Kind of a preview of how shell run her court and this case. And in deciding whether to grant Special Counsel jack smiths request for protective order limiting what the disgraced expresident can and cannot say publicly about the case, judge chutkan cuts through Talking Points like a hot knife through butter. On the First Amendment protections, they are so fond of citing, mr. Trump, like every american, has a First Amendment right to free speech. But that right is not absolute. Adding that without a protective order, the disclosure of discovery materials could lead to witnesses being harassed or otherwise interfering with a fair trial. What about the fact that trump is running for president. And chutkan did not mince words on that eithe saying, this is a criminal trial and i will not take into consideration the impact will have for have for a political came on either side. He will have all of the rights hesen tieptled to. The existence is not going to have any bearing on my decision. I i
figured that trump might ask him about it so he wanted to get ahead of the curve. carol, it is interesting, because mark short has commented on this, mark short ultimately working for the vice president, former vice president mike pence. he said, let s play it. i wouldn t say this is all my official capacity. if that was true, then why he was circumvented all of white house counsel s advice. why wasn t pat cipollone involved or doj involved? instead mark recruited outside lawyers who he wanted to listen to. and so i rely on you, carol, as a veteran reporter, there was a time when the chief of staff to the president of the united states was the big office. they were not taking orders from other people. they were the one who was telling the president, this is out of line. can t do that. and to mark short s point, this is not mark meadow s business to be doing on his own. there is white house counsel and other people he could have
until he has the answers, he s not going to do it. and the judge said if i don t have an answer for you on this, you into he had to get yourself arraigned the way you re supposed to on september 6th. glenn kirshner is with me. and carol letting is with us. the national investigator for the washington post and tamar hellerman, from the atlanta journal constitution and tamara, i want to spend time with you because you spent time watching this in court. it is hard to distinguish between all of the legal things happening in country around donald trump. it is like a pig pen dust cloud. but this is fascinating. mark meadows in a little mini trial, he s getting cross-examined to make the argument that you people in this court should not have jurisdiction over trying me. tell me what you saw and witnessed and experienced? well, the former chief of
court. but it is even more ominous for mark meadow s personally because it suggests he will probably go to trial one way or another. carol, this is interesting. because there are four other people who have made similar motions to have their cases removed to federal court. one of them jeffrey clark, there might be an interesting legal argument because he was almost the acting attorney general. he had a government position and we could argue about whether he was acting legitimately in his role or not. the other three were fake electors. they were fake. the fake part is like a halloween costume. you do don t get to if i dress up for halloween, i don t get federal protections for that? that s right, ali. and by the way, i think you re hitting on something really important. because the issue of acting under the color of your federal job makes sense for meadows. it makes sense in some respects. i m not i m not judge here. i m not going to make a ruling
reason as glenn boibted out, to tell that once. thank you for that. i want to read the part you just referred to with the court in fulton county. the state of georgia respectfully seeked clarification from the court as to whether the court s intention was to receiver defendant s cheesebro s trial with the discretionary authority to do. so further if the court s intention was to severe the trial from the other defendants, because defendant has not filed a motion to receiver, and because the court has held no hearing on a motion to receiver, the state of georgia respectfully requested that the court set aside its case specific scheduling order and entering on august 24th, 2023, to the extent and it goes on. so you re it is a very important detail. which is why we rely on reporters like you, carol, to do that.