free webpage hit counter

“it’s a hypothetical!”: A judge slaps Trump’s attorney for skirting the subject of the gag order

by Jessica
78 views

The Court of Appeals convened on Monday for a crucial hearing regarding the potential reinstatement of a gag order on former President Donald Trump.

This order, initially imposed by District Judge Tanya Chutkan, had restricted Trump from disclosing specific trial information and from making any attacks or threats against court officers in the 2020 federal election interference case.

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, faced a challenging task as the three-judge panel, comprised of Judges Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard (appointed by President Barack Obama), and Judge Bradley Garcia (appointed by President Joe Biden), sought clarification on the legal basis for their stance.

Sauer contended that the terms of the gag order were overly broad and infringed upon the constitutional rights of the former president, as per a report by Raw Story on, November 21.

He argued that Trump’s statements did not present a “clear and present danger” warranting such restrictions. However, Millett pressed Sauer on the distinction between participants and outsiders, emphasizing that the former might be held to a higher standard.

Despite the questioning, Sauer struggled to provide a satisfactory response, leading to Millett expressing frustration with the lack of clarity.

Millett further highlighted that, even if one were to accept Sauer’s viewpoint, established Supreme Court law dictates that the “clear and present danger” concept involves a delicate balancing test between the defendant’s rights and the potential risks posed by their conduct.

Later in the proceedings, Pillard challenged Sauer to differentiate between punishing Trump for making a similar statement to a witness privately versus doing so on social media or at a public rally.

Sauer evaded the question, maintaining that Trump had not made such statements. Pillard clarified that it was a hypothetical scenario, underscoring the complexity of the legal arguments presented during the hearing.

Related Posts