Sometimes you have to read between the lines.
Judge Tanya Chutkan recently reinstated the gag order on President Trump—which is extremely regrettable and a clear violation of his First Amendment rights.
However, a look at the footnotes from her latest ruling reveals something interesting. Chutkan has declined to imprison President Trump for violating the gag order.
Moreover, the ACLU has come to the aid of the former President and decried the Department of Justice’s move to silence the 45th President during the state’s continued witch hunt against him.
Now, I don’t know about you, but something tells me the tide has shifted here. Chutkan knows she can’t imprison President Trump and even former Attorney General Eric Holder has warned against the idea.
My bet is that President Trump can and will continue to violate the tyrannical gag order and nothing will be done in response. Perhaps they will fine him but they can’t imprison him. They want to imprison him but they can’t.
I believe that almost everyone, including state officials themselves and many leftists, now sees this charade as a clear case of political persecution.
How else can we explain Chutkan’s failure to hand over President Trump to the DOJ and the ACLU speaking out against the gag order? Something has changed.
In response to the reinstatement of the gag order, President Trump issued this statement via Truth Social:
OANN reporter Daniel Baldwin stated: “Trump retains a First Amendment right to speak, and the rest of us retain a right to hear what he has to say.”
The ACLU filed a court document blasting Judge Tanya Chutkan’s gag order as unconstitutionally vague. You know something is absurd when the Left loses the ACLU.”
"Trump retains a First Amendment right to speak, and the rest of us retain a right to hear what he has to say."
The ACLU filed a court document blasting Judge Tanya Chutkan's gag order as unconstitutionally vague.
You know something is absurd when the Left loses the ACLU. pic.twitter.com/r05Cahu2h9
— Daniel Baldwin (@baldwin_daniel_) October 25, 2023
“Judge Chutkan draws her paycheck from the United States Treasury, just like Jack Smith does. The only thing that’s different is she wears a black robe.”@JudicialWatch’s Chris Farrell on the unpleasant truth behind Judge Chutkan’s gag order on Pres. Trump. pic.twitter.com/m5thclkjvM
— Daniel Baldwin (@baldwin_daniel_) October 30, 2023
According to Newsweek:
In the footnote of her Sunday opinion reinstating the gag order, Chutkan denied a request from federal prosecutors asking her to incorporate the order into Trump’s conditions of release.
“Even assuming that request is procedurally proper, the court concludes that granting it is not necessary to effectively enforce the Order at this time,” she wrote.
On Sunday, Chutkan lifted her temporary hold on the gag order after determining that “the right to a fair trial is not [Trump’s] alone, but belongs also to the government and the public.”
Chuck Callesto likewise reported: “ACLU backs Trump in fight against federal judge’s GAG ORDER..
The American Civil Liberties Union’s Free Speech Watchdog Supports Donald Trump Against Gag Order, Citing First Amendment Concerns in Election Interference Case.
U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in Washington D.C. Issued a Limited Gag Order on October 17th Against Trump in the Ongoing Criminal Case, Restricting Him and His Attorneys from Targeting Special Counsel Jack Smith, Defense Lawyers, Court Staff, or Likely Witnesses. Trump Has Appealed the Gag Order and Voiced His Opposition Publicly.”
JUST IN: ACLU backs Trump in fight against federal judge's GAG ORDER..
The American Civil Liberties Union's Free Speech Watchdog Supports Donald Trump Against Gag Order, Citing First Amendment Concerns in Election Interference Case.
U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in… pic.twitter.com/aBBER2zSf7
— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) October 26, 2023
Trump now faces two gag orders barring him from discussing aspects of his legal cases in the public: One from Chutkan, who is overseeing the case brought by Smith in Washington, DC, and a second from the judge overseeing his civil fraud trial in New York.
While the orders are both limited in scope, they mark a measurable limit on the former president’s speech.