On Friday, Judge Tanya Chutkan, based in Washington, D.C., decided that President Donald Trump can make public statements about his case.
However, he’s prohibited from discussing witnesses or disclosing witness testimony, which includes videos and transcripts.
The protective order mostly dismissed the urgent motion made by Special Counsel Jack Smith last Friday, which aimed to prevent Trump from making comments about the evidence provided by prosecutors to defense attorneys during the trial’s discovery process.
Critics argued that Smith’s proposed protective order was an attempt at election interference since it would silence the leading opposition candidate in the presidential campaign.
In their response, Trump’s lawyers also mentioned a tweet from President Joe Biden, where he took on the “dark Brandon” persona and appeared to be anticipating Trump’s upcoming arraignment in Washington.
They contended that the entire prosecution was a political maneuver aimed at guaranteeing that Trump would never be president again.
Judge Chutkan, a Barack Obama appointee and Obama/Biden campaign donor, said that she would not be influenced by politics in her handling of the case.
She added that Trump would have to accept that he could not say whatever he wanted about witnesses.
Ultimately, the judge ruled that Trump could not discuss or intimidate witnesses, in accordance with an earlier agreement on the conditions of his release before trial.
And she said that he could not reveal “sensitive” evidence, including witness testimony.
Furthermore, she restricted Trump’s legal team from having extensive access to the evidence against him.
This meant that they couldn’t involve a wider legal team, including pro bono lawyers, to go through the evidence, the initial installment of which comprises a whopping 11.6 million pages.
Share your thoughts by scrolling down to leave a comment.
Everything against Trump will be appealed and overturned by the Supreme Court.
How can his lawyers alone be expected to go through 11.6 million pages looking for the charges (4) and the reasonable reasons why he was charged and what is reasonable evidence? Just my question…
That is the Demo☭rats plan!
UNFU☭KING☭ONSTITUTIONAL!