Order on Judge Chutkan's gag order

Well, no shit.  There would be no such thing as a gag order if it were otherwise.

On Monday, at a federal courthouse steps from the Capitol, special counsel Jack Smith — under guard by deputy U.S. marshals — watched as one of his prosecutors, Cecil VanDevender, argued for the reinstatement of the gag order.

[...]

In her order, Chutkan barred Trump from “targeting” potential witnesses or referencing the subject of their testimony. She also forbade Trump from going after prosecutors by name, while permitting him to make broader attacks on the Biden administration and the Justice Department. [She] also barred Trump from attacking court personnel.

[...]

After the panel suspended the gag order while it hears Trump’s appeal, Trump used the interim to resume his attacks on Smith’s team — and even on Smith’s family members — as well as potential witnesses.

[...]

The three-judge D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel raised concerns that the order — which bars Trump from targeting witnesses, prosecutors and courthouse staff in the criminal case related to his effort to subvert the 2020 election — created murky restrictions that stifled the former president’s right to push back against his detractors, particularly in the heat of a presidential campaign.

Judge Patricia Millett, an appointee of President Barack Obama, suggested the gag order could amount to a straitjacket for Trump if his prosecution became the focus of attacks during a presidential debate.

  Politico

So you can't draw up a gag order that makes an exception to debating?

Another appeals judge, Nina Pillard, suggested on at least five occasions that the trial judge’s order goes too far by appearing to bar Trump from making hostile comments about individuals in the public eye who could be witnesses in the case.

Yes, that's called witness intimidation. WTF, judges?

Despite the panel’s concerns with the breadth of the gag order, imposed last month by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the appeals judges nevertheless seemed prepared to endorse a narrower version of it, agreeing with prosecutors that Trump shouldn’t have carte blanche to make statements that could intimidate witnesses or threaten the integrity of the proceedings.

[...]

Both Millett and Pillard suggested that Trump’s attorneys gave too little weight to Chutkan’s responsibility to protect the trial. And the appeals panel’s third judge, Bradley Garcia, an appointee of President Joe Biden, noted that Chutkan had issued the gag order after holding a detailed hearing on the matter and gathering voluminous facts to support her decision.

[...]

It’s unclear whether the appeals court panel intends to rewrite the gag order itself or send it back to Chutkan with new instructions. The timeline for action is also unclear. The panel took up the case on an emergency basis, but it often takes weeks or months for an appeals court panel to rule on complex issues of law. And the panel is likely not the final word: The losing side may appeal the panel’s decision to the full bench of the appeals court or the Supreme Court.

[...]

The appeals court judges sharply criticized Trump’s position that virtually any restriction on his ability to discuss the case publicly would be a violation of his First Amendment free speech rights. But they seemed at times to be equally confounded by prosecutors’ efforts to draw lines about which aspects of Trump’s speech were acceptable and which weren’t.

At one point, to the judges’ consternation, VanDevender said Trump’s description of a prospective witness as a “liar” would be impermissible, but he could describe the same witness as someone who tells “untruths.”

“I know that’s a little bit of a fine line,” VanDevender said.

It's ridiculous is what it is. Again, WTF, judges?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 08:10 am:

Yes, THAT John Dean - a man well versed in attempting to thwart the Constitution and criminally interfere with a presidential election.

Also, I suspect if Trump gets away with any of this, there will indeed be more people running for office to avoid prosecution.