Chutkan explains her gag order

[berg80]

Under binding Supreme Court precedent, this court “must take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect [its] processes from prejudicial outside interferences.” Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966). The First Amendment does not override that obligation. “Freedom of discussion should be given the widest range compatible with the essential requirement of the fair and orderly administration of justice. But it must not be allowed to divert the trial from the very purpose of a court system to adjudicate controversies, both criminal and civil, in the calmness and solemnity of the courtroom according to legal procedures.” Id. at 350–51 (cleaned up); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 32 n.18 (1984) (“Although litigants do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the courthouse door, those rights maybe subordinated to other interests that arise in this setting.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.105.0_2.pdf

For those whose literacy is compromised when they see something that reflects poorly on Dear Leader allow me to translate. "Trump is a pompous windbag who is in the habit of trying to enlist the mob under his spell to follow through on his dangerous rhetoric by making threats against officers of the court. Therefore, I am issuing a limited gag to get him to STFU."

 

[Concerned American]

Under binding Supreme Court precedent, this court “must take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect [its] processes from prejudicial outside interferences.” Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966). The First Amendment does not override that obligation. “Freedom of discussion should be given the widest range compatible with the essential requirement of the fair and orderly administration of justice. But it must not be allowed to divert the trial from the very purpose of a court system to adjudicate controversies, both criminal and civil, in the calmness and solemnity of the courtroom according to legal procedures.” Id. at 350–51 (cleaned up); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 32 n.18 (1984) (“Although litigants do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the courthouse door, those rights maybe subordinated to other interests that arise in this setting.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.105.0_2.pdf

For those whose literacy is compromised when they see something that reflects poorly on Dear Leader allow me to translate. "Trump is a pompous windbag who is in the habit of trying to enlist the mob under his spell to follow through on his dangerous rhetoric by making threats against officers of the court. Therefore, I am issuing a limited gag to get him to STFU."

Are you trying to say he's doing something different than the democrats, led by Piglosi and Schiff, did with msm collusion, during the entire preceding administration's tenure? Pot meet kettle.

 

[playtime]

For those whose literacy is compromised when they see something that reflects poorly on Dear Leader allow me to translate. "Trump is a pompous windbag who is in the habit of trying to enlist the mob under his spell to follow through on his dangerous rhetoric by making threats against officers of the court. Therefore, I am issuing a limited gag to get him to STFU."

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Under binding Supreme Court precedent, this court “must take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect [its] processes from prejudicial outside interferences.” Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966). The First Amendment does not override that obligation. “Freedom of discussion should be given the widest range compatible with the essential requirement of the fair and orderly administration of justice. But it must not be allowed to divert the trial from the very purpose of a court system to adjudicate controversies, both criminal and civil, in the calmness and solemnity of the courtroom according to legal procedures.” Id. at 350–51 (cleaned up); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 32 n.18 (1984) (“Although litigants do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the courthouse door, those rights maybe subordinated to other interests that arise in this setting.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.105.0_2.pdf

For those whose literacy is compromised when they see something that reflects poorly on Dear Leader allow me to translate. "Trump is a pompous windbag who is in the habit of trying to enlist the mob under his spell to follow through on his dangerous rhetoric by making threats against officers of the court. Therefore, I am issuing a limited gag to get him to STFU."

So they can leak shit and publicly talk shit but Trump has his first amendment rights snuffed. GARBAGE

There are already laws in place to protect jurors & officials. They know he isn't breaking those laws so they have to create their own to silence him.

Fuck this judge and the entire DOJ

 

[SeaMajor7]

Sne should gag herself with a diseased DICK!!!!!!

 

[whitehall]

When liberal democrats start quoting Supreme Court decisions instead of protesting them you know they are in trouble.

 

[Curried Goats]

Are you trying to say he's doing something different than the democrats, led by Piglosi and Schiff, did with msm collusion, during the entire preceding administration's tenure? Pot meet kettle.

So they can leak shit and publicly talk shit but Trump has his first amendment rights snuffed. GARBAGE

There are already laws in place to protect jurors & officials. They know he isn't breaking those laws so they have to create their own to silence him.

Fuck this judge and the entire DOJ

Poor Trumpers need to be educated about American law from Jamaicans. Neither Pelosi or Schiff are criminal defendants in an ongoing criminal prosecution. When Trump was arraigned and remanded into his own custody before trial it came with it certain stipulations like not running his mouth.

 

[Concerned American]

Poor Trumpers need to be educated about American law from Jamaicans. Neither Pelosi or Schiff are criminal defendants in an ongoing criminal prosecution. When Trump was arraigned and remanded into his own custody before trial it came with it certain stipulations like not running his mouth.

Maybe you should quit hiding behind your patois and learn English so that you can comprehend it. LMAO, "remanded into his own custody?" You mean "free"

 

[Curried Goats]

Maybe you should quit hiding behind your patois and learn English so that you can comprehend it. LMAO, "remanded into his own custody?" You mean "free"

No. I don't mean "free". I mean free conditionally with those conditions being set by the court. Are you an illiterate Bingo?

 

[L.K.Eder]

So they can leak shit and publicly talk shit but Trump has his first amendment rights snuffed. GARBAGE

There are already laws in place to protect jurors & officials. They know he isn't breaking those laws so they have to create their own to silence him.

Fuck this judge and the entire DOJ

tissue?

 

[Concerned American]

No. I don't mean "free". I mean free conditionally with those conditions being set by the court. Are you an illiterate Bingo?

Everyone is free conditionally -- dumbass.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Everyone is free conditionally -- dumbass.

really?

 

[WEATHER53]

Under binding Supreme Court precedent, this court “must take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect [its] processes from prejudicial outside interferences.” Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966). The First Amendment does not override that obligation. “Freedom of discussion should be given the widest range compatible with the essential requirement of the fair and orderly administration of justice. But it must not be allowed to divert the trial from the very purpose of a court system to adjudicate controversies, both criminal and civil, in the calmness and solemnity of the courtroom according to legal procedures.” Id. at 350–51 (cleaned up); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 32 n.18 (1984) (“Although litigants do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the courthouse door, those rights maybe subordinated to other interests that arise in this setting.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.105.0_2.pdf

For those whose literacy is compromised when they see something that reflects poorly on Dear Leader allow me to translate. "Trump is a pompous windbag who is in the habit of trying to enlist the mob under his spell to follow through on his dangerous rhetoric by making threats against officers of the court. Therefore, I am issuing a limited gag to get him to STFU."

Trump gives strong fact based speech and Chaka Khan does not feel comfortable with that

 

[Concerned American]

really?

Run along troll. As usual you have nothing of value to add.

 

[Curried Goats]

Everyone is free conditionally -- dumbass.

Yet everyone isn't free conditionally by the court due to an ongoing criminal prosecution, are they, you strawmaning Bingo?

 

[0311]

So they can leak shit and publicly talk shit but Trump has his first amendment rights snuffed. GARBAGE

There are already laws in place to protect jurors & officials. They know he isn't breaking those laws so they have to create their own to silence him.

Fuck this judge and the entire DOJ

P01135809 has not, "lost his first amendment rights". He is free to hold his bund rallies. He is free to lie, which for him is like breathing or drinking diet coke. P01135809 cannot berate or attack courtroom staff.

There is a big, fucking bigley big difference. As long as he does NOT attack the court or the courtroom staff he can say what say, so you can forward of his lies.

 

[Concerned American]

P01135809 cannot berate or attack courtroom staff.

Because he might hurt their feewings. Oh poor, them. FUCK THEM. The order is unconstitutional.