New Trump Gag Order Issued, BUT

WASHINGTON - Oct. 16, 2023 - PRLog -- Federal judge Tanya S. Chutkan imposed a limited gag order in Washington on Trump, joining the one previously issued by a New York State judge overseeing his civil trial in Manhattan,

But this order can easily be circumvented by members of Congress, PACs, bloggers and other influencers who support Trump, notes public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

It will still contain a hole big enough to drive a truck through, and there may be nothing the court can do about it, says Banzhaf.

Thus, even if, to the surprise of many, Trump himself does not defy the proposed order, many of his supporters - including members of Congress, talk show hosts, members of PACs, and other organizations - can still do exactly what is prohibited by the order.

Moreover, there is nothing in the order which would prevent Trump himself from imploring those who believe in him and in his innocence from doing exactly what the order is designed to prohibit.

Members of Congress who have spoken out in defense of Trump, including making statements which many consider inflammatory as well as false or misleading, would be almost impossible for the court to muzzle, says Banzhaf, given the separation of powers in the federal system and the protection afforded to speech by U.S. representatives and senators.

They are protected by Section 6 of ARTICLE I which provides that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Also, well financed political action committees (PACs), groups such as the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers, as well as numerous individual talk show hosts, pod-casters, and other "influencers" who collectively reach and influence tens of millions of people are not parties to the proceeding, and therefore would not limited in any way by the proposed gag order.

Professor Banzhaf filed the formal legal complaint which led to the investigation and indictment of Trump in Georgia, but he has played no role in Trump's federal criminal proceedings.

Therefore, the law professor notes that he, like virtually every other American, would still be free to talk about or otherwise inform others about the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses, and/or to make statements about any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflammatory or intimidating; or in the alternative, happen to be praiseworthy, supportive, or consoling.

So the irony is that if Trump, rather than defying it, simply asks his supporters with huge followings to repeat his claims - more people are likely to accept the claims coming from many different supposedly-reliable sources rather than any such claim coming from Trump himself.

http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf