Behavior and the stakes. It was a bracing message. He will be treated like any other defendant. Trump did not attend the hearing in washington today, and thats fine. You can have these kind of hearings among lawyers. His defense team entered this morning. We saw that, tracked that. Hearing about what, in other cases, might be a more routine matter. What are the rules of evidence before you go to trial . How can it be discussed . So this is basically the framework, ground rules, you may have heard the reference to a protective order. Now judge chutkan rejected Donald Trumps request to speak in broader general terms about some of that evidence. Hell be restricted from publicly discussing the sensitive materials. The ruling came out late today. The judge says if Defendant Trump receives sensitive materials has part of this case, meaning stuff he might not otherwise get but for being a criminal defendant, his lawyers may not allow Defendant Trump to write down any personally identifying in
over. and if it was something that ultimately is not admissible in court, there s a real risk of jury taint. so what she s doing here is what every good trial judge does. she s trying to make sure that no matter what happens in her courtroom, it can be affirmed on appeal by the court of appeals. understood. with the 30 seconds i have left, beyond just this evidence clash, did you see anything from the judge today that gave you insight to what she ll be like overseeing the whole trial in the future? fair but not unduly deferential. the legal system has shown a lot of deference to president trump trump as a former president. the kid gloves look to be off, and now he s just like everyone else in this country. he is mr. trump, not president trump. there you have it. some concise words of wisdom heading into the weekend. joyce, always good to see you. good to see you too, ari. i m about to show you something you need to see to believe. it relates to the kind of show we re cooking
that which otherwise doesn t have legal protection. so explain. you alluded to it a little more of where the judge, who is supposed to be more the arbiter here, where the judge came down on that distinction. right, so she does a good job of narrowing things a little bit. she does tell them in the courtroom, you all are free to go back and alter this. you can, by agreement, change the scope of what s covered. very importantly here, tapes are covered. transcripts are covered. materials that came from other federal agencies are covered. and there are a couple of risks here that she s trying to head off. and one of the big ones is this. not all of the evidence that the government produces in discovery will be admissible at trial. ari, as you know, there are some fairly stringent rules about what evidence the government gets to put in front of a jury. one of the risks here, if trump decides to seize on something in one of these transcripts, he could have, if she had not imposed this order