|
Why Not Impose Protective Orders on All Politicians? |
|
|
By Joshua Philipp |
|
The plan by former President Donald Trump’s team to use the most recent indictment to expose evidence of election fraud in 2020 may be crushed by the Justice Department. President Trump was indicted last week in Washington on four charges. It frames his claims that the election had been rigged, his attempts to litigate, to get dueling electors in place, and then his alleged involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, riots as a planned conspiracy. The case will require prosecutors to prove that President Trump didn't, in fact, believe the 2020 elections were rigged. And his legal team was quick to fire back, saying they would use discovery and subpoenas to show the public every piece of evidence available—everything they can obtain—to show why the former president believed that the election was stolen. But that plan may have ended already in the form of a protective order requested by the DOJ. That would mean while President Trump's team will still likely be able to use discovery and subpoenas to gain access to evidence, the information would be unlikely to see the light of day. On Aug. 4, President Trump wrote on Truth Social, “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!” The DOJ immediately labeled that a threat, and prosecutors requested that the U.S. district court judge in charge of the case issue a protective order. But what’s interesting is that this protective order wouldn't protect them. It would protect the evidence in the case. And, in particular, it prevents that evidence from being shown to the public. Now, I don’t know how stopping the public from seeing court evidence resolves an alleged threat from Trump, but that’s their claim. In laying out why they believe there should be a protective order, prosecutors said they’re going to hand over a “substantial” amount of evidence to President Trump’s legal team. Apparently, a lot of this information is “sensitive and confidential.” If we go by the official narrative, we’ve been shown all the necessary evidence relating to Jan. 6 and alleged election fraud. We’re told that the courts and Congress all seem to agree that the official narrative is irrefutable. So why would sensitive or confidential information be harmful? |
|
Was this forwarded to you? Sign-up for a all access digital subscription, or register for a free account. |
|
Wouldn’t any evidence that hasn’t been shown to the public just help their case—maybe it could even help restore public trust in the institutions. And wouldn’t that be a great thing, right ahead of the 2024 elections? That is, unless the evidence shows otherwise. And the real irony here is that if the judge chooses to keep it hidden from the public, much of the public is going to believe that’s the case. On the part of President Trump’s legal team, they say that his Truth Social post wasn't about the prosecution but in response to “dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs.” They also claim it represented “the definition of free speech.” A hearing has been scheduled for Aug. 11 by the judge in the case. On Aug. 6, President Trump requested that the judge recuse herself, and for the case to be moved out of Washington. He wrote, “There is no way I can get a fair trial with the judge 'assigned' to the ridiculous freedom of speech/fair elections case." He also said that special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the case, is interfering with the 2024 elections by choosing to prosecute now. Of course, the former president has a reputation for his “mean tweets.” The question is whether he should be able to comment on the case—and show his side publicly—when he will inevitably be attacked by establishment news outlets, and others on the case. For context, Mr. Smith made public scorching accusations against President Trump in the indictment. Democrat politicians and Republican primary opponents have repeatedly attacked the former president. If it’s wrong for him to verbally attack in response, then it's also wrong for them to attack President Trump. Maybe they should all have protective orders, if that’s the case. |
|
|
|
Thank you for being a subscriber Your Feedback We may feature an exerpt of your response in the next newsletter. |
|
|
|