Judge orders Trump to explain why he shouldn’t be silenced in Jan 6 case

[excalibur]

Of course this judge, called by Alan Dershowitz the worst possible choice, gave the Trump team little time to reply.

But, there is nothing in the Rules that would authorize silencing Trump. (See follow-up post below).

And it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad that Jack Smith is worried about the jury pool! The same Jack Smith who has presided over dozens of leaks that have clear potential of tainting the jury pool.

'Fair administration of justice'. BS

...

They warned Mr. Trump could disclose grand jury transcripts or other evidence obtained in discovery, which “could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”

...​

Judge orders Trump to explain why he shouldn’t be silenced in Jan 6 case

A federal judge on Saturday gave former President Donald Trump a short window to explain why he shouldn’t be barred from talking about evidence on the Jan. 6, 2021, criminal case.

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[Thunk]

Keep pushing democrat filth!

Keep pushing Trump right into the white house again
This could not be playing out better If I had written the script!

 

[excalibur]

Trump's team should fight this protective order down to the last word.

We have lived with protective orders in the J6 cases mostly because there was little upside to fighting them other than to prove a point.

But the Gov't has prosecuted Trump in the media for years. To bar him from commenting on the evidence against him is a violation of his First Amendment rights.

The rules against disclosure of discovery to the public are intended to protect the jury pool from being prejudiced by disclosure of information that may never become part of the trial record.

One of the most famous SCOTUS examples is when a confession by a criminal defendant -- known to be false -- was widely publicized in the local press. There was no way to protect the juror pool in the small community from knowing the details of the confession but it was never going to be part of the evidence at trial.

That is an example of why discovery is sometimes subject to a protective order.

But there is no good faith argument to be made here that the Gov't has been sensitive to avoiding the creation of bias in the juror pool by its pre-indictment conduct.

There is no rule or principle of law that protects the identity of witnesses or their testimony before the Grand Jury. I say this over and over -- the secrecy rules before the GJ apply to the Court staff and Govt actors -- no one else.

Here is the relevant text of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e):

____ (2) Secrecy.

(A) No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with Rule 6(e)(2)(B).

(B) Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:

(i) a grand juror;

(ii) an interpreter;

(iii) a court reporter;

(iv) an operator of a recording device;

(v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony;

(vi) an attorney for the government; or

(vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).

_____

Not mentioned anywhere in that list are the witnesses themselves, attorneys for the witnesses, the defendant, or the defense team.

You cannot make use of the GJ for the purpose of harassing or intimidating a witness -- that is obstruction.

But the Gov't was not obligated to produce GJ witness transcripts at this point in the case -- SCO Smith made the decision to do that as part of a gambit to force an early trial.

Having that information that he controlled become public is a function of his decision-making.

​

 

[WorldWatcher]

For those that want to know the truth. This is the link to the proposed protective order:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.10.1_5.pdf

#1 It doesn't "silence" FPOTUS#45 from discussing the case.

#2 FPOTUS#45 is allowed discuss materials that are publicly available outside of discovery. For example FPOTUS#45 can still discuss the audio tape of his showing a classified document to journalists for the Mark Meadows book.

#3 It is a routine matter in that defendants are not allowed to release discovery materials to the public ahead of trial.

WW

 

[struth]

Of course this judge, called by Alan Dershowitz the worst possible choice, gave the Trump team little time to reply.

But, there is nothing in the Rules that would authorize silencing Trump. (See follow-up post below).

And it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad that Jack Smith is worried about the jury pool! The same Jack Smith who has presided over dozens of leaks that have clear potential of tainting the jury pool.

'Fair administration of justice'. BS

...​

​

They warned Mr. Trump could disclose grand jury transcripts or other evidence obtained in discovery, which “could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”​

​

...​

Judge orders Trump to explain why he shouldn’t be silenced in Jan 6 case

A federal judge on Saturday gave former President Donald Trump a short window to explain why he shouldn’t be barred from talking about evidence on the Jan. 6, 2021, criminal case.

www.washingtontimes.com

This was another major point of these indictments in DC, to get a judge to order trump silenced during the campaign

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Of course this judge, called by Alan Dershowitz the worst possible choice, gave the Trump team little time to reply.

But, there is nothing in the Rules that would authorize silencing Trump. (See follow-up post below).

And it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad that Jack Smith is worried about the jury pool! The same Jack Smith who has presided over dozens of leaks that have clear potential of tainting the jury pool.

'Fair administration of justice'. BS

...​

​

They warned Mr. Trump could disclose grand jury transcripts or other evidence obtained in discovery, which “could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”​

​

...​

Judge orders Trump to explain why he shouldn’t be silenced in Jan 6 case

A federal judge on Saturday gave former President Donald Trump a short window to explain why he shouldn’t be barred from talking about evidence on the Jan. 6, 2021, criminal case.

www.washingtontimes.com

If he plays nice and stops running his yap and making threats whether real or implied, he'd be free to campaign. He can say anything he wants about Biden or his competitors. He can even talk about and outline his vision for the future of America and what he plans to do for the average voter. But so far, I haven't seen one meaningful campaign speech from him. Just anger, vitriol,grievance, and threats.

 

[struth]

If he plays nice and stops running his yap and making threats whether real or implied, he'd be free to campaign. He can say anything he wants about Biden or his competitors. He can even talk about and outline his vision for the future of America and what he plans to do for the average voter. But so far, I haven't seen one meaningful campaign speech from him. Just anger, vitriol,grievance, and threats.

Haha yes I know that’s the point you all want him to be silenced

He made no threats

 

[d0gbreath]

"No comment" is the correct response. This looks like a trap. "Once you start talking, you'll tell me exactly why I should issue a gag order."

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Haha yes I know that’s the point you all want him to be silenced

He made no threats

He just did.
"if you go after me, I'm coming after you."

Sounds like a threat to me.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If he plays nice and stops running his yap and making threats whether real or implied, he'd be free to campaign. He can say anything he wants about Biden or his competitors. He can even talk about and outline his vision for the future of America and what he plans to do for the average voter. But so far, I haven't seen one meaningful campaign speech from him. Just anger, vitriol,grievance, and threats.

He can also talk about the case, he can talk about discovery materials already in the public realm. But he cannot release non-public sensitive information.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Now recognize folks this could be a bit of reverse psychology.

Tell FPOTUS#45 what he CAN'T say as a means of making him commit a Col. Nathan R. Jessup moment because he won't be able to help himself.

WW

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

He can also talk about the case, he can talk about discovery materials not already in the public realm. But he cannot release non-public sensitive information.

WW

For the moment, he can. He shouldn't because he's kneecapping his own defense team, but he can. Because he's stupid and vain.
But if he keeps stepping over that line and issuing threats, vague or not, say hello to a gag...order.

 

[WorldWatcher]

He can also talk about the case, he can talk about discovery materials already in the public realm. But he cannot release non-public sensitive information.

WW

EDIT the above to "he can talk about discovery materials already in the public realm."

Original post said "not in the public realm" which is backwards.

WW

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Alan Dershowitz said it, so it must be true. Man go on somewhere with that bullshit, Dershowitz is a clown that has bent over to the right wing for a dollar.

 

[Concerned American]

Of course this judge, called by Alan Dershowitz the worst possible choice, gave the Trump team little time to reply.

But, there is nothing in the Rules that would authorize silencing Trump. (See follow-up post below).

And it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad that Jack Smith is worried about the jury pool! The same Jack Smith who has presided over dozens of leaks that have clear potential of tainting the jury pool.

'Fair administration of justice'. BS

...​

​

They warned Mr. Trump could disclose grand jury transcripts or other evidence obtained in discovery, which “could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”​

​

...​

Judge orders Trump to explain why he shouldn’t be silenced in Jan 6 case

A federal judge on Saturday gave former President Donald Trump a short window to explain why he shouldn’t be barred from talking about evidence on the Jan. 6, 2021, criminal case.

www.washingtontimes.com

Gee, that was good of her. Makes a ruling on Saturday and requires "bulleted" responses by 5 p.m. on Monday? SMFH.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I just laugh at people that flag a post as "Fake News" when the post provides both a link to the Protective Order requested AND an image of the text mentioned.



WW

 

[yidnar]

Of course this judge, called by Alan Dershowitz the worst possible choice, gave the Trump team little time to reply.

But, there is nothing in the Rules that would authorize silencing Trump. (See follow-up post below).

And it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad that Jack Smith is worried about the jury pool! The same Jack Smith who has presided over dozens of leaks that have clear potential of tainting the jury pool.

'Fair administration of justice'. BS

...​

​

They warned Mr. Trump could disclose grand jury transcripts or other evidence obtained in discovery, which “could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”​

​

...​

Judge orders Trump to explain why he shouldn’t be silenced in Jan 6 case

A federal judge on Saturday gave former President Donald Trump a short window to explain why he shouldn’t be barred from talking about evidence on the Jan. 6, 2021, criminal case.

www.washingtontimes.com

they want him to be silent so he cant use it as a campaign issue and paint the dem party as the totalitarian banana republic wanna be dictators that they are .. in other words more election interference from the left .

 

[d0gbreath]

He just did.
"if you go after me, I'm coming after you."

Sounds like a threat to me.

He would send his patriots. Bone spurs would negate his participation.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Gee, that was good of her. Makes a ruling on Saturday and requires "bulleted" responses by 5 p.m. on Monday? SMFH.

Yes its what real judges in real criminal trials do to real defendants. Trump is used to judges bending over for the wealthy.
It must be a shock.

 

[WorldWatcher]

For the moment, he can. He shouldn't because he's kneecapping his own defense team, but he can. Because he's stupid and vain.
But if he keeps stepping over that line and issuing threats, vague or not, say hello to a gag...order.

I’m hoping more for a Colonel Nathan R. Jessup moment.

WW