A federal appeals court prosecutor argued that the gag order against former US President Donald Trump is necessary. to prevent intimidation and threats against participants in their court cases
On the other hand, a Trump lawyer urged the federal court to eliminate the gag order against the former president, particularly in which he is accused of trying annul the election results 2020 presidential elections.
Appeals court judges asked skeptical and sometimes aggressive questions of lawyers on both sides as they debated the possible reimposition of the order that bans Trump from making inflammatory comments against prosecutors, potential witnesses and court personnel.
The judges asked several hypothetical questions about circumstances that might arise in the coming months, trying to find a balance between Trump’s right to free speech and the need to protect “the process of a criminal trial, its integrity and its function of seeking the truth.”
“There is a balance that must be found here, and It is a very difficult balance in this context. But we have to use a scalpel and not fall into, let’s say, meddling in the political sphere, right? Judge Patricia Millett told Cecil VanDevender, a prosecuting attorney for special prosecutor Jack Smith.
VanDevender responded that he agrees, but believes the gag order yes it achieves the desired balance.
The court did not issue a ruling, but the outcome of arguments presented Monday will set the parameters for what Trump can say or not sayboth as a defendant in a criminal trial and the main contender for the Republican presidential nomination for the 2024 elections.
There is a lot at stake given the volume and the intensity of public comments what Trump has done about the case and the enormous political platform he has. As a sign of his importance, Special Prosecutor Smith himself attended the hearing, sitting in the front row.
In nearly two and a half hours of arguments, the justices expressed clear understanding that Trump’s rhetoric may inspire threats.
Judge Brad Garcia pressed Trump attorney John Sauer to explain why the court should not take precautionary measures.
“This is expected to escalate as well as the threats, so why doesn’t the court have the right to take proactive measures instead of waiting for more and more threats to come, in order to protect the integrity of the trial?” he asked.