Search Posts

And now Saul Weisenberg, former deputy independent counsel, Fox News contributor, as well as David Schoen, former Trump impeachment lawyer. Saul, you know, the judge did say, look, the president has broad discretion to talk about what he wants, but you can't, you can't, basically you can't criticize Smith and his staff. What about this? Well, I haven't seen the order yet as we went to the air. I hadn't seen a written order yet, so that's all. She hasn't released it yet. I know you always do your homework. So I know, you know, you would never show up unprepared. David definitely wouldn't. But no, she hasn't released it yet. We're going to get into that in a moment. But those are the broad strokes of what she said. Yeah. And I think she's got to be very careful because there is a assuming that Trump can find a vehicle to appeal, an interlocutory appeal, or even challenging it with an injunction. If she does this too broadly, it's going to be overturned at a higher level. And also it will delay the trial, which she definitely doesn't want to do. And President Trump does want to do. I mean, David, the judge, again, this was this was orally. The written order is going to come out later, warned Trump against launching what she called a pretrial smear campaign against those who might testify against him, saying the First Amendment protections yield to the administration of justice and to the protection of witnesses. And she said she would consider sanctions, David, if she sees any violations, but then went on to say she'd elaborate on what those would be in her written order, which hasn't come out yet. So, David, there's a lot there. I think she's absolutely wrong. I think for a number of reasons, I think it's a frontal attack on the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. I think that part of her justification, she said, well, he's a criminal defendant. Criminal defendants can't say what they want. Who says so? He's a citizen of the United States. Criminal defendant is entitled to presumption of innocence under in-rae winship. That means he's not guilty of anything. He's entitled to challenge the process and the substance publicly. And quite frankly, the Supreme Court said in Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, the process doesn't begin inside the courtroom. And a defendant is entitled to present his public image as he wishes. I believe he's perfectly entitled to say Jack Smith is a thug. He's entitled to question Jack Smith's character, his judgment in bringing past cases that shouldn't have been brought. I have a sanctions motion against two of the members of Jack Smith's team right now. Their behavior is thuggish, JP Cooney and Molly Gaston. They lied to a federal judge. It's in the motion papers, indisputable. And so I think he's entitled to say it. I think what she has done is an affront to our fundamental core values of free speech. Saul, to the point that David just raised, Trump's lawyer and Judge Chutkin traded barbs back and forth in the courtroom. Chutkin read aloud a series of statements from Trump repeatedly raising concerns that his remarks could inspire violence. If you call certain people thugs enough times, doesn't that suggest Mr. Laro that someone should get them off the streets? She asked at one point, "Saul, wow. That's kind of a ... She's really trying to prognosticate violence." Which leads me to say, "What else could the order be applied?" If violence could happen, that's a pretty broad statement. I absolutely agree with David's analysis. You treat a prosecutor who's a big boy and should put his big boy pants on differently than you treat a potential witness. Everybody knows you can't threaten or try to intimidate a potential witness. The prosecutor, he produced a speaking indictment. He went to the grand jury and got a ham sandwich speaking indictment that was very prejudicial to former President Trump. He does that indictment. He holds a press conference and says, "Nobody is above the law. We treat everybody equally," and then Trump isn't allowed to criticize him. I think it is outrageous if the mere criticism of the prosecution team is to be prohibited. It is third world. Very different though when you're talking about a witness. Yeah. This is third world. He's campaigning in part, is he not, David, on the fact that the system itself has become so corrupted with political bias that we can't trust this system. That's part of his argument in his campaign, so now he can't actually campaign on the arguments he wants to campaign on. That's wild. That's wild. Beyond that, even in the criminal justice process, the public has an independent right to access, and that full access means getting all of the information. As Saul said, and he's absolutely right, there's this speaking indictment out there with detailed allegations, unproven allegations, memorialized. Everyone can pull them off their computer any time, any day, but Trump can't respond to that by challenging the process and the nature of the people who put him in that position. And Saul, on the media, corporate media today, they were saying, "Well, they were salivating. The fact that the judge could put Trump in jail down the road if she believes that he's violating this gag order, purposely violating the gag order, and vilifying Jack Smith and his merry band of prosecutors." Well, is she going to provide separate sleeping quarters for the Secret Service, Laura? I mean, she's not going to do that. She's going to do everything possible to avoid that. David made another point about the leading Supreme Court decision on this case, which is about 30 or 40 years old, and it's a terrible opinion with three or four different opinions by the Supreme Court, but it limited the right of lawyers, the lawyers in the case, to say certain things to the press, not the criminal defendant, and that's an important distinction. It's much more serious to limit the rights of the criminal defendant. As David points out, he's presumed innocent under our system. The one thing he can't do is intimidate potential witnesses. I've never seen anything like this in all my years, law, politics, this is the wildest thing. Saul, David, great to see you both. Thanks.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.