Judge Chutkan Violates Trump’s 1st Amendment Rights by Imposing ‘Narrow’ Gag Order

I included the word "narrow" above as it appears in nearly every single result from a Google search of the proceeding which took place in the District Court of the District of Columbia which is now being referred to, with good and justifiable reason in my opinion, as The Ministry of Truth. As Julie Kelly, probably the single most reliable reporter on the J6 cases and the outrageous sentences being handed down by Judges of that Court, has stated, it is not a "narrow" order at all, as she explains on Twitter this afternoon:

Despite reports—this is NOT a limited gag order. DOJ didn’t get everything it asked for (which is the game) but make no mistake, this is a broad, vague order on a bogus case where the main felony could potentially be reversed by SCOTUS. Chutkan relishes her role in this.

It is important to note that as of late afternoon, the Court had not yet filed the actual order, so all opinions as to the Court's anticipated action must be based on reports of the apparently fiery hearing this morning on the Proposed Order submitted by the Special Counsel, who I will, on the record right here and now, call a "thug" although the Court is apparently going to order Trump not to call him a "thug", among other violations of his right to free speech.

Here are excerpts from an article by The Hill, which seems to be the most objective reporting I could find at this early stage in a flood of pieces by the MSM and Democrat propaganda, but I repeat myself:

A federal judge said Monday that she would impose a gag order barring former President Trump from attacking future witnesses in his election interference case, as well as prosecutors, court staff and their families.

Judge Tanya Chutkan said Trump’s status as a candidate did not give him carte blanche to level a “smear campaign” against those involved in the case, saying that “First amendment protections yield to the administration of justice and to the protection of witnesses.”

She declined however, to grant an order with the breadth requested by the Justice Department in September, declining to limit any speech attacking her or the District of Columbia, saying the court would use the jury selection process to ensure it does not pick jurors swayed by Trump’s repeated attacks on the city.

The extent of Chutkan’s order was not entirely clear, saying she would describe only the “contours” of her decision Monday, while drafting a formal ruling later.

Still, she clarified the “narrow” order would not stop Trump from attacking President Biden or claiming over the course of his campaign that the prosecution is politically motivated — an assertion the Justice Department again denied during the hearing.

“This is not about whether I like the language Mr. Trump uses,” Chutkan said. “This is about language that dangers the administration of justice.”

The decision came after a request by the Justice Departmentto limit attacks that included disparaging, inflammatory and intimidating remarks about the case.

The whole article is here.

Mollie Hemingway of the Federalist, for whom I have great respect, had this to say this afternoon:

Absolutely insane that this Biden DOJ's attempted muzzling of Trump's political speech is happening in the United States of America. It's what we think of when we think of the Soviet Union or Venezuela, not here.

I have done a diligent search for the transcript of the hearing, as that is about all we have to go on at this point, but could not locate one. However, it appears from the article referenced above, and the few other seemingly reliable reports about the hearing, that she will bar Trump from commenting on employees of the Court:

Chutkan opened the hearing noting that Trump had lobbed insults at her and the prosecutors on the case just the night before. He also made a high profile attack on a court staffer in New York shortly after the Justice Department first made the request — a comment that led to a gag order in that civil trial.

Chutkan said she was “less concerned about shielding myself” but that the statements pose “tremendous risk” to court staff who are just doing their jobs.

When the order is filed, I will publish it in a comment to this post. But based on what is available from the hearing Monday morning, I will venture these brief observations. First, it is impossible for me to state my full opinion of this particular United States District Judge in a venue that limits its debate to civil discourse as the words I would use are not commonly accepted in polite company. Second, whether one finds Trump's language too rough or indelicate and highly hurtful to the many little snowflakes swirling around DC, I also think Jack Smith is nothing more than a common thug and there is no sound argument for Trump being prohibited from calling him exactly what he is. Third, and I say this in all good faith as it happens to be what I believe, this is so obviously a trap being set for Trump to say something about SOMEone the Judge wants to protect from his freedom of speech so she can have a sufficient predicate to jail him for Contempt of Court under the Court's enormous contempt power.

The left may have finally, after seven years of swings and misses, found their heroine who certainly has the power to inflict serious harm on the former President of the United States.

She could, not just in theory, decide who your next President is going to be by deciding who you will be unable to vote for. Conspiracy theory? I would remind anyone who holds that view that they should check the power of a United States District Judge and then they should do a review of the record of the appellate court to which her rulings must be filed, the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia. That leaves us with the United States Supreme Court.

I would be most interested in your views on the matter.

God Bless America!