Judge issues IMPORTANT RULING in Trump January 6th case

hey everyone Harry here to talk about the first Hearing in the January 6 case before judge Tanya chutkin now this hearing she called because the parties were feuding uh about the terms of a protective order and uh they couldn't agree on it and Trump was insisting that his first amendment rights would be Abridged if he wasn't able to take the materials he was going to get to prepare his case and use them as he wanted including in the public sphere and the Department of Justice said wait a second he's getting these materials to prepare his case that's fine but that doesn't give him license to use them and we know how he'll use them he'll use them selectively to try to give false Impressions to the entire country including the prospective jury pool in this case and to to intimidate potential Witnesses and their proof on that was pretty good because just in the last week he's had several intemperate is is too soft a word it just totally berserk uh messages about the case generally about um Biden who he accuses with zero evidence the evidence is all to the contrary of bringing the whole prosecution so all kinds of things on the pollute the jury pool side and then also on Witnesses he comes after Mike Pence pretty viciously and the Department of Justice has said look we're ready to give him as we did in Mar-A-Lago all these trial excuse me grand jury transcripts which we don't have to give him normally until much later but we'll do it now so we can really get on with a trial and quickly we just need a protective order so he doesn't uh you you know abuse this information all right so that sets the stage today was the hearing and I would say it's uh chuckin gave both sides something uh so first in in the most important and fundamental ways she reaffirmed the uh the government side she came out of the box and said look this isn't uh you don't have regular First Amendment rights you're a criminal defendant you are released under certain conditions violate those conditions then they don't apply anymore and in particular you if you intimidate Witnesses if you pollute the jury pool that's a reason to change the conditions of of release so she was pretty strong that way um and that was uh I you know a message that doj would want to to have delivered to Trump who by the way was not in the courtroom on the other hand in the actual kind of argument uh about what they should be uh subject to the protective order and what they what shouldn't be Trump's team had said we shouldn't have non-sensitive material and that's material that doesn't reveal grand jury stuff or post threats it's a little bit amorphous and they may have to call balls and Strikes on it but they said that shouldn't be subject to the protective order on that point uh really the biggest point in contention between them she held for she agreed with Trump she said I'm not going to make these subject to the protective order first it is the United States burden to uh show that they that they need to be to show really kind of concrete risks of potential for witness intimidation in or polluting the jury pool and she says they hadn't made the showing that was a victory for Trump that was a little bit of a surprise I'd say because in many cases it's routine to just enter wholesale protective orders of course it isn't the case in most cases and anyone I can think of in fact that a defendant is saying you know cleave off this little bit or no what however big it is of non-sensitive um information on the other hand what she said was more or less what the department would have wanted because she said look he's already subject to the requirements not to intimidate Witnesses not to pollute the jury pool so if he does that it's already a violation of the order so I think on the one hand she shows one a sort of you know listening hard to both side eyes are at least wanting to have the appearance of being balanced but also gives herself I've said this before what she basically needs is a fair bit of room between where they start and her final um Authority which is what underlies her ability to keep Trump in line and that is putting him in jail for civil contempt if he violates order so she wants that to be able to be gradual because he's ever you know a guy who's a Serial violator and she wants to say now here's this order now is that now's a gag order next time Mr Trump I'll have no choice and at that point if he literally you know won't won't adhere to the rules of the Court we're looking at the former president in jail for a couple days where there's no hairspray and terrible food and the like so but she really really doesn't like want to move to that too quickly so um that was the you know the the resolution of the um basic Point she said one more thing of real significance I think she said I'm not going to consider the political campaigns and the timeline I shouldn't and I can't so she's suggesting that the basic I was just suggesting a few things one is if it comes to October say and um you know it's in the shadow of the election and she has to set the trial then she will we'll see if that's the case but also suggesting that that to the extent the doj is kind of intimating uh and they are in a in intimating but not saying expressly we really want to hurry up on this because he's trying to delay it past November and the people have a entitlement to to know what's the result of things she basically I think says I'm not going to think about that either I'm going to pretend there is no political campaign that of course becomes the elephant in the room can it really be ignored completely but she at least drew the Line in the Sand and says this is how I'm going to approach the case all right um August 28th is the the next and more important Showdown when she sets a trial schedule then we'll really know the prospects for finishing this well in advance of November the United States has argued we can do this starting the beginning of the year January 2nd and now on Monday Trump's going to have to come out with date I don't think he can play it as he did in Mar-A-Lago and just say we don't even want to set a date yet I think he's you know strategically going to be pushed how how far uh toward November can he go and and of course if she's pretending that pretending is the wrong word if she's uh putting uh blinders on about any of the political consequences then in theory all she thinks about is how quickly uh the the case can come to trial and the U.S has set out a whole schedule that that says we can do this in time by January 2nd and I think you know they wouldn't put that out if they couldn't uh do it it would be a very ambitious schedule I think everyone's anticipating it'll be later than that but they got to be ready to roll if they actually say that and you know she could adopt it anyway it'll be very interesting to see what uh Team Trump does on Monday but a particularly interesting and important to be there on the 28th when she sets the trial schedule talk to you later thanks for tuning in if you enjoyed this video and other talking feds content please take a second to like And subscribe talk to you later

Channel: Talking Feds with Harry Litman

Views: 87,720

Keywords: talking feds, podcast, legal, law and politics, politics, DOJ, SCOTUS, law, political analysis, government, global issues, united states, united states politics

Id: BbimRaTMYZE

Length: 9min 7sec (547 seconds)

Published: Fri Aug 11 2023