Revealing new
details from the first hearing
in the January six case
against Donald Trump.
This is the first time
we have heard from federal judge
Tonya Chuck.
And she has said
some really interesting things,
telling Trump's lawyers
that the administration of justice
comes first
and that he may not be able to say
everything that he wants
to in political speeches, statements.
Caitlin plans outside the court
for us once again.
More and more details.
Caitlin Brick,
if you can bring us all up to speed
once again
on what we have
heard and from Judge Chuck in
what she's laid down so far
Well, this hearing isn't over yet,
but even
the things that she's done
so far have given limitations
to Donald Trump.
And made clear
that he needs to watch
what he says publicly versus
what he's
learning behind the scenes
as he prepares for trial,
even though
he's a political candidate out there
giving speeches
and posting on social media.
One of the things that she has
already said
that is going to happen
is that when Donald Trump learns
any information
he didn't know
before from witness interviews
that the Justice Department
did sensitive witness interviews,
he's not going to be able
to disclose that.
That's an order from the court
And that is an order from the court
that is going to be above and beyond
any sort of free speech claims
that Donald Trump may make.
The judge here has been quite clear
saying that his speech
is able to be limited.
The First Amendment
does have limitations to it
and that she is not going to be
doing things
based on what is happening
in the political sphere.
She is a judge. It is separate.
One of the quotes that really jumps out
from this hearing today,
the fact that he is running
a political campaign
currently has to yield
to the administration of justice.
And if that means he can't say exactly
what he wants
to say in a political speech,
that is just
how it's going to have to be.
And then also she says, I cannot
and I will not factor into my decision
what effect
it will have on a political campaign
for either side.
And so there are still many arguments
being made here.
And there talking about
how Trump will be able to disclose or not
disclose, largely
not disclose information
he's learning as he's getting evidence
and his lawyers
are getting evidence in this case
and they prepare for trial.
But also,
Judge Shulkin is clearly issuing
quite a warning
to Trump and his defense team
that he needs to be careful
not to obstruct justices
not to intimidate witnesses.
And that is a real thing,
a real line that he could cross
if he keeps talking publicly
about witnesses in this case.
She's really tried to avoid it
being specifically
about any witness in particular.
His lawyers have brought up Mike Pence.
That's something the Justice Department
also had flagged here.
But this is quite a clear sign
from the judge.
And on top of that,
they're still working out
some details
in this situation,
how much Trump
can review evidence,
where he can review
evidence, who can be with him.
Also, how
they will designate the evidence
in this case as it gets handed over.
What are the things that Trump
specifically can't share
more widely versus
what can he incorporate
into his political speech?
And but so far, this is quite a set of
things that the judge has said
really taking on a lot more
than just the legal issues in this case,
which I might note
have largely been in line with what
Donald Trump's
lawyers
have agreed to or have proposed so far.
All right, Kaitlyn, pull.
Don't go far,
because we keep getting new reports
from inside the courtroom for stand by,
if you will, for just a moment.
Also, Paul
Reed, who's been inside the courtroom,
she's making her way out.
So we're going to be able
to hear from Paul
on what she saw
and heard inside the courtroom as well.
In the meantime,
joining us right
now is former assistant U.S.
attorney Nick Akerman for more on this.
Nick, Kaitlyn has been
laying all of this out for us.
What we but
what has been coming out from court?
What the judge has been talking about
just before
we jump into some of her quotes
and things
we've heard from the judge over all.
What do you take from
what we're hearing from Judge
from the judge so far?
None of this is very surprising.
This is a very standard protective order
that the government wants.
The purpose of a protective order
is for the defendant
to be able to get discovery
and use it for his defense,
not to put on a public display
or contest the allegations
in a public forum.
He's already agreed
to two protective orders
that are almost exactly the same
in both the Miami classified
documents case
and the New York case prosecution.
So none of this is surprising.
And I think she's essentially going
to be putting in place
on the order that the government
has asked for.
And based on the comments that I heard,
it just reaffirms my opinion
that this case
is going to trial
in January or February of next year.
This judge is not taking any blowback
from this defendant.
They've tried over
the last couple of days.
If you look at the
filings that have been made,
they tried everything to delay this
as much as possible.
Put this over till next week.
Try not to make it very important
in a matter that's pretty perfunctory.
So I think the judge has seen
through their delay tactics
and she's not going to take any of it.
And I think this is a clear message
to Donald Trump
that he is going to be in the dock
in January or February
and a jury is going to be listening
to the evidence.
The actual legal rulings
she could issue here may be narrow today.
What she said
overall may have a greater impact
and may be more expansive.
Nick, I'm going to paraphrase here.
One of the things she did
say is that
being a presidential
candidate is really no different
than any other job
she's going to treat
running for president
like she would treat any job,
which is to say that,
you know, the Iowa caucuses
don't mean anything more to me
than a business appointment
that a defendant might have.
So don't expect the
the implication
there is don't expect
the Iowa caucuses in and of themselves
to delay a trial date.
She also said the fact
that he is running a political campaign
currently has to yield
to the administration of justice.
And if that means he can't say exactly
what he wants
to say in a political speech,
that's just how it's going to be.
She's making clear that the politics here
won't really impact her legal decisions.
I think that's absolutely correct.
I mean, what she is basically saying
is today,
I mean, as you said before, it's
going to be a narrow ruling.
She's going to put into place
the protective order.
Trump is going to get
all of the discovery
immediately, discovery well beyond what
he would be entitled to normally
including witness statements
that by law
don't even have to be turned over
until after a witness testifies.
I never did this before
in all my years as a prosecutor,
never gave out this kind of information
this far in advance.
She's also signaled
that on the 28th of August,
when they discuss the trial date,
this is going to go ahead quickly.
Like I said before,
it's going to be January or February.
This case is going to move along.
She's taken control.
And it's so obvious
if you look at the docket sheet,
she was responding on Saturdays, Sundays.
She was on top of this docket.
And what was being presented to her
by the minute,
I mean, it was just phenomenal.
I never had a federal judge
in any case,
where there is a defense lawyer
or a prosecutor be so on top of this.
Nick, stick with us for a second.
Paula Reid was inside the courtroom
watching this all play out.
Paula's now.
So, Paula,
can we assume you've left court
that this hearing is now over
It is not over.
In fact,
I came out a little bit early
as we have some other news
that we're working on.
But it was fascinating
because this was the first time
that defense attorneys and prosecutors
were appearing before the judge
who will handle this case through
what is expected to be a trial
and a judge trying to check.
And she has been on the bench
for over a decade.
And it shows it was a big contrast,
what we saw down in Florida
before Judge
Eileen Cannon,
who was only been on the bench
for a very short time.
Judge Hopkins
experienced shows
through in her command of the courtroom.
The way she is able
to pepper lawyers with questions,
just get to the heart of an issue.
And she infuse humor throughout this
hearing at the expense
of both prosecutors and the defense.
And as you were just discussing,
I think the real key takeaway
isn't just necessarily
how she decided
on how sensitive materials
will be handled there.
She basically sided with the defense
and said she's going to go for a more
limited set of rules.
But it's her argument
that the existence
of a political campaign
will have no bearing on her decisions.
She noted that
while the former president
has a First Amendment right,
she says there are restrictions on that.
And he is now, as she pointed out,
a criminal defendant.
And just like
any other criminal defendant
in the United States, his First Amendment
must yield
to the administration of justice.
And she went back and forth
with prosecutors,
with defense attorneys about this issue.
And she
she said to the defense attorneys,
she said, look,
without these restrictions,
she sees the possibility
of a lot of problems.
And she really narrowed in
on the issue of witnesses security.
She pointed out that
if he makes comments about witnesses,
that that could put them in jeopardy.
And they certainly don't
have the same kind of protections
that he has.
But it was clear
she appeared to have the respect
of the attention of both legal teams.
They're still going through the real
nitty gritty of this protective order.
But here
she ultimately gave
a win
to the Trump defense team
in terms
of how
the rules will be structured, in terms
of how sensitive information
can be handled here.
But it was a really fascinating scene
in that courtroom
to see an experienced judge.
It was pretty clear
that she was going to be
tough on both sides.
And she even made a joke
at one point that she is keen
to move this along quickly.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
0 Comments