TexAgs91 said:

---

Let me guess... No reprocussions for the judge who violated Trump's right to free speach?

---

This is only an administrative stay pending oral argument in about two weeks.

But no, Judge Chutkan isn't going to have "repercussions."

It is 100% the right call to stay it pending appeal considering the gravity of this case and issue. But the most "favorable" result for Trump likely would just be a ruling that the order is too broad, and Judge Chutkan would likely just issue another one in line with the opinion.

annie88 said:

---

Good. I think he should about whatever the hell he wants to.

This whole trial is a sham, the judge is a piece of ***** The AG is a piece of **** and karma will get their asses in the end.

---

This is the DC case. Not the New York case

TXAggie2011 said:

---

annie88 said:

---

Good. I think he should about whatever the hell he wants to.

This whole trial is a sham, the judge is a piece of ***** The AG is a piece of **** and karma will get their asses in the end.

---

This is the DC case. Not the New York case

---

Fair enough, but All the cases are bull**** and all the prosecutors are trying to make a name for themselves.

itsyourboypookie said:

---

He never gave af about a gag order lol

---

One of the things I like about him.

Chutkan should be disbarred and jailed. She's corrupt.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Chutkan should be disbarred and jailed. She's corrupt.

---

She's absolutely corrupt and not hiding it. This is what passes for law and order for the dems.

itsyourboypookie said:

---

He never gave af about a gag order lol

---

This. I mean he's never given a crap about what people think

Waffledynamics said:

---

How are gag orders constitutional?

---

Are you suggesting that judges should have no ability to ensure that a trial fair takes place?

Why even have trials if that was the case?

pdc093 said:

---

In the D.C. election fraud case.
He is free to 'speak'...
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/03/politics/chutkan-trump-gag-order-freeze/index.html

---

The gag orders are stupid but Trump has also done everything he can to get them. That's why he went after the Clerk knowing he would get one in the other case. He wants them so he can garner sympathy and openly ignore them. It's all a distraction.

All of the cases are crap btw. It just frustrates me we aren't talking about the real problems we have.

Judge probably realized he does much more damage to himself when he speaks.

ts5641 said:

---

Judge probably realized he does much more damage to himself when he speaks.

---

Did you read the thread? Because your comment strongly suggests you did not.

aggiehawg said:

---

ts5641 said:

---

Judge probably realized he does much more damage to himself when he speaks.

---

Did you read the thread? Because your comment strongly suggests you did not.

---

I'm assuming the "he" ts is referring to is Trump

aggiejayrod said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

ts5641 said:

---

Judge probably realized he does much more damage to himself when he speaks.

---

Did you read the thread? Because your comment strongly suggests you did not.

---

I'm assuming the "he" ts is referring to is Trump

---

Oh I know that. I also know the ruling at issue on this thread was decided by a panel of the DC Circuit Court, meaning three judges on the panel, not a singular judge. So the trial court judge, Chutkan, who imposed the gag order, was reversed by the appellate court. Should Smith decide to appeal on this issue, next stop is SCOTUS, if they deign to accept the case to review that issue, pretrial.

aggiehawg said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

ts5641 said:

---

Judge probably realized he does much more damage to himself when he speaks.

---

Did you read the thread? Because your comment strongly suggests you did not.

---

I'm assuming the "he" ts is referring to is Trump

---

Oh I know that. I also know the ruling at issue on this thread was decided by a panel of the DC Circuit Court, meaning three judges on the panel, not a singular judge. So the trial court judge, Chutkan, who imposed the gag order, was reversed by the appellate court. Should Smith decide to appeal on this issue, next stop is SCOTUS, if they deign to accept the case to review that issue, pretrial.

---

it's an administrative stay, not on the merits. That said given the panel is 2 Obama appointees and a Biden appointee, I get the sense they're winking at the judge hoping she'll catch the signal and dial back with the partisanship. Otherwise this goes to SCOTUS and gets ugly fast.

Quote:

---

I get the sense they're winking at the judge hoping she'll catch the signal and dial back with the partisanship. Otherwise this goes to SCOTUS and gets ugly fast.

---

Have no faith that Chutkan will take the hint after what she has done to the Jan 6ers. She knows she's not getting impeached and removed from the bench so she can basically do what she wants and then cause costly appeals.

She is anything but an ethical judge, unfortunately.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I get the sense they're winking at the judge hoping she'll catch the signal and dial back with the partisanship. Otherwise this goes to SCOTUS and gets ugly fast.

---

Have no faith that Chutkan will take the hint after what she has done to the Jan 6ers. She knows she's not getting impeached and removed from the bench so she can basically do what she wants and then cause costly appeals.

She is anything but an ethical judge, unfortunately.

---

Clarence Thomas is going to have a field day with his concurrence. Roberts will vote to overturn if the DC Cir. upholds for the sole purpose of making sure Thomas doesn't get to write for the majority.

Turley's take. Video at LINK

He still thinks it is unconstitutional. Even the ACLU does.

aggiehawg said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

ts5641 said:

---

Judge probably realized he does much more damage to himself when he speaks.

---

Did you read the thread? Because your comment strongly suggests you did not.

---

I'm assuming the "he" ts is referring to is Trump

---

Oh I know that. I also know the ruling at issue on this thread was decided by a panel of the DC Circuit Court, meaning three judges on the panel, not a singular judge. So the trial court judge, Chutkan, who imposed the gag order, was reversed by the appellate court. Should Smith decide to appeal on this issue, next stop is SCOTUS, if they deign to accept the case to review that issue, pretrial.

---

Chutkan has not been reversed and there is nothing to appeal to SCOTUS right now. "If you read the thread", you saw where I said this was an administrative stay pending oral argument.

I don't think the Government would appeal to SCOTUS. If the order is overturned because it is too broad, they will simply seek a narrower one from Chutkan.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

ts5641 said:

---

Judge probably realized he does much more damage to himself when he speaks.

---

Did you read the thread? Because your comment strongly suggests you did not.

---

I'm assuming the "he" ts is referring to is Trump

---

Oh I know that. I also know the ruling at issue on this thread was decided by a panel of the DC Circuit Court, meaning three judges on the panel, not a singular judge. So the trial court judge, Chutkan, who imposed the gag order, was reversed by the appellate court. Should Smith decide to appeal on this issue, next stop is SCOTUS, if they deign to accept the case to review that issue, pretrial.

---

Chutkan has not been reversed and there is nothing to appeal to SCOTUS right now. "If you read the thread", you saw where I said this was an administrative stay pending oral argument.

I don't think the Government would appeal to SCOTUS. If the order is overturned because it is too broad, they will simply seek a narrower one from Chutkan.

---

If Smith wants to keep Chutkan's trial schedule intact, he'll be wise to just shut up about any gag order and not provide a freebie appellate issue to Trump. It was stupid to go for one in the first place.

Then again, Smith is not known for being a particularly savvy lawyer. He mostly sucks at statutory construction as an unanimous SCOTUS called it.

I am all for really good motion practice as that is instrumental in shaping the battlefield at the trial. The last thing the prosecution should be doing is creating an interlocutory appellate issue or a reversible error for appeal post trial... with this gag order, it is both. Double no-no.

Litigation about the gag order isn't going to slow down the schedule. It's a side issue that can be handled entirely separately from everything else.

And I don't see how it creates a post verdict appealable issue, and certainly not one that would warrant reversing a jury's decision, but please explain if you think I'm missing something there

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Litigation about the gag order isn't going to slow down the schedule. It's a side issue that can be handled entirely separately from everything else.

And I don't see how it creates a post verdict appealable issue, and certainly not one that would warrant reversing a jury's decision, but please explain if you think I'm missing something there

---

What you are missing are the First Amendment of the federal Constitution, DOJ procedures about actively interfering with elections, malicious prosecution, Presidential immunity for acts done while in office to start.

Understand your preference is to hang Trump by his balls from the nearest yardarm but that is not mine. Mine is the law and how it is applied, irrespective of who the defendant is. Due process for all. Equal protection.

As Comey famously said, "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring such a case but Hillary was unquestionably guilty, just really stupid and should walk, according to him.

A large part of me really wants all of those issues settled, to set the ground rules going forward. The other part of me just wants the 2024 election to proceed normally, Not that that is even possible anymore. What a cluster this is.

How much preferential treatment should someone get in the courts if they announce that they are running for President?

eric76 said:

---

How much preferential treatment should someone get in the courts if they announce that they are running for President?

---

Ask Biden. he should know from experience.

So should Trump and Biden get preferential treatment in a courtroom because they are or were President?

eric76 said:

---

So should Trump and Biden get preferential treatment in a courtroom because they are or were President?

---

Under the law, yes.

eric76 said:

---

How much preferential treatment should someone get in the courts if they announce that they are running for President?

---

This isn't the main issue. The main issue is that whatever the answer to your question is, it should be the same for both parties.

eric76 said:

---

So should Trump and Biden get preferential treatment in a courtroom because they are or were President?

---

irrelevant. The "threat" underlying the gag order is speculative (DOJ admitted that on the record) so the gag order is an obvious and clear prior restraint on free speech. Con law 101 and the district judge ought to be ashamed.

The two Obama and one Biden appointee at the DC Cir granting even an administrative stay are winking at the district judge to tell her to dial back the partisanship before she's on the business end of a Clarence Thomas opinion calling her out (she won't be because Roberts will vote with the majority just to prevent Thomas from authoring the majority opinion).

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

eric76 said:

---

So should Trump and Biden get preferential treatment in a courtroom because they are or were President?

---

irrelevant. The "threat" underlying the gag order is speculative (DOJ admitted that on the record) so the gag order is an obvious and clear prior restraint on free speech. Con law 101 and the district judge ought to be ashamed.

The two Obama and one Biden appointee at the DC Cir granting even an administrative stay are winking at the district judge to tell her to dial back the partisanship before she's on the business end of a Clarence Thomas opinion calling her out (she won't be because Roberts will vote with the majority just to prevent Thomas from authoring the majority opinion).

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Litigation about the gag order isn't going to slow down the schedule. It's a side issue that can be handled entirely separately from everything else.

And I don't see how it creates a post verdict appealable issue, and certainly not one that would warrant reversing a jury's decision, but please explain if you think I'm missing something there

---

What you are missing are the First Amendment of the federal Constitution, DOJ procedures about actively interfering with elections, malicious prosecution, Presidential immunity for acts done while in office to start.

Understand your preference is to hang Trump by his balls from the nearest yardarm but that is not mine. Mine is the law and how it is applied, irrespective of who the defendant is. Due process for all. Equal protection.

As Comey famously said, "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring such a case but Hillary was unquestionably guilty, just really stupid and should walk, according to him.

A large part of me really wants all of those issues settled, to set the ground rules going forward. The other part of me just wants the 2024 election to proceed normally, Not that that is even possible anymore. What a cluster this is.

---

Okay. 95% is entirely irrelevant to my post. As to the 1st Amendment, no one's saying this isn't a serious 1st Amendment question. But this isn't going to cause delay nor is this going to be grounds for a post-trial appeal. This is essentially it's own case and won't affect the rest of the legal case.