The attempt to censor Trump speech
Ronald Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”
After Friday night, we can add nine more: “a narrowly tailored order that imposes modest, permissible restrictions.”
Those words were used by Special Counsel Jack Smith to propose a gag order that would sharply curtail the ability of former President Donald Trump to criticize Smith and his prosecution.
The Smith motion is anything but “narrowly tailored.”
Indeed, short of a mobile “Get Smart” Cone of Silence, it is chilling to think of what Smith considered the broader option.
Smith told District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., that Trump could “present a serious and substantial danger of prejudicing” his 2020 federal election interference case.
Smith compared Trump’s comments on the trial to the “disinformation” spread by Trump after the 2020 election — the subject of the indictment.
The motion states that Trump’s “recent extrajudicial statements are intended to undermine public confidence in an institution — the judicial system — and to undermine confidence in and intimidate individuals — the Court, the jury pool, witnesses, and prosecutors.”
I have long criticized Trump’s inflammatory comments over these cases, but Smith’s solution veers dangerously into core political speech in the middle of a presidential election.
Ironically, Smith’s move will likely be seen as reinforcing Trump’s claim of intentional election interference by the Biden Administration.
I do not view it that way, but I do believe Smith is showing his signature lack of restraint in high-profile cases, a tendency that led to the unanimous overturning of his conviction of former Virginia Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell.
Smith seeks to bar comments “regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses” and “statements about any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflammatory, or intimidating.”
Gag orders have become commonplace in federal trials, particularly high-profile cases.
This is, however, no typical case.
Smith has pushed for a trial before the election and the court inexplicably shoehorned the trial into a crowded calendar just before the Super Tuesday election.
Judge Chutkan previously stated that “I cannot and I will not factor into my decisions how it will factor into a political campaign.”
This motion, however, would impose substantial limits on a national political debate and begs the question of whether the court is failing to balance the rivaling constitutional interests in this unprecedented situation.
...
One poll showed 62% of the public viewed the prosecutions as “politically motivated.”
...
Of course, it is politically motivated. Joe Biden is trying to criminalize his chief political opponent who is leading him in the polls at this point. The alleged actions being prosecuted look specious at this point. If anyone in the race deserves prosecution it is Joe Biden who has run a political extortion racket for years with the help of his son.
Trump complained about the results of the 2020 election. It is not that unusual for the loser of a close election to do so. It is one of the reasons we have a 1st Amendment. He is not the only one to challenge the stated results of the 2020 election. Biden has been such a disaster as president that many still question how he won.
The Daily Caller also reports:
Former President Donald Trump slammed special counsel Jack Smith Friday for trying to secure a gag order in a post on Truth Social.
...
“So, I’m campaigning for President against an incompetent person who has WEAPONIZED the DOJ & FBI to go after his Political Opponent, & I am not allowed to COMMENT?” Trump asked. “They Leak, Lie, & Sue, & they won’t allow me to SPEAK? How else would I explain that Jack Smith is DERANGED, or Crooked Joe is INCOMPETENT?”
...
See, also:
And:
Former federal prosecutor: It will be ‘very hard’ to find unbiased jury in Trump DC case
Comments
Post a Comment