Federal Judge In Trump's DC Case Exposed - 'Unconstitutional' And 'Dangerous'

Hey, ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and the judge in former president Donald Trump's Washington, D.C. trial

She just got some really tough news, and it couldn't happen to a nicer person

Before we get started, please make sure you like, comment, share, and subscribe

Those little things really help us out, and they help our channel continue to grow

So as you know, the judge in this case imposed a gag order on former President Donald Trump

She then stayed her own gag order before finally reinstating it at the behest of Jack Smith and its federal prosecutors

Well, in appeals court overturned that. Well, not overturned it. They put a temporary freeze on it for 17 days while they get ready to make their case both sides in why the gag order should be in place

versus why the gag order should not be in place. But it was constitutional law professor

Jonathan Turley, who actually laid the smackdown on the gag order to begin with

And what he argues is, not only is this unconstitutional, as I've argued

but it's also dangerous. Let take a look Both are Fox News contributors Jonathan let start with the D Circuit Now does this temporary freeze signal that there is likelihood of success on the merits with the Trump legal team First Amendment claims for lifting that gag order

Well, Laura, it's hard to say because we have to wait to see how the panel reacts in its review, particularly the oral argument. They're essentially freezing any action here

They could have left it continue to continue while they reviewed it, but they decided, perhaps an abundance of caution, to order this stoppage until they can give it a full review

The reason I think this could be quite significant is that I think the order is unconstitutional

I said that when it was first issued. It's a very odd concept of an order because the court here insisted on having this trial before the election

sort of shoehorned it in before Super Tuesday, and everyone in this election is going to be talking about these cases except one person under this gag order

and that is Donald Trump. He can't criticize the prosecutors. He can criticize witnesses and special counsel Jack Smith just asked for this order to be expanded in an equally unconstitutional way

And that has drawn the criticism, even of the ACLU, which is a staunch critic of Donald Trump

But the ACLU has said, look, this is flagrantly unconstitutional. Yeah, I mean, it's all substantial likelihood of success on the merits and, you know, irreparable harm potentially

for President Trump. I mean, I haven't been a lawyer for as long as you guys, but it seems like it's a decent signal that this is not going to go

the way Judge Shutkin would probably want it to go. Well, they didn't say he had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits

In fact, they went out of their way in this two-page order to say that we shouldn't construe this as a ruling on the merits

But as Jonathan says, I do think it's important. But it's a temporary restraining

But hold on. That's all. Isn't it a TRO? Didn't he grant a temporary freeze of the order? Right

They granted an administrative stay. If we're talking about the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

they granted an administrative stay. So that's right. Her gag order is not in effect, and that's very

important I just you know I wouldn take any more from it right now And they also basically briefs are due The Trump team brief is due November 8th And as you said oral argument is the 20th So they going to decide on this really quickly That fast Jonathan MSNBC Now if you guys have watched me you know I said this is unconstitutional It been unconstitutional I totally against all gag orders I think they violate the First Amendment particularly this one where there somebody running for the presidency and his opponents

can attack him daily, but he's handcuffed as to what he can say

He's allowed to say this, but not allowed to say that. How is that not a violation of free speech

I mean, this was, the First Amendment was created to stop exactly this, as Turley says

So it seems to me that his rights are being mishandled here at the very least

And I think not only an appeals court, I think, and I've said this before, I think this is to go all the way to the Supreme Court

And it could really look at all gag orders and their constitutionality

I want to know what you think. Please let me know in the comments. Also, please remember to like

share, and subscribe. It really helps us out. I'm Carmine Sabia. This is Explain America. We love you guys

God bless you. Take care, everybody