![]() ![]() She added: “It seems to me to contradict Supreme Court precedent and seems to me sort of a very troubling lack of balance on a free speech side on the part of prosecution in this case.”Īssistant special counsel Cecil VanDevender told the judge the government’s position was not that Trump’s statements “in a vacuum are unprotected,” but that the case law surrounding the issue says that some “classic political speech directed toward the government” can be curtailed if it’s likely that it will materially prejudice the proceedings.Īn aid for Republican presidential candidate, former Vice President Mike Pence holds out his hand as reporters arrive to speak with Pence after his remarks at the Pray Vote Stand Summit at the Omni Shoreham Hotel on September 15, in Washington, DC. “I’m asking your position - which doesn't seem to give much balance at all to the First Amendment's vigorous protection of political speech and the notion that high profile public figures or governmental officials who’ve taken on enormous responsibility like prosecutors can't stand up to some inflammatory language,” Millett said. ![]() The potential issue of online threats being directed toward jurors as a result of Trump’s speech has been a recurring topic during Monday’s hearing over the gag order issued against him, and it could factor into the judges' final decision on whether or not they’ll endorse the restrictions imposed by a lower court.Ĭircuit Judge Patricia Millett at one point pressed the assistant special counsel on how the government is balancing Donald Trump’s constitutional rights as they seek to partly restrict the former president's speech in the election interference case. “Because we do have - as you appreciate - the problem of speech by the defendant, and then it has the knock-on effect with the loyalists’ zeal, and that’s then, you know, what causes direct efforts at threatening and harassing individuals,” she said.Īssistant special counsel Cecil Woods VanDevender said he wasn’t aware of any technological tools that would work to mitigate the issue “at the source.” “Is there any way, preventatively, to protect someone's technology? Like let's say I'm a prospective juror, can I be protected technologically from like doxxing?” Circuit Judge Patricia Millett asked an attorney from the special counsel’s office at one point. The judges on Monday have brought up the possibility that jurors in the case could be the targets of online doxxing as a result of former President Donald Trump’s speech. The appellate judges, who are all Democratic appointees, heard the case on an expedited schedule and are expected to issue a ruling soon. ![]() He is allowed to criticize the Justice Department, proclaim his innocence, can say that the case is “politically motivated.” The limited gag order from district Judge Tanya Chutkan – which was temporarily frozen by the appeals panel when they agreed to hear the case - restricts Trump’s ability to directly attack Smith, members of his team, court staff or potential trial witnesses. Yet they also posed sharp questions to prosecutors as they tried to find the boundary of where intense campaign-trail rhetoric crosses the line of undermining a criminal case. None of the judges embraced Trump’s claims that the gag order should be wiped away for good because it is a “categorically unprecedented” violation of his free speech rights. US Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit, AP, US Senate Judiciary CommitteeĪfter 2 hours and 20 minutes of oral arguments, the three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals appears inclined to restore the limited gag order in former President Donald Trump’s federal election subversion case, but may loosen some restrictions so he can more directly criticize special counsel Jack Smith. Judge Patricia Millett, Judge Cornelia Pillard, and Judge Bradley Garcia. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |