Accountable. In their motion for a protective order, the Justice Department says, quote, such a protective order is needed in this case the because the defendant has released statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys and other associates in legal matters pending against him. In recent days the defendant has issued multiple posts, either specifically or by implication including the following which the defendant posted just hours ago. If you go after me, im coming after you. The filing including a screen shot of that ominous threat. Prosecutors went on to say, quote, if the defendant were to begin issuing public posts using details or, for example, grand jury transcripts obtained in discovery, it could have a harmful, Chilling Effect on witnesses or adversely affect the Fair Administration of justice in this case. That request by the Special Counsel triggered a battle between team trump and the doj. Here is how the New York Times wrote this. John lauro, one of tru
plays out. they ve adopted a strategy, sort of a high-low strategy. they re going to be putting their attorneys out making first amendment arguments. but then you have donald trump going on social media and issuing the attacks. and the through line on all of this is they want to delay this because for donald trump this is all about the politics. this is not about making a legal case. this is keeping this front and center, using this to get the nomination, and hopefully using the election to make it all go away. and i think we need to understand exactly how all of the these tracks are going to play out simultaneously. all right. you referenced that truth social post. very important point. i think in a lot of people s assessment it s what s triggered this, maya. and it s referenced here on page 7. footnote 8. notwithstanding the government s claims otherwise, president trump s august 4th, 2023 truth social post cited on page 3 of the motion does nothing to support the proposed order.
end of the day that the statute is relevant to the ultimate legality. at this stage when the question is just whether it should be on hold, i think it s not right to criticize the ninth circuit for focusing on the potential for harm as opposed to the ultimate answer on the merits. steve, let s go ahead and look at the merits of this executive order because the president says he s on strong standing, strong footing for supporting the merits of it. and this is from the appeal to block the ban. this is from the government, from the department of justice, unlike the president, courts do not have access to classified information about the threat posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations. the effort of those organizations to infiltrate the united states or gaps in the vetting process therefore saying that the judges cannot know enough because they don t have access to the classified information to make an educated decision about whether or not this ban should stand.
important regardless of the specifics of this policy. i think it seems important. we re all watching to see what happens when the judicial branch and the trump administration come into conflict. now that we have seen that happen, one of the things that have been exposed by that conflict is that the court has had to explain stuff so basic you would expect a high school freshman to have already mastered it and the court had to explain this to the administration because the administration didn t know it already so let me give you a couple of these from the ruling. even if you are not a lawyer, you will see what i mean here, this isn t like a complex point of order. this is like hey, duh, you guys. footnote 8. the government asserts that unlike the president courts do not have access to classified information about the threats posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations.
important regardless of the specifics of this policy. i think it seems important. we re all watching to see what happens when the judicial branch and the trump administration come into conflict. now that we have seen that happen, one of the things that have been exposed by that conflict is that the court has had to explain stuff so basic you would expect a high school freshman to have already mastered it and the court had to explain this to the administration because the administration didn t know it already so let me give you a couple of these from the ruling. even if you are not a lawyer, you will see what i mean here, this isn t like a complex point of order. this is like hey, duh, you guys. footnote 8. the government acenters that unlike the president courts do not have access to classified information about the threats posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations. the efforts of those