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.

  • nothing@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    Ā·
    1 year ago

    It seems it was a condition of release. With that said, i Iā€™m assuming it would be breaking the terms of his release from jail. Whether that is exactly correct or if anyone would enforce it is another issue.

    • 4lan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      If we truly had an equal justice system he would already be in jail awaiting trial