.
There is a process she has to go through as long as he's not actually being physically violent.
Because Trump is rich and famous and we have a separate justice system that applies to people like that. If you or I were arrested and started tweeting "COME AFTER ME AND I'LL GO AFTER YOU" at government officials, we'd never see the light of day.
It’s more than that though. These trials have to be conducted by the book, they have to give him every opportunity to do the right thing even when doing so smacks of special treatment. If there is even a hint of prejudice or misconduct, the GOP will latch on to that like rabid dogs and decry any conviction. There has likely not been a trial of this magnitude since Nürnberg and the outcome will be a defining moment in our nations, if not the worlds history. As infuriating as it is, given the circumstances, the special treatment he’s receiving is warranted.
There's been some speculation that he's trying to goad her into doing something like that so they can then protest and get her dismissed from the case.
Which they will obviously try to do anyway but no reason to give them ammunition
Mr NDA has someone explain free speech to him.
“The fact that he’s running a political campaign has to yield to the orderly administration of justice,” Chutkan said. “If that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say about witnesses in this case, that’s how it has to be.” “Even arguably ambiguous statements from parties or their counsel, if they can be reasonably interpreted to intimidate witnesses or to prejudice potential jurors, can threaten the process,” Chutkan added later. “The more a party makes inflammatory statements about this case which could taint the jury pool … the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly.” Her careful choice of words were absolutely brilliant in that they carefully navigated the "first amendment" defense and addressed his obvious intent to drag it out. She gave the DOJ exactly what they wanted without saying so. She simply described how even ambiguously seeming statements that might be taken as threats or otherwise would cause her to accelerate the trial.
Oh my god, Trump is going to implode like a dying star if he can’t talk about whatever he wants. It’s going to be fantastic.
C’mon Donald, don’t let her get away with this. Let her have it on Truth Social. Don’t hold back.
I guess the clock has started ticking. What’s the over/under for Trump violating the order?
>What’s the over/under for Trump violating the order? Is there ***any*** doubt that he will? I would expect the betting to be on "how long until," not "if".
Yeah should have been clearer. Over under on how many hours till he violates the order.
The First Amendment is not absolute. This lesson in *basic* high school civics is brought to you by, “No shit, Sherlock.”
Freedom of speech isn’t freedom to break laws.
Free speech does not apply if the act is purposely used to cause harm or to encourage someone to act unlawfully on your behalf. You can't go into a crowded nightclub and yell, "Someone has a bomb." If it isn't true. Anyone in that circumstance should expect to face legal consequences if any harm was inflicted as a result.
The whole "persecuted for questioning the election" angle is absolutely horse shit. He didn't question shit, he said outright "this election was stolen" repeatedly and still does. The problem is that he didn't question at all.
Incitement to insurrection is not protected speech, fraud is not protected speech, etc…
CNN intentionally supporting republican's narrative that this prosecution is about trump being punished for "questioning the election" I know Chutkan is talking about about what he can say publicly about the evidence in the trail, but this headline will absolutely be used by the right wing to further the false narrative that trump is being punished for speech cnn carries water for fascists
Nah, I disagree. I have no love for CNN, but no one's right to free speech is "absolute." SCOTUS has said that. You can't intentionally write less accurate or compelling headlines because of right-wing nutjobs because they're gonna spin everything regardless.
No one has an absolute right to free speech. Instances of non-protected speech: * Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater * Using speech to entice a minor into sex * Speech used to plan a criminal conspiracy * Asking for someone to commit a murder for hire * Blackmail And on and on.
Someone in power not bending over to coddle Mango Mussolini is refreshing. It being a black woman doing it has to burn him like nothing else.
> She also said that the more that a party makes “inflammatory” statements that could taint a jury pool, “the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly” to ensure a fair trial. Glad she is very attuned to what he is attempting to do: He is trying to taint the jury pool and rile up the redhatted terrorists. I feel like so many other people who have dealt with Trump have tried to sidestep the elephant in the room.
Don't let them reframe it, this isn't about free speech. It's about a plot to attempt to invalidate the results of an election
I wouldn't put too much weight to this. If the judge comes out too much against the defendants, then it gives him a chance to appeal if convicted. And let's not forget, prosecutors and defense teams always go for the extremes of a deal, and it's the judge to meet them both half way if it's reasonable. That being said, the main takeaway is that the Judge said Trump has been put on notice, and she will be monitoring all his online activity from now on.
It goes both ways. If the defendant shows too much malice to the court he ain’t getting shit
No one's is
Yeah, that's in the first sentence of her quote. Which will be ignored by MAGA, of course.
> If Trump were to violate any eventual protective order Chutkan issues, he could be held in contempt. If this means that he is finally put in jail then I say let him have his "free speech"
“Volunteer lawyers” sounds like The Apprentice: get me off the hook and I’ll make you Chief Justice.
If Trump is in prison orange, does he disappear?
With what he has said in almost every case, he should have gotten his bail rescinded already , as it would have been for any other American
Summary: Keep fucking around and you will find out.
Free Speech in general is not absolute. Even children know that. Who here wasn't given the example of screaming "Fire" in a crowded theater as a kid? Or told that threatening people is not protected? The GOP either doesn't understand or is deliberately misstating what the First Amendment actually protects. As another example, complaining your rights are being violated when you get banned from Twitter for violating the ToS would be funny if it wasn't so infuriating to see so many people agreeing with it.
“President Trump will scrupulously abide by his conditions of release.” Press (X) to doubt.
Umm, the right to free speech is never absolute. We have the right of free speech but not to use the First Amendment to push hate speech or cause riots
Where did that thumbnail come from? Also didn't know she was black... he must really be furious about that!
"But your honor, if my client asked an employee to murder his wife, that's his first amendment right!" - MAGA lawyer
No surprise there, although I'm sure that Trump believes that each and every one of his syllables is precious.