Staff Reports
In response to the appeal of U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s gag order on former President Trump, Special Counsel Jack Smith made a revealing error in his brief. Smith referred to potential witnesses as “political witnesses,” instead of “potential witnesses,” hinting at bias in the case.
Jack Smith's Office Made A Potentially Revealing 'Error' In Recent Court Filinghttps://t.co/q5wRS4nK7n
— 🇺🇸🇺🇸Josh Dunlap🇺🇲🇺🇲 ULTRA-MAGA (@JDunlap1974) November 19, 2023
Judge Chutkan had issued an unprecedented gag order on the former president last month, which prevents him from discussing certain aspects of the case. This order has been heavily criticized by civil liberties advocates and has led to accusations of election interference from the Trump campaign. Smith had requested the gag order, but Chutkan later rescinded it after the appeal was filed. However, the order was temporarily suspended by a D.C. appeals court.
LOLOLOL talk about slip of the tongue.
In his response brief opposing the appeal of Judge Chutkan's gag order, Jack Smith refers to "political witnesses" instead of "potential witnesses."
Too good. pic.twitter.com/eg6A6mAYaW
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) November 17, 2023
As part of the appeal process, both the prosecution and defense were required to submit briefs. In Smith’s brief, he argued in favor of the gag order by pointing to Trump’s social media posts. He highlighted five categories of statements, including those about Judge Chutkan, district court employees, Smith and his team, and “political witnesses.” Although Smith likely meant to refer to “potential witnesses,” this slip of the tongue has raised eyebrows.
This latest update in the appeal process comes on the heels of a big win for former President Trump in another case. An appeals court in New York overturned a gag order imposed by Judge Arthur F. Engoron in the fraud case brought forward by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The appeals court cited the former president’s free speech rights as the reason for overturning the gag order, giving Trump a significant victory.
This news highlights the ongoing legal battles surrounding Trump and the controversies surrounding the gag orders. It also raises questions about the objectivity of Special Counsel Jack Smith and the potential bias in the case against the former president. Critics argue that these gag orders infringe on free speech rights and hinder the former president’s ability to defend himself. Overall, it’s an important development in the legal proceedings and showcases the potential impact of judicial decisions on high-profile cases.
