OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
An appeals court signaled on Monday that it may have some good news for former President Donald Trump after hearing arguments regarding a lower federal court’s imposition of a gag order in regard to his so-called ‘election interference’ indictment.
During a two-and-a-half-hour session, a three-judge panel heard arguments from Trump’s attorneys and federal prosecutors seeking to have the order reimposed after it was temporarily lifted during the appeals process. According to Fox News, “the appeals court judges appeared skeptical of both sides on whether to reinstate an order from a trial judge that prevented Trump from making inflammatory comments against prosecutors, potential witnesses, and court staff.”
Cecil VanDevender, a lawyer with Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office, told the panel that the order is necessary so as to prevent intimidation and threats against participants in the case in which the former president has been accused of illegally scheming to overturn the 2020 election.
John Sauer, a lawyer for Trump, argued that the upper court should completely revoke the order that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan had issued.
Fox News noted further:
The court did not immediately rule, but the outcome of Monday’s arguments will set parameters on what Trump, as both a criminal defendant and the leading candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, can and cannot say as the trial date nears.
Brad Garcia, who joined the bench earlier this year after receiving President Biden’s nomination, is one of the judges hearing the case along with Cornelia Pillard and Patricia Millett, both appointments of former President Barack Obama.
Chutkan initially imposed the order on Oct. 17 but then put it on hold pending a previous appeal by Trump. She reimposed it on Oct. 29.
Trump has denied the allegations against him and has repeatedly claimed that the case, as well as several others filed against him, is tantamount to election interference.
Meanwhile, Smith made a mistake when he called possible witnesses “political witnesses” in his response brief to the Trump legal team’s appeal of Chutkan’s gag order last week.
“At the hearing that followed, the district court reviewed several of the defendant’s social media posts, which fell into ‘roughly five categories,’” Smith wrote. This included statements about Chutkan and district court employees, statements about Smith and his team, and statements about “political witnesses.”
Smith was seemingly referring to “potential witnesses,” though the potentially revealing error has raised eyebrows. “Talk about slip of the tongue,” said independent reporter Julie Kelly in an X post.
LOLOLOL talk about slip of the tongue.
In his response brief opposing the appeal of Judge Chutkan's gag order, Jack Smith refers to "political witnesses" instead of "potential witnesses."
Too good. pic.twitter.com/eg6A6mAYaW
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) November 17, 2023
Trump already has a huge victory in the fraud case against New York Attorney General Letitia James after an appeals court decided to overturn Judge Arthur F. Engoron’s gag order.
Judge David Friedman of the first department of the appellate division made the decision from the bench on Friday, the AP reported, after he ruled that the order violated Trump’s First Amendment speech rights.
When Engoron issued the gag order on October 3, it was meant to keep Trump from talking about any of his staff members in public. The order came after Trump said things on social media and to the press that made people doubt the fairness of the trial because Alison Greenfield, Engoron’s main law clerk, was said to have political ties to Democratic candidates and groups.
Trump also claimed she had ties to Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and called the trial a “witch hunt.” Engoron then took issue with Trump’s post on Truth Social that was negative about Greenfield and showed a picture of her with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
Trump wrote in a since-deleted post, “Schumer’s girlfriend, Alison R. Greenfield, is running this case against me. How disgraceful! This case should be dismissed immediately.”