TRUMP INDICTED
- Thread starter jimihendrix1
- Start date
SchmoeJoe
Well-Known Member
Trumps current legal defense is that the oath of office doesn't actually legally obligate anyone to uphold the constitution. If he wins based on that he will create a legal precedent that anyone in office can use to disregard the constitution. The effectively destroys it.
Nugnewbie
Well-Known Member
I could, lol.
Well, seems to me he was being scolded at one point over monopolizing the climate change thread with EV posts. Was encouraged to start an EV thread if I recall correctly. Maybe....he pushed the envelope?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
That right there seems to be what Trump intends.
Though I must admit that the defense Republicans used to defend Trump from impeachment probably did it in already. "A president may do whatever he wants as long as he says he believes it is in the national interest". That's what Republican Senators went with when they voted against his removal from office. Seemed extreme to me but I'm just a mouse.
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
BREAKING: Special Counsel Jack Smith drops Tuesday bombshell on Trump, reveals explosive evidence that proves that that Trump and a co-conspirator plotted “to cause a riot to disrupt the count" of votes in Detroit during the 2020 election.
In a devastating court filing, Smith revealed to the judge that “on November 4, 2020,” a Trump Campaign “employee exchanged a series of text messages with an attorney supporting the Campaign’s election day operations at the TCF Center in Detroit, where votes were being counted. In the messages, the Campaign Employee encouraged rioting and other methods of obstruction when he learned that the vote count was trending in favor of Trump’s opponent."
Before explaining Trump’s role in the conspiracy, Special Counsel added, “Around the time that those text messages were exchanged, an election official at the TCF Center observed that as Biden began to take the lead, a large number of untrained individuals flooded the TCF Center and began making illegitimate and aggressive challenges to the vote count."
Then, he exposed Trump’s role, revealing that “shortly after Trump made repeated false claims regarding election activities at the TCF Center, when in truth his agent was seeking to cause a riot to disrupt the count.”
So there you have it, folks. Trump engaged in a conspiracy to steal the election in Detroit — and now Special Counsel Jack Smith had all of the evidence that he needs to prove it.
Put a fork in Trump…
this just popped up, it's not on the occupy democrats web site yet, or that i found......but....
here is the court listener drop:
In a devastating court filing, Smith revealed to the judge that “on November 4, 2020,” a Trump Campaign “employee exchanged a series of text messages with an attorney supporting the Campaign’s election day operations at the TCF Center in Detroit, where votes were being counted. In the messages, the Campaign Employee encouraged rioting and other methods of obstruction when he learned that the vote count was trending in favor of Trump’s opponent."
Before explaining Trump’s role in the conspiracy, Special Counsel added, “Around the time that those text messages were exchanged, an election official at the TCF Center observed that as Biden began to take the lead, a large number of untrained individuals flooded the TCF Center and began making illegitimate and aggressive challenges to the vote count."
Then, he exposed Trump’s role, revealing that “shortly after Trump made repeated false claims regarding election activities at the TCF Center, when in truth his agent was seeking to cause a riot to disrupt the count.”
So there you have it, folks. Trump engaged in a conspiracy to steal the election in Detroit — and now Special Counsel Jack Smith had all of the evidence that he needs to prove it.
Put a fork in Trump…
this just popped up, it's not on the occupy democrats web site yet, or that i found......but....
here is the court listener drop:
rasterman
Member
I hadn't heard that. Do you have a link?
Dorian2
Well-Known Member
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-oath-support-constitution-colorado-insurrection-1847482
On a side note, this is pretty interesting on how it's been playing out. Most of what I'd seen happening is being proven and verified on a consistent, factual basis. I doubt any of this is much of a surprise to anybody, but the details of what was going on are neat to follow.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Does Newsmax or OAN not report what Trump says?
SchmoeJoe
Well-Known Member
His supporters, including media outlets, are truly clinical and desperately need a diagnose. The latest evidence I've heard of is text messages between trump and an election official arranging riots to disrupt the count when it was clear that trump was losing.
No matter how much if this evidence comes out his supporters will explain it away. I have a coworker who always resorts to "its a CIA conspiracy". He says he knows for fact that democrats eat babies in Satan worshipping ceremonies because it's the only plausible explanation for how they've stayed in office. This same guy who says he's going to rake our country back and has all if the grand conspiracies figured is constantly forgetting the most basic parts of regular daily tasks and blames it on his head injury.
ooof-da
Well-Known Member
that place is so toxic now I just stopped going there for news
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
it’s Skumfront
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
i have to agree with you bout the toxicity of X, and that it is, and i have a feeling as the election comes closer, it will get worse. For the things i find, i have to swim through a bunch a bs to get where i need to go, most are right off the bat but some aren't. In my following section the only people i have are news outlets (NBC, ABC, CBS, Politico, the Hill, Miedastouch, the Lincoln Project etc) and credible people who cover events, i also have NASA, the Web Telescope, Hubble, Physics stuff, NOAA just to name a few i follow. The "for you" section i take with a grain assualt cause that's where a lot of the BS happens. Also if you take a look at the trending stuff, if you see a high number like 76K for NATO right now, you know darn well there gonna be a lot of trolls there and people there for the lack of a better word "dumb"
printer
Well-Known Member
Wisconsin pro-Trump ‘fake electors’ settle lawsuit over false 2020 filings
The 10 Wisconsin Republicans who falsely asserted former President Trump won the election there conceded that their actions were part of an effort to subvert the state’s election results as part of a settlement agreement made public Wednesday.
The alternate electors affirmed that President Biden won the 2020 election in the Badger State and that they were not Wisconsin’s “duly elected” presidential electors as they previously claimed, revoking the false documents they filed on Dec. 14, 2020 — the first time any pro-Trump electors have done so.
Those filings were later used “as part of an attempt to improperly overturn the 2020 presidential election results,” the so-called “fake electors” said.
“We oppose any attempt to undermine the public’s faith in the ultimate results of the 2020
presidential election,” read a statement by the 10 Republicans that was attached to the settlement agreement.
The statement is part of a settlement involving a $2.4 million lawsuit filed by Biden’s Democratic electors against the Republicans. The fake electors won’t pay any damages or attorneys fees under the deal, and there is no admission of culpability or liability.
As part of the agreement, the pro-Trump electors pledged not to serve as electors in 2024 or in any election where Trump is on the ballot. They also agreed to cooperate with ongoing or future Justice Department investigations tied to efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 election or efforts to interfere with the certification of that election.
Jeff Mandell, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement that the settlement agreement holds the fake electors accountable for their actions and helps ensure that similar efforts will “never happen again.”
“Wisconsin voters have been awaiting accountability for 3 years, and it is beyond time to hold those who perpetrated this scheme responsible for their actions,” Mandell said.
The alternate electors scheme, spearheaded by Trump lawyer John Eastman and bolstered by other lawyers, relied on former Vice President Mike Pence to certify slates of Trump-supporting electors in battleground states instead of the true Electoral College votes cast for Biden.
Pence declined to go along with the plan on Jan. 6, 2021 — the day of the election certification — writing in a letter that his “oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not.” Later that day, a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol in protest of the election results and Pence’s refusal to overturn them.
In addition to Wisconsin, fake electors allegedly convened in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Nevada, claiming without basis that they were “duly elected” electors from their states.
Those actions have prompted criminal probes in several of those states, though Wisconsin’s prosecutorial arm has not said whether it is investigating the fake electors.
The case against Wisconsin’s pro-Trump electors was scheduled to go to trial in September 2024, just two months before Election Day. Both Biden and Trump are running for reelection and where they are widely expected to have a rematch next year.
thehill.com
The 10 Wisconsin Republicans who falsely asserted former President Trump won the election there conceded that their actions were part of an effort to subvert the state’s election results as part of a settlement agreement made public Wednesday.
The alternate electors affirmed that President Biden won the 2020 election in the Badger State and that they were not Wisconsin’s “duly elected” presidential electors as they previously claimed, revoking the false documents they filed on Dec. 14, 2020 — the first time any pro-Trump electors have done so.
Those filings were later used “as part of an attempt to improperly overturn the 2020 presidential election results,” the so-called “fake electors” said.
“We oppose any attempt to undermine the public’s faith in the ultimate results of the 2020
presidential election,” read a statement by the 10 Republicans that was attached to the settlement agreement.
The statement is part of a settlement involving a $2.4 million lawsuit filed by Biden’s Democratic electors against the Republicans. The fake electors won’t pay any damages or attorneys fees under the deal, and there is no admission of culpability or liability.
As part of the agreement, the pro-Trump electors pledged not to serve as electors in 2024 or in any election where Trump is on the ballot. They also agreed to cooperate with ongoing or future Justice Department investigations tied to efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 election or efforts to interfere with the certification of that election.
Jeff Mandell, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement that the settlement agreement holds the fake electors accountable for their actions and helps ensure that similar efforts will “never happen again.”
“Wisconsin voters have been awaiting accountability for 3 years, and it is beyond time to hold those who perpetrated this scheme responsible for their actions,” Mandell said.
The alternate electors scheme, spearheaded by Trump lawyer John Eastman and bolstered by other lawyers, relied on former Vice President Mike Pence to certify slates of Trump-supporting electors in battleground states instead of the true Electoral College votes cast for Biden.
Pence declined to go along with the plan on Jan. 6, 2021 — the day of the election certification — writing in a letter that his “oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not.” Later that day, a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol in protest of the election results and Pence’s refusal to overturn them.
In addition to Wisconsin, fake electors allegedly convened in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Nevada, claiming without basis that they were “duly elected” electors from their states.
Those actions have prompted criminal probes in several of those states, though Wisconsin’s prosecutorial arm has not said whether it is investigating the fake electors.
The case against Wisconsin’s pro-Trump electors was scheduled to go to trial in September 2024, just two months before Election Day. Both Biden and Trump are running for reelection and where they are widely expected to have a rematch next year.
Wisconsin pro-Trump ‘fake electors’ settle lawsuit over false 2020 filings
The 10 Wisconsin Republicans who falsely asserted former President Trump won the 2020 election there conceded that their actions were part of an effort to subvert the state’s election results…
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
6 pro-Trump ‘fake electors’ indicted by Nevada grand jury
Nevada’s attorney general on Wednesday announced charges against six so-called fake electors who falsely claimed former President Trump won the state in the 2020 presidential election.
“When the efforts to undermine faith in our democracy began after the 2020 election, I made it clear that I would do everything in my power to defend the institutions of our nation and our state,” Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford said in a statement. “We cannot allow attacks on democracy to go unchallenged.”
The six Nevadans face felony charges of offering a false instrument for filing and uttering a forged document for disseminating a document titled “Certificate of the Votes of the 2020 Electors from Nevada” to several government entities.
The pro-Trump electors facing charges are Michael McDonald, Jesse Law, Jim DeGraffenreid, Durward James Hindle III, Shawn Meehan and Eileen Rice. The Nevada attorney general’s office said in a statement that they posed as “duly qualified” electors in an effort to “disrupt the results of a free and fair presidential election.”
The alternate electors scheme, spearheaded by Trump lawyers, relied on former Vice President Mike Pence to certify slates of Trump-supporting electors in battleground states instead of the true Electoral College votes cast for Biden. He ultimately declined to do so on Jan. 6, 2021 — the day of the election certification — after which a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol in protest.
In addition to Nevada, fake electors allegedly convened in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Wisconsin, claiming without basis that they were “duly elected” electors from their states.
Michigan’s attorney general in July charged 16 people for falsely stating they were the state’s “duly elected and qualified electors.” The investigations into fake electors there, in New Mexico and in Arizona are ongoing.
In Georgia, three fake electors were charged alongside Trump and more than a dozen others in a sprawling racketeering case alleging they joined a criminal enterprise bent on keeping Trump in the White House.
Kenneth Chesebro — the Trump lawyer who was a defendant in the Georgia case before pleading guilty to lesser charges as part of an agreement with Fulton County prosecutors — is cooperating with the probes in Nevada and Arizona.
Planning in Nevada to use an alternate slate of electors began as early as four days before the 2020 election, when DeGraffenreid — one of the charged fake electors — told other state party officials in a text that former Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske (R) “might do a lot of things, but sending a slate of Republican electors without them being clearly the winners of the popular vote is not one of them.”
Details from the months after Trump lost the 2020 election indicate that the former president and his closest allies could be implicated in the state’s investigation.
DeGraffenreid, a GOP committee member, emailed then-Trump lawyer Chesebro on Dec. 11, 2020, with the subject “URGENT-Trump-Pence campaign asked me to contact you to coordinate Dec. 14 voting by Nevada electors,” according to the Jan. 6 committee’s final report.
McDonald, another of the fake electors charged, joined a conference call on Nov. 4, 2020, with Trump, his son Eric Trump, former chief of staff Mark Meadows and longtime Trump ally Rudy Giuliani, according to deposition transcripts released by the now-defunct House Jan. 6 committee.
“They went full attack mode,” McDonald later wrote of the call in a text message.
thehill.com
Nevada’s attorney general on Wednesday announced charges against six so-called fake electors who falsely claimed former President Trump won the state in the 2020 presidential election.
“When the efforts to undermine faith in our democracy began after the 2020 election, I made it clear that I would do everything in my power to defend the institutions of our nation and our state,” Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford said in a statement. “We cannot allow attacks on democracy to go unchallenged.”
The six Nevadans face felony charges of offering a false instrument for filing and uttering a forged document for disseminating a document titled “Certificate of the Votes of the 2020 Electors from Nevada” to several government entities.
The pro-Trump electors facing charges are Michael McDonald, Jesse Law, Jim DeGraffenreid, Durward James Hindle III, Shawn Meehan and Eileen Rice. The Nevada attorney general’s office said in a statement that they posed as “duly qualified” electors in an effort to “disrupt the results of a free and fair presidential election.”
The alternate electors scheme, spearheaded by Trump lawyers, relied on former Vice President Mike Pence to certify slates of Trump-supporting electors in battleground states instead of the true Electoral College votes cast for Biden. He ultimately declined to do so on Jan. 6, 2021 — the day of the election certification — after which a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol in protest.
In addition to Nevada, fake electors allegedly convened in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Wisconsin, claiming without basis that they were “duly elected” electors from their states.
Michigan’s attorney general in July charged 16 people for falsely stating they were the state’s “duly elected and qualified electors.” The investigations into fake electors there, in New Mexico and in Arizona are ongoing.
In Georgia, three fake electors were charged alongside Trump and more than a dozen others in a sprawling racketeering case alleging they joined a criminal enterprise bent on keeping Trump in the White House.
Kenneth Chesebro — the Trump lawyer who was a defendant in the Georgia case before pleading guilty to lesser charges as part of an agreement with Fulton County prosecutors — is cooperating with the probes in Nevada and Arizona.
Planning in Nevada to use an alternate slate of electors began as early as four days before the 2020 election, when DeGraffenreid — one of the charged fake electors — told other state party officials in a text that former Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske (R) “might do a lot of things, but sending a slate of Republican electors without them being clearly the winners of the popular vote is not one of them.”
Details from the months after Trump lost the 2020 election indicate that the former president and his closest allies could be implicated in the state’s investigation.
DeGraffenreid, a GOP committee member, emailed then-Trump lawyer Chesebro on Dec. 11, 2020, with the subject “URGENT-Trump-Pence campaign asked me to contact you to coordinate Dec. 14 voting by Nevada electors,” according to the Jan. 6 committee’s final report.
McDonald, another of the fake electors charged, joined a conference call on Nov. 4, 2020, with Trump, his son Eric Trump, former chief of staff Mark Meadows and longtime Trump ally Rudy Giuliani, according to deposition transcripts released by the now-defunct House Jan. 6 committee.
“They went full attack mode,” McDonald later wrote of the call in a text message.
6 pro-Trump ‘fake electors’ indicted by Nevada grand jury
Nevada’s attorney general on Wednesday announced charges against six so-called fake electors who falsely claimed former President Trump won the state in the 2020 presidential election. “…
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
Trump seeks pause in Jan. 6 proceedings amid appeal effort to toss federal case
Former President Trump filed a motion seeking to halt activity in his election interference case after filing a notice of appeal Thursday seeking to override a decision from a federal judge who denied his motion to toss the case. The back-to-back motions ask Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the Jan. 6 case, to pause “all district court proceedings in this case” as a higher court considers Trump’s appeal of the motion to toss the entire case.
The maneuver threatens to upend Trump’s March 4 trial date in the case, and comes after prosecutors have argued the former president is simply using every avenue possible to disrupt the case in the hopes of punting the matter beyond the 2024 election. Trump is facing charges on four counts in relation to his efforts to stay in power after losing the 2020 election. Chutkan last Friday declined a motion from Trump that sought to dismiss the case based both on the concept of presidential immunity, as well as constitutional grounds, including the First Amendment.
“Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass, Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” Chutkan wrote in the 48-page ruling. “Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office,” she added.
The notice of appeal from Trump does not contain any legal arguments, which will come in a later filing.
But in asking to stay the proceedings, Trump’s attorneys bashed Chutkan’s decision.
“The Court incorrectly denied President Trump’s claim of Presidential immunity on the ground that such immunity does not extend to federal criminal prosecution for a President’s official acts,” they wrote.
Beyond arguments that Trump, as a former president, still carries presidential immunity, in a 31-page brief filed in October, he likewise argued the prosecution represented a case of “double jeopardy” as he already faced an impeachment trial in the Senate following Jan. 6.
“But neither traditional double jeopardy principles nor the Impeachment Judgment Clause provide that a prosecution following impeachment acquittal violates double jeopardy,” Chutkan wrote.
She also tossed Trump’s contention that the indictment violated his due process rights and that the alleged conduct was protected by the First Amendment.
Trump’s motion had also argued his prosecution “criminalize core political speech” as Trump had a right to raise questions about the election.
“The fact that the indictment alleges that the speech at issue was supposedly, according to the prosecution, ‘false’ makes no difference,” Trump’s attorneys wrote. “Under the First Amendment, each individual American participating in a free marketplace of ideas — not the federal Government — decides for him or herself what is true and false on great disputed social and political questions.”
Trump’s appeal follows another for one of Chutkan’s decision, a gag order that barred him from making statements that “target” individuals involved in the case, including witnesses and even special counsel Jack Smith.
thehill.com
Former President Trump filed a motion seeking to halt activity in his election interference case after filing a notice of appeal Thursday seeking to override a decision from a federal judge who denied his motion to toss the case. The back-to-back motions ask Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the Jan. 6 case, to pause “all district court proceedings in this case” as a higher court considers Trump’s appeal of the motion to toss the entire case.
The maneuver threatens to upend Trump’s March 4 trial date in the case, and comes after prosecutors have argued the former president is simply using every avenue possible to disrupt the case in the hopes of punting the matter beyond the 2024 election. Trump is facing charges on four counts in relation to his efforts to stay in power after losing the 2020 election. Chutkan last Friday declined a motion from Trump that sought to dismiss the case based both on the concept of presidential immunity, as well as constitutional grounds, including the First Amendment.
“Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass, Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” Chutkan wrote in the 48-page ruling. “Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office,” she added.
The notice of appeal from Trump does not contain any legal arguments, which will come in a later filing.
But in asking to stay the proceedings, Trump’s attorneys bashed Chutkan’s decision.
“The Court incorrectly denied President Trump’s claim of Presidential immunity on the ground that such immunity does not extend to federal criminal prosecution for a President’s official acts,” they wrote.
Beyond arguments that Trump, as a former president, still carries presidential immunity, in a 31-page brief filed in October, he likewise argued the prosecution represented a case of “double jeopardy” as he already faced an impeachment trial in the Senate following Jan. 6.
“But neither traditional double jeopardy principles nor the Impeachment Judgment Clause provide that a prosecution following impeachment acquittal violates double jeopardy,” Chutkan wrote.
She also tossed Trump’s contention that the indictment violated his due process rights and that the alleged conduct was protected by the First Amendment.
Trump’s motion had also argued his prosecution “criminalize core political speech” as Trump had a right to raise questions about the election.
“The fact that the indictment alleges that the speech at issue was supposedly, according to the prosecution, ‘false’ makes no difference,” Trump’s attorneys wrote. “Under the First Amendment, each individual American participating in a free marketplace of ideas — not the federal Government — decides for him or herself what is true and false on great disputed social and political questions.”
Trump’s appeal follows another for one of Chutkan’s decision, a gag order that barred him from making statements that “target” individuals involved in the case, including witnesses and even special counsel Jack Smith.
Trump seeks pause in Jan. 6 proceedings amid appeal effort to toss federal case
Former President Trump filed a motion seeking to halt activity in his election interference case after filing a notice of appeal Thursday seeking to override a decision from a federal judge who den…
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
Winning.
Appeals court upholds key provisions of Trump gag order in federal Jan. 6 case
An appeals court largely upheld a gag order limiting former President Trump’s statements as he faces federal prosecution for seeking to block the transfer of power, broadening his ability to attack special counsel Jack Smith while leaving in place limitations on other parties.
The ruling from a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirms a prior ruling from Judge Tanya Chutkan, who barred Trump from making statements that “target” foreseeable witnesses, court staff and prosecutors.
The appeals court refined that directive, barring Trump from any statements “made with the intent to materially interfere with, or to cause others to materially interfere with” the course of the case.
But it removed Smith from the list of protected court staff, giving Trump free reign to go after a prosecutor he is fond of taunting as “deranged.”
“We agree with the district court that some aspects of Mr. Trump’s public statements pose a significant and imminent threat to the fair and orderly adjudication of the ongoing criminal proceeding, warranting a speech-constraining protective order. The district court’s order, however, sweeps in more protected speech than is necessary,” the panel wrote.
DEVELOPING
thehill.com
READ: Trump gag order appeals court ruling
An appeals court largely upheld a gag order limiting former President Trump’s statements as he faces federal prosecution for seeking to block the transfer of power, broadening his ability to attack special counsel Jack Smith while leaving in place limitations on other parties.
The ruling from a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirms a prior ruling from Judge Tanya Chutkan, who barred Trump from making statements that “target” foreseeable witnesses, court staff and prosecutors.
Read the ruling here:
thehill.com
Appeals court upholds key provisions of Trump gag order in federal Jan. 6 case
An appeals court largely upheld a gag order limiting former President Trump’s statements as he faces federal prosecution for seeking to block the transfer of power, broadening his ability to attack special counsel Jack Smith while leaving in place limitations on other parties.
The ruling from a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirms a prior ruling from Judge Tanya Chutkan, who barred Trump from making statements that “target” foreseeable witnesses, court staff and prosecutors.
The appeals court refined that directive, barring Trump from any statements “made with the intent to materially interfere with, or to cause others to materially interfere with” the course of the case.
But it removed Smith from the list of protected court staff, giving Trump free reign to go after a prosecutor he is fond of taunting as “deranged.”
“We agree with the district court that some aspects of Mr. Trump’s public statements pose a significant and imminent threat to the fair and orderly adjudication of the ongoing criminal proceeding, warranting a speech-constraining protective order. The district court’s order, however, sweeps in more protected speech than is necessary,” the panel wrote.
DEVELOPING
Appeals court upholds key provisions of Trump gag order in federal Jan. 6 case
An appeals court largely upheld a gag order limiting former President Trump’s statements as he faces federal prosecution for seeking to block the transfer of power, broadening his ability to attack…
thehill.com
READ: Trump gag order appeals court ruling
An appeals court largely upheld a gag order limiting former President Trump’s statements as he faces federal prosecution for seeking to block the transfer of power, broadening his ability to attack special counsel Jack Smith while leaving in place limitations on other parties.
The ruling from a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirms a prior ruling from Judge Tanya Chutkan, who barred Trump from making statements that “target” foreseeable witnesses, court staff and prosecutors.
Read the ruling here:
READ: Trump gag order appeals court ruling
An appeals court largely upheld a gag order limiting former President Trump’s statements as he faces federal prosecution for seeking to block the transfer of power, broadening his ability to attack…
thehill.com