all 3 comments

[–]risistill me 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Smith argued that Trump's public remarks threatened to "undermine confidence in the criminal justice system and prejudice the jury pool."

And now, we have judges violating the First Amendment, not just Congress and the Executive Branch. Swe

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because pointing out the conflict of interest of court officials is verboten, apparently.

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Background and commentary at the Federalist:

“Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech. But that right is not absolute,” Chutkan said during proceedings in August. “In a criminal case such as this one, the defendant’s free speech is subject to the rules.”

Chutkan’s declaration that “I cannot and I will not factor into my decisions how it will factor into a political campaign” also seems to suggest that she doesn’t care about the political implications of handicapping the speech of a man who is in the middle of a presidential campaign.

“What the defendant is currently doing — the fact that he’s running a political campaign has to yield to the orderly administration of justice. If that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say about witnesses in this case, that’s how it has to be,” the Obama appointee concluded.

nb. "Witnesses in this case" include Mike Pence, who is campaigning against Trump at least in part on the basis of this case.