Defendants in criminal cases need every tool at their disposal when facing the government with their backs against the wall. Defendant Donald Trump is no different than any other defendant in that regard. Often one underutilized tool available to defendants is the First Amendment which grants every American the irrevocable right to criticize government officials and those that help them. Treading on that right would do more harm than good in this case.
Typically the decision not to utilize the First Amendment as part of a criminal defense is made by the defendant following advice from counsel. Lawyers generally do not want their client speaking freely about the case in public simply because anything said can and will be used in court. There are some cases such as this one when the client has conflicting interests which supersede the outcome of the case. Still, clients often face a rocky working relationship with their lawyers who're almost always reluctant participants in their clients' public activities. If Judge Chutkan truly hates Trump as much as Trump says she does then she might want to consider letting him say whatever he wants. Not only will his statements be used against him in court, but he might also cost himself some votes.
Gagging Donald Trump under the circumstances risks making him a martyr. That is especially true if Trump gets jailed just for exercising his First Amendment rights while on pretrial release. Trump is already calling her court a kangaroo court with a predetermined outcome because we are living in a third world country. To prove him wrong she must allow him to speak his mind. Just trying to shut him up under these circumstances would vindicate a lot of what Trump has been saying in the eyes of his base. It would make it look as if he must have something really important to say because he wouldn't be gagged otherwise.
It would be much better for Judge Chutkan's image as well as the electoral process to simply allow Trump to speak out about his case however he chooses with limited restrictions related to sensitive information pertaining to people (ex: address, phone number, etc.). Often that is what happens in federal cases. Defendants are restricted from sharing sensitive stuff but are otherwise free to incriminate themselves in public as they wish. The last thing this country needs is a major candidate for office being able to say that he cannot fully discuss issues due to a judge whose donated to his opposition threatening to have him kidnapped if he says stuff. It would be much better for the judge to take a hands off approach to his public comments even if they're critical of witnesses.
PUBLIC CRITICISM IMPORTANT
One emerging problem in recent years has been efforts to shield witnesses from being criticized for their testimony. This author found that out all too well after speaking out against alleged "victims" in cases involving me. I consider such people snitches who deserve to be publicly criticized just as much those they're using the system against. All too often the defendant finds his name in the news while other participants remain nameless. One goal of this website was to offset that a little by letting people post names of people who provide support to the government. Such people almost always complain to police and prosecutors thus confirming their snitch status. Prosecutors often forward such complaints to judges with requests that a defendant be muzzled simply to spare their assets the emotional distress of their conduct being publicly exposed. Prosecutors feel that in the internet age the First Amendment is too effective a tool for defendants because exercising that right has deterrence potential for anyone else who might try giving the government information about them.
In the event that any judge punishes any defendant for speaking out against his accusers in public that judge proves their own incompetence by disregarding the Constitution. Such treacherous oath breakers cannot be tolerated. There are way more important things to worry about in society than the outcome of any one court case. Judges seem to think the efficient running of their court paramount to more important things like making sure nobody's rights are violated. Judicial economy often favors ordering defendants not to do anything which could make a witness uncomfortable or make the case drag on like pissing an endless stream of admissible statements about witnesses, prosecutors, police, etc.
This author was once under an unconstitutional gag order as a pretrial confinement condition which technically prohibited me from having anything to do with this website and from disseminating the home address of any judge to any person for any reason. It was issued after I sent a letter to the judge at home requesting that he recuse himself from my case. In the letter I let him know that I'd been passing his address out to fellow detainees like Halloween candy. It is not often that a federal judge recuses himself but that was enough, I got a new judge, and a better outcome despite flagrantly violating the prior judge's order as much as possible.
The key difference between Trump's situation and mine is the simple fact that Trump is not a pretrial detainee. I was always like, "what are you going to do? I'm already in jail." Although I did start complying with conductions upon my release. I was fortunate due to the stink I raised that people didn't try to shut me up too much while on supervision. One in that position must prove themselves capable of sticking to their guns despite being in jail to truly establish themselves as a credible nemesis. If Judge Chutkan gags Donald Trump will he stick to his guns or will he cower at the thought of jail? If he sticks to his guns can he manage to run his campaign from a jail cell? If he can manage his campaign from his jail cell kind of like I managed this site from mine he could present himself as a political prisoner kind of like a white Nelson Mandela.
TROUBLE IN PARADISE?
According to public records, Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan is a 61 year old resident of Washington D.C. She is currently married to former judge Peter Arno Krauthamer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._Krauthamer) which is how I was able to find her information. The feds have tried really hard over the past couple of years to bury information about federal judges online. They've gone a far as scrubbing public records databases of most things mentioning them at all but sometimes they still miss stuff. In this case a background check of Peter Arno Krauthamer produced a recent likely current address on Shepherd Street which Krauthamer appears to have purchased in his name a couple years ago. The same background check lists his previous residence as a nearby home on Upshur Street just 450 feet away. The most recent owner of the Upshur Street property is listed as Tanya Chutkan.
Why Mr. Krauthamer bought a new house is anyone's guess. Was he cheating on Judge Chutkan, was Judge Chutkan cheating on him, did they just grow apart with age, did they buy a second house for guests, is it a real estate investment, or is there some other explanation? I doubt the defendant is the only person with an adulterous history in this case. Unfortunately, I do not have a basis to accuse either of these judges of anything at this time.
I also have decided not to post the house numbers but might reconsider depending on how the case goes. If it ever reaches a point where I become afraid of being censored by the government just for being accused of a crime and there are enough similarities in which I could see a future court trample on my rights citing precedent from U.S. v. Trump, I might feel I have few other choices but to reconsider this decision. Hopefully that will never happen. For now I want to give Judge Chutkan a chance to run the case right. If you want to use that information for peaceful purposes you can try finding it yourself it really is not hard.
Trampling on the First Amendment is not worth it just to get that Donald guy.
UPDATE: Judge Chutkan did not fully adopt the proposals of Special Counsel Jack Smith today but she still made disturbing statements. Most disturbing is her claim that she might take steps to speed up the trial if Trump's team makes certain types of public statements. Judge Chutkan said, "The fact that he's running a political campaign has to yield to the orderly administration of justice ... If that means he can't say exactly what he wants to say about witnesses in this case, that's how it has to be." Her comments are one step shy of banning Trump from speaking publicly about witnesses. She appears to be waiting for him to say something exceptional before issuing such a ban. Such bans are always unconstitutional and the very fact that courts have consistently upheld them is just one of many examples which proves the current government of the United States illegitimate.
A legitimate government would not find excuses to violate the First Amendment in the name of judicial economy. She went on to say, "Even arguably ambiguous statements from parties or their counsel, if they can be reasonably interpreted to intimidate witnesses or to prejudice potential jurors, can threaten the process." Here she is like most judges putting a judicial process above the First Amendment rights of defendants. Finally, she said, "To the extent your client wants to make statements on the internet, that has to yield to witness security ... free speech is subject to the release conditions imposed at arraignment and it must yield to the orderly administration of justice."(see https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/11/judge-warns-trump-speed-trial-00110870).
The First Amendment contains no language requiring the people to yield to the orderly administration of the courts thus Judge Chutkan has no legitimate grounds to infringe on a defendant's right to free speech. I'm not releasing her information at this time but it wouldn't surprise me if I change my mind down the road especially if she tries to gag a defendant just for exposing his accusers online and enforces that gag by revoking his release. I've always intended to speak out publicly against anyone who uses the courts against me so I must support Donald Trump's right to do so against his accusers as well. To show my support for the Constitution I've signed Judge Chutkan up for a free pocket Constitution from Hillsdale College which she should arrive at her Upshur Street address in 3-5 weeks (https://lp.hillsdale.edu/free-pocket-constitution/).