Search Posts

going on. This went into President Trump. A judge issued a protective order in the case looking into January 6th. A protective order is designed to protect evidence related to the case. It is designed to again protect "sensitive materials." Here's what the district judge Tanya Chutkin had to say, "Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech, but that's right is not absolute. In a criminal case such as this one, the defendant's free speech is subject to the rules." So, anything Trump may say when it comes to this case, not anything and everything, will come under her purview for her to look at and say whether or not it is a violation of this protective order. Here's what President Trump had to say about this First Amendment case. The case is a ridiculous case. It's a First Amendment case, but we don't want Trump to speak. So, they want me, they take away your rights on First Amendment. Now they sue because, so now I have one of these lunatic reporters back there saying, "Sir, we'd like to talk to you about your case." Or, "I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to talk about it." Somehow that's that good for votes. Do you agree? When we say, "I can't talk, I'd love to, I will talk about it," I will. They're not taking away my First Amendment. It's kind of funny because a lot of politicians like to hide behind, "I can't talk about it," because the case, but Donald Trump's the opposite. He's like, "I want to talk about this. This is an injustice," and he sees what this judge is doing as election interference, and I think he's right. And by the way, we should look at this judge a little closely if you look at some of the statements that she made in sentencing, which by the way she sentenced very harshly and went above and beyond what many people thought was just and fair in the cases of many of the January 6 defendants. She actually, in many of these cases, said, "These people are just too loyal to Donald Trump and I can't believe he's still free." And that is the woman who is now in charge of this case. So it's an interesting situation. If I understand this right, what she's basically said is, I think prosecutors are asking for basically a hush order. Like, Trump can't talk about this at all in any way. So as to not, in their theory, not intimidate witnesses. Exactly. Trump's defense comes to the judge and says, "Listen, this is unique from any other case like it because this guy's running for president and his popularity among people matter. If the Justice Department can put out charges which are not proven, they're charges, not convictions. If they can put out charges that leak or paint a narrative, we should be able to push back on that." So the judge says, "You can, but there's certain pieces of evidence the prosecution's asked for you to not talk about and I'm gonna uphold that." So, you know, you look at it as a mixed ruling or you look at it as her trying to find a way to uphold what might be a legitimate legal request by prosecution, but also provide President Trump his ability to push back on some of these charges in the public sphere. Because it's kind of vague. So you kind of don't know when you're stepping on that now. You don't know until you do. I said this last night with Jesse Waters. In a normal situation, what you would look at that and say, "Yes, a criminal defendant can have their First Amendment rights limited." So in other words, you can't say whatever you want to say because it could impact a trial. A criminal trial takes precedent. So in a normal situation, what her order would would be expected. And then you would say, again, in a normal situation, well that really reflects on the wisdom of the prosecutor who decides to bring this type of case in the middle of a presidential election. You'd say, "Why would they do that?" Because it could so clearly could interfere in a presidential election, but this isn't normal because it's Donald Trump. So you don't give them the benefit of the doubt that it's simply a lack of wisdom. It's actually something done with purpose. It's lawfare. It is designed to limit his speech. So it is designed to, by the prosecution side, by Jack Smith's side, to limit a presidential or to affect a presidential election. This judge will have to look piece by piece. The illustration everybody's using is Mike Pence. Mike Pence is a potential witness. Mike Pence will say things on the campaign trail or in the course of this trial about January 6th. And according to this order, Donald Trump can't respond. He can't say something, for example, in that illustration. Now he will, and it will be interesting to see what the judge does about that and how she attempts to enforce this protective order. I think this is actually a really big deal in terms of election interference, and I think we've seen so many cases of election interference going all the way back to Russia hoax, really, because that affected the election. And then and then the Hunter Biden laptop suppression story. All of this stuff, I hope we're not becoming desensitized to all these things that are happening to our country that just aren't normal. It really does add legitimacy to the argument that this entire thing is an attempt to stop President Trump from running again. Of course. All right, turning now to your headlines, this terrified

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.