The U.S. judge overseeing Donald Trumpā€™s prosecution for allegedly criminally conspiring to overturn Joe Bidenā€™s election victory said that while every American has a First Amendment right to free speech, it is ā€œnot absoluteā€ and that even the former presidentā€™s campaign statements must yield to protecting the integrity of the judicial process.

In her first hearing over Trumpā€™s federal case in D.C., U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan said that ā€œthe fact that he is running a political campaignā€ will have no bearing on her decisions and ā€œmust yield to the orderly administration of justice.ā€

ā€œIf that means he canā€™t say exactly what he wants to say about witnesses in this case, then thatā€™s how itā€™s going to be,ā€ Chutkan said Friday, repeatedly warning the former president and his defense about limits on what he can potentially reveal about government evidence in the case. ā€œTo the extent your client wants to make statements on the internet, they have to always yield to witness security and witness safety.ā€

ā€œI caution you and your client to take special care in your public statements about this case,ā€ the judge said after the 90-minute hearing, ā€œI will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings.ā€

Chutkanā€™s warnings laid down an early marker in the case, even as she settled a fight between the sides over a protective order needed to speed the prosecutionā€™s handover of materials and the courtā€™s setting of a trial date, which special counsel Jack Smithā€™s team has proposed for Jan. 2.

In the hearing, Chutkan rejected the governmentā€™s request for a blanket protective order limiting sharing of all evidence released in the case. However, she mostly sided with prosecutors in granting them leeway to define ā€œsensitiveā€ materials subject to greater protections, adding that Trumpā€™s defense had agreed to similar conditions in his pending special counsel prosecution in Florida on charges of mishandling classified documents and obstruction.

  • athos77@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    Ā·
    1 year ago

    Oh, they already document their meetings. Some have resorted to recording them. There was one set from like 2010 or so who refused to meet with him unless there were two of them present, so that they could be witnesses against whatever bullshit he ended up saying later on.