Posted on 10/17/2023 12:14:58 PM PDT by bitt
udge Tanya Chutkan released the gag order on Trump and it is worse than we thought.
Judge Tanya Chutkan on Monday imposed a gag order on Trump in the middle of a presidential election.
Last month Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a motion to gag Trump.
“The need for the proposed order is further evidenced by a review of the defendant’s prejudicial statements in the weeks since the Government initially filed its motion on September 15,” Jack Smith’s prosecutors wrote in the court filing reviewed by this reporter.
Judge Tanya Chutkan held a hearing on Monday morning on Jack Smith’s proposed gag order and used it as an opportunity to attack Trump.
President Trump will be barred from speaking out against Special Counsel Jack Smith, court witnesses and more!
Judge Chutkan laughed at Trump’s lawyers before telling them that Trump does not have unfettered First Amendment Rights.
“Chutkan laughed after Trump’s lawyer John Lauro argued that the current conditions are working, saying she disagreed before she went through some of Trump’s statements one by one. Chutakn said Trump “doesn’t” have unfettered First Amendment rights, and that there’s “no question” that the court is entitled to draw restrictions to ensure the fair administration of justice.” NBC News reported.
According to Chutkan’s gag order, Trump cannot criticize Special Counsel Jack Smith or any of his prosecutors – even if Trump is telling the truth!
Trump cannot criticize Jack Smith or any of his prosecutors or staffers, any of the Court’s staff or supporting personnel or any ‘witnesses.’
Jack Smith can leak and lie about Trump – and threaten witnesses – but Trump cannot defend himself otherwise he will be violating Chutkan’s unconstitutional gag order!
Judge Chutkan has released the official gag order on Donald Trump –
He is prohibited from criticizing the Special Counsel.
The Special Counsel could engage in the most egregious behavior – threatening witnesses, etc. – and Trump couldn’t say a thing. pic.twitter.com/CB3mdQL1EQ
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) October 17, 2023
...more
p
The corrupt Jamaican stooge weighs in with her third-world view of the Constitution.
Donald Trump Jr should tear this third world hack and her “Special Counsel” minions up on all social media.
USSC needs to rein this mess in. Now.
Every time the subject comes up:
"And regarding the DC case, the gag order from Judge Chutkan denies us the first amendment right to speak freely."
Jack Smith sure is a crybaby wimp.
And gutless Republicans say nothing.
“...the court is entitled to draw restrictions to ensure the fair administration of justice.”
“Judge” Sh!tkan isn’t the least bit interested in the “fair administration of justice” she’s just part of Deranged Smith’s 4 Black Stooges.
And,as a result,his name will be added to the indictments. And therefore he,too,will be silenced. Count on it.
It is well known that a court has no enforcement power of itself. Of itself, a court cannot do anything if its order, especially if it is unconstitutional, is ignored. That’s what nullification is.
The executive branch of the local, state, or federal court must enforce the order. Wouldn’t it be nice if the commensurate executive branch simply ignored the unconstitutional order along with the the target of the order?
Nullification of unconstitutional court orders would be a nice thing to see.
If Jim Jordan manages to pull off the vote for Speaker, he should start issuing Subpoena’s for every Judge and Lawyer involved in the inquisition of Trump and force them to testify before Congress on a whole host of Issues,
Statute of Limitations
Presidential Immunity
Acts of CONGRESS
GAG Orders
Judicial Bias
...
“U.S. CODE
TITLE 2—THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS
Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous.”
Simply look up Hinds Precedents, especially chapters 53 and 51, and Cannon’s Precedents, especially chapters 184-185. You’ll find numerous detailed cases of Congress asserting its power, arresting people, holding them until they agreed to answer questions, and then releasing them. Some of these people did not refuse to appear, but simply failed to satisfactorily answer questions.
Congress has the authority to arrest and imprison those found in Contempt. The power extends throughout the United States and is an inherent power (does not depend upon legislated act)
If found in Contempt the person can be arrested under a warrant of the Speaker of the House of Representatives or President of the Senate, by the respective Sergeant at Arms.
Statutory criminal contempt is an alternative to inherent contempt.
Under the inherent contempt power Congress may imprison a person for a specific period of time or an indefinite period of time, except a person imprisoned by the House of Representatives may not be imprisoned beyond adjournment of a session of Congress.
Imprisonment may be coercive or punitive.
Some references
[1] Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume 2, § 842 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_5s21.html
[2] Anderson v. Dunn - 19 U.S. 204 - “And, as to the distance to which the process might reach, it is very clear that there exists no reason for confining its operation to the limits of the District of Columbia; after passing those limits, we know no bounds that can be prescribed to its range but those of the United States.” http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/case.html
[3] Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/case.html 73rd Cong., 78 Cong. Rec. 2410 (1934) https://archive.org/details/congressionalrec78aunit
[4] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 - Under a warrant issued by the President of the Senate the Deputy to the Senate Sergeant at Arms arrested at Cincinnati, Ohio, Mally S. Daugherty, who had been twice subpoenaed by the Senate and twice failed to appear. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/case.html
[5] Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule IV Duties of the Sergeant at Arms - [] execute the commands of the House, and all processes issued by authority thereof, directed to him by the Speaker. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-105/pdf/HMAN-105-pg348.pdf
[6] An analysis of Congressional inquiry, subpoena, and enforcement http://www.constitutionproject.org/documents/when-congress-comes-calling-a-primer-on-the-principles-practices-and-pragmatics-of-legislative-inquiry/
In 1857, a New York Times reporter refused to say which members of Congress had asked him to get them bribes (protecting his “sources” just as various Judith Millers today protect the people who feed them proven lies that costs thousands of lives), so Congress locked him up until he answered and then banned him from Congress.
In 1924 an oil executive appeared but refused to answer certain questions, so the Senate held — literally held — him in contempt. Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana argued that this question of contempt was of the gravest importance, and that it involved “the very life of the effective existence of the House of Representatives of the United States and of the Senate of the United States.” The matter was taken to court, and the witness fined and imprisoned.
President Trump has every right to criticize Jack Smith.
-PJ
1170 A.D. King Henry the Second: ‘Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?’
I think that this seems to give him the freedom of speech he needs:
“This order shall not be construed to prohibit Defendant from making statements... asserting that the Defendant is innocent of the charges against him or that his prosecution is politically motivated,...”
Now, you could suppose that this statement precludes him from putting the forth the arguments to prove that he is innocent, but if the Court means to say that assertions of his innocence do not include anything and everything that supports that assertion, it’s up to the Court to explicitly state that.
Amadeus funny clip - The emperor attends rehearsal (ballet with no music)
Except what is being done is NOT funny.
Criticize them, Trump. Let them arrest you if they dare. Hold a rally on TV from jail.
The court explicitly gave him the right to assert his prosecution is politically motivated. That presumably includes asserting claims to support that assertion.
What therefore is presumably not allowed:
“Jack Smith is criticizing ME? I’m a successful businessman. He’s just a pedophile!”
What presumably would be allowed (if it isn’t slander):
“Of course Jack Smith is doing the dirty work for the pedophile party! Pedophiles support pedophiles!”
(I use these only for examples, and do not mean to suggest that Jack Smith is a pedophile, or that Trump would be right to assert that he is. Either assertion is presumably slander. My only point is that they are not prohibited by THIS order.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.