Former President of the United States of America, Donald Trump was recently granted permission to publicly disclose ‘non-sensitive’ evidence. This proof is set to be used during his trial on grounds of plotting to overturn the 2020 elections. While he may have some sort of freedom to speak about it, the federal judge issued a very curt and strict warning to him. And asked him to be mindful of his words and actions while in a public environment.
District Judge, Tanya Chutkan ruled Friday, August 11, that the protective order will only apply to ‘sensitive’ materials, not all discovery. She also issued a warning regarding her allowing the former president to talk about the said information. Chutkan told Trump’s lawyers, “Your client’s defense is supposed to happen in this courtroom, not on the internet.”
The judge further declared in an assertive tone, “Even arguably ambiguous statements by the parties at their counsel – if they can be reasonably interpreted to intimidate witnesses or to prejudice potential juror -can threaten the process,” according to CNBC .
Can’t say how grateful I am to have Judge Chutkan overseeing Donald Trump’s trial. She is fair. She follows the facts. She is no nonsense and is a straight shooter. Judge Chutkan is the judge we deserve. Let’s all take a moment & thank Judge Chutkan for her commitment to justice. pic.twitter.com/bWvFeR1FN3
— Victor Shi (@Victorshi2020) August 11, 2023
She then advised Trump and his legal counsel to be rather cautious about her instructions and asked them to firmly abide by and remember her words. “I caution you and your client to take special care in your public statements about this case,” she cautioned. Then added, “I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings.”
Remember past witnesses that Donald Trump targeted? They sure do. And so, apparently, does Judge Chutkan. pic.twitter.com/gKJmO6VoM9
— Alex Wagner Tonight (@WagnerTonight) August 12, 2023
This comes after the recent battle between both legal parties involved amid a discussion about the kind of information that was permitted to be shared in public. Details strictly pertaining to the evidence recently obtained were a major topic of concern for both of them. Hence the judge fairly presented a solution as mentioned. However, this decision went against the prosecutor’s objections who persisted and argued against Trump’s recent comments on social media.
And even suggested them as a possible inkling of his misusing confidential information in order to intimidate witnesses involved in the case. In other words, it could be used as leverage in this situation which could then cause some serious damage to the opposition’s case.
Judge Chutkan to Donald Trump. 😂 pic.twitter.com/arzj4q39Am
— Tony – Resistance (@TonyHussein4) August 11, 2023
Upon careful consideration of what the prosecutors noted, Chutkan in response ruled in favor of Trump instead. The reason was the government had reported failed to gather evidence strong enough to hold water in this case. And failed to prove how this particular evidence should be subjected to a ‘protective order’ instead. So as to prevent it from being leaked to the public, causing a domino effect that would in turn taint a jury pool.
Judge Tanya Chutkan warned Donald Trump’s attorney, “The more a party makes inflammatory statements about this case … the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly.” Judge Chutkan added, “I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity… pic.twitter.com/tvpgqxzd0G
— Tony – Resistance (@TonyHussein4) August 11, 2023
But, she wasn’t fully dismissive of what the prosecutors highlighted and found some truth in them. Instead of permitting every form of evidence from being unveiled, she only permitted Trump to disclose limited and specific data.
“He is a criminal defendant. He is going to have restrictions like every single other defendant. This case is proceeding in the normal order,” the judge declared, per NBC News . In conclusion of her ruling, the judge said, “The fact that the defendant is engaged in a political campaign is not going to allow him any greater or lesser latitude than any defendant in a criminal case.”