john sauer, trump's defense lawyer still being pressed by the judges. my understanding is they're talking about some of the social media posts. >> no, no, because -- i'm trying to make sure i understand -- it may be right, we're dealing with political speech here. but your position is that at least when the participant on trial is engaged in political speech, there can be no limitation imposed to protect the administration of justice in the criminal proceeding, so then the pre-existing pro hib bigs. >> i've been asked for a hypothetical with no evidence at all to show how there might be daylight between the two standards. i'm thinking of all the social media posts in this case and whatever daylight there may be between those, these don't satisfy. >> this is a test you've proposed. i'm trying to see if you have a conception of how it works that would allow the court to still protect the criminal proceeding beyond the prohibition of violating the law. this is your test. so it seems incouple bent on you to be able to explain to me what a court could do to

it doesn't cause an issue for anna sauer in scotland | an issue for anna sauer in scotland because heceasefire and he will be voting for a ceasefire. voting with the snp isn't against the scottish nationalist party are in the same space of wanting a ceasefire. he said clearly that we are wanting to get to a place where we can create the conditions for a ceasefire to exist. , , , ,., ., exist. he will be supporting that measure. exist. he will be supporting that measure- very _ exist. he will be supporting that measure. very briefly, - exist. he will be supporting that measure. very briefly, do - exist. he will be supporting that measure. very briefly, do you . exist. he will be supporting that. measure. very briefly, do you think unless the party leadership adopts a ceasefire it will lose votes? i think it is after seeing the resignations tonight, there will be conversations and the community will speak. irate conversations and the community will seak. ~ ., conversations and the community will seak. ~ . ., , speak. we will have the latest developments _ speak. we will have the latest

emma sauer said we are wanting _ ceasefire. emma sauer said we are wanting to — ceasefire.st and he will be supporting that motion.- ceasefire to exist and he will be supporting that motion. do you think unless the party _ supporting that motion. do you think unless the party leadership - supporting that motion. do you think unless the party leadership adopts i unless the party leadership adopts the corporate ceasefire it will lose more? �* , the corporate ceasefire it will lose more? . , ., ., , more? after seeing how many resignations — more? after seeing how many resignations and _ more? after seeing how many resignations and night - more? after seeing how many resignations and night and - more? after seeing how many resignations and night and the strength— resignations and night and the strength of feeling, that they will be having conversations and the community will speak. naz shower, thank ou community will speak. naz shower, thank you very _ community will speak. naz shower, thank you very much. _ thank you very much. just a reminder that the division less true that

lieutenant colonel sauer is sick because of his various to this country. but he's been denied access to care from the v.a. when lieutenant sauer joined the military we prommed to take care of him when he came home. right now, we are not making good on that sacred promise. there are thousands of veterans like lieutenant colonel sauer who have been impacted by harmful pfas chemicals and that's why i'm calling for us to immediately take up the vet pfas act and keep the promise we have made to those who put on the uniform of this nation. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. wilson: thank you, mr. speaker. last month fox reported that president biden repeated his false campaign pledge that he would not raise tax on those making below $400,000. days after, tax commissioner was hiring 30,000 employees which is an insult since most have their taxes prepared by professional

sauer versus the heckler's veto. it's the triggering third-party conduct what i would tag as the loyalist zeal. >> that's right. >> that's what your aim is, that the defendant can comment on all kinds of things, but when he does so in a way likely to trigger this excessive deal that that is what you're -- how you read the district court is targeting or borrowing that kind of speech. >> yes, your honor. >> and going back, judge to -- >> i'm sorry. didn't mean to interrupt, but then i do want to follow up on this mark milley thing. >> going back to the question of what can he say during the debate. it's worth looking at some of the things he said in tv interviews and even in one of the posts that the district court vees as an example in order to deny the notion stay in what's permissible. in that most he's talking about the political bias in this prosecution, how it's been brought by the incumbent administration. he says at trial we will 100% prove with evidence that, you know, that the election -- that i won the elect

let me listen to trump's lawyer, john sauer, arguing about the problem withaving a gag order on dtrump>> a gagrder installs a single federal district judge a filter for core political speec of the leadingredential candidate, and virtually every american voter in the uni states, at the very height of a presidential campaign. the order is predented, and it sets a terrible precedent for future restrictions on core political speech. >> congressman, he also argued that there was no evidence that donald trump's words have led to violence or led to threats of violence or harassment. i would just like to allow you to comment on that and on sauer's arguments about free speech and candidates. >> well, the first part is plainly false, as we saw from january 6th itself, when donald trump, you know, inveighed to the crowd that they needed to go and fight like hell or they wouldn't have a country anymore, and when there's cheating involved, there's a whole different set of rules, and the courts are starting to find exactly what we asserted at the impeachment trial, which is that even if you want to

but, you know, john sauer steadfastly refused to answer judge millet's hypotheticals. and she let him know that she was really displeased about it. and i don't think it served his client well. what he kept doing, lawrence, was saying the following phrase as if it were a magical incantation. he said everything donald trump does and says and posts is core political speech. therefore, there can be no prior restraint, there can be no gag order limiting his core political speech. and you know, both judge millett and judge garcia very pointedly said there is a clear pattern that has been established. donald trump issued statements, including about witnesses, and witnesses get threatened. so they were having none of this absolute argument that donald trump's lawyer was making. and even though as the argument progressed for, as you say, two hours and 20 minutes, they also had some very pointed questions of the prosecutor on jack smith's team. but it seems pretty clear that they are going to be inclined to perhaps narrow the gag order somewhat, hand it back to the trial court j

sauer, you said your client is in the midst of a to whom it would apply is int su to the highest level of constitutional scrutiny, that's your argument. >> absolutely. >> and so i also trustt you agree that yourent is not all other americans?pplies to >> the first amendment principally. >> applies to erne, he's certainly not above thelaw. >> we have not argued that. >>o the district court found wh the defendant has plicly attacked individuals including on matters related to this case, those iivuals are consequent teatened and haraed and we view that factual finding a clear error, right? >> no, in a first amendment case, i believe, as we cited in our standard review section unrouston against hill, the cot should engagn a preliminary reviewnd that's a mixed question of fact a law. >> the findings what happened in the world, we look at that for clear error and then we look at the implications denovo. >> looking at that, they have to look in light of the evidence and the records, based evidence three years old and they have no evidence of any threats or harassment happened in this ptilar c

i can pretty much sum up what john sauer, donald trump's lawyer argued and maintained throughout his argument. he basically said because everything donald trump says and post is in his words core political speech, there can be no prior restraint. there can be no gag order on -- unless donald trump speech is directly threatening of a witness such that it would violate the federal law section 1512 witness tampering. the judges were having none of it, you just played a clip from judge garcia saying something that the other judge said. let me quote her, there is a clear pattern of donald trump issuing statements and witness threats following, then she pointed to what she said is the accepted principle of law that people intend the national and probable consequences of their actions. it was pretty clear they were not going to let donald trump get away with his code of talking. they were going to likely find there was some balance to be struck in favor of restraining, perhaps very narrowly some of what donald trump is permitted to say and post about, witnesses and perhaps about court staff

you heard john sauer, the lawyer for trump, emphasizing that any speech he says, because he's a candidateresidency is known as core political speech, which receives historically the highest level. the judges pushed back, say there has to be some limit here. i think you're right, i think the panel will uphold the gag order, potentially in a more limited fashion. >> one of his co-defendants in the georgia election subversion saying, there prosecutors are seeking to revoke the bond. actually they say he violated his pond by posting on social media in a way that shows, to use prosecutors' words, he's a significant threat to intimidating witnesses. if he is not narrowed in scope or limited to the gag order, he would be intimidating witnesses business his posting? >> absolutely. in and of itself, it's not protected, but what does that cover? oftentimes trump will use sort of ambiguous language that has plausible deniability, but however we saw after the truth social post, if you come after me, i'll kim after you, the judge received a death threat. words have power, so i think these two issues a

one thing that john sauer is having some success on is that she is talking about the targeting of the members of the special counsel team, and perhaps a little better wording of the restriction, kate. >> and with this unprecedented setup with donald trump a current and front running candidate for president once again, it sets up that this is a fascinating appeals court setup. i am interested in how this whole discussion goes. thank you, evan. >>> and we have fascinating thingbes to talk about and that why i have the former prosecutor of the u.s. district court with us. great to see you, sara christoph. and i want to talk about the snippet here, because the fight of what is political speech and what is potentially damaging to the judicial process, and this is an exchange between one of trump's attorneys and the panel here. >> criminal speech obviously between core political speech which is part of the campaign speech that is -- >> i don't think that kind of labeling it core political speech begs the question of whether it is in fact political speech or whether it is political speech ai

. >> caroline what do you make of the argument by sauer it sets a terrible precedent? >> i would note and the judge pushed back on this, that the gag order just to be clear, the gag order was extremely narrowly tailored which is what you look for when balancing these two big rights, first amendment rights, and the right of a court system to administer justice as it sees fit. the gag order would allow former president trump to really rail against the prosecution, say it's politically motivated, call it a witch hunt as he's fond of doing and bash the democrats, president biden. he can do all that. the very narrow issue here is whether or not he can directly attack court staff, prosecution, the prosecutors, prosecutors, things of that nature, which would incite violence. one of the key issues was how ea aten waited can that be. the idea of well, president trump has all these, you know, people reading his truth social posts what might they do when they get a tweet that sort of crosses the line into that territory of potentially doing violence, doing harm. so that was a key

tanya chutkan is categorically un ununprecedented and that is what judge sauer said yesterday, and that is something that the judges did not entirely embrace. take a listen. >> the order is unprecedented and it is setting a terrible precedent for future restrictions on core political speech. >> it is only affecting speech temporarily for a criminal trial process for someone who has been indicted as a felon. no one here is threatening the first amendment broadly. >> now, kate, we are waiting to see how that three-judge panel is going to rule on this, but taking a step back and looking at the big picture, vi spoken to the trump team about this, and the reason they care so much is because donald trump and his team do not want to necessarily fight these legal battles in the court of law, but fight it in the court of public opinion and in order for him to do that, they want the speech not to be limit and have him say whatever he wants on social media. they look at his, his team is looking at the legal strategy the same as the campaign strategy, so having a gag order in place limits him from

the unprecedented nature was something that he, john sauer, lawyer for the former president, focused on the idea that the one of the leading candidates "the" leading candidate according to some polls works have his speech filtered, restricted, by a jump. listen. >> the order is unprecedented and it sets a terrible precedent for future restrictions on core political speech. this is a radical departure from the only cases considered this particular form of restriction on a critical defendant running for public office and does so in the context is a hotly contested campaign for the highest office in america. >> and, look, all three judges on this appeals panel were very skeptical of the broadness what he was trying to push on. one thing they pointed out was this really wasn't just about the first amendment. there is an interest for the court to preserve a fair trial. right? not to taint the jury pool, and to protect the safety of the people on the jury and so on. >> and speaking of the jury pool and their safety, the judges did express concern for them. what did they say? >> right. a co

john sauer the lawyer for the former president got a lot of push back from the judges, in particularm patricia millett one of the judges who heard this case. here is her push back on his arguments. >> first of all, i'm not putting down everyone who speaks. this is only -- no one is shutting down -- this is only affecting speech temporarily during a criminal trial process by someone who has been indicted as a felon. so that's a different category first. no one here is threatening the first amendment broadly. >> reporter: and, dana, it's clear obviously, you know, this is a court that does restrictions on people's speech before trial all the time. a lot of defendants face restrictions on what they say. of course, we have never had a defendant quite like donald trump who is running for office, who is leading in the polls. i will say, though, the judges also had some trouble with the prosecution and the way they tried -- they are trying to interpret these restrictions. the broadness of this order from the judge, the judge, especially, again, judge millett had some concerns about how broa

think it's fair to say she got fairly loud at times when she was pushing donald trump's lawyer, john sauer, trying to get him to answer her hypothetical questions, and he really refused to do it. he wouldn't budge an inch. the other thing that i think was really interesting, this felt like a legal argument that was trying to find its footing in the day and age of the internet, when they're talking about how donald trump is prohibited from communicating with witnesses except in the presence of his counsel, but then the judges started posing these hypotheticals, like, okay, donald trump can't call a witness and say patriots don't cooperate with prosecutors. let's tweet the hypothetical. what about if that witness is in the audience and donald trump is at a rally and he says, patriots don't cooperate with prosecutors. does that constitute communicating with the witness such that it would be a violation of a condition of release. they took it one step further. when he posts something on social media that says hypothetically patriots don't cooperate with prosecutors, isn't that him communicatin

ensure the safety of witnesses and other participants, but the other thing they didn't buy was john sauer's insistence that anything donald trump has said had concrete impact and they said wait a second, shortly after the indictment, he said if you're coming after me, i'm coming after you, and shortly thereafter judge chutkan was threatened by a woman in texas. he tried to diminish that case, and said that's a crazy alcoholic f you look at her te tension order, there are a number of factors in her case, a long history of substance abuse. and the judges weren't having that either, if you are going to go o social media in this era, how do you know that mr. shry who's the defendant in that case, is the only one willing to follow what donald trump said to its logical conclusion. the answer is we don't. we don't know how many possible lone wolves are out there hanging on his every word. >> i wonder if when this gets decided there might be limits imposed on this gag order making it more limited than it is. judge engoron, he said just don't talk about my staff. would we see a situation where the p

sauer, you point to the fact that your client is in the midst of a campaign, but i trust you agree that restraint, no matter to who it would apply, is subject to the highest of constitutional scrutiny is your argument? >> absolutely. i trut you agree that your client is not the law that a to all other americans. >>is subject to the first amendment principally. >> the law that applies to everyone, he is not above the law. >> we certainly veot argued that. >> the disiccourt found that when a defendant has publicly attacked individuals,ncluding on matters related to this case, those individuals are consequently threated d harassed. we view that factual finding as a clear error? >> in air amendment case, as we cited i our standard review section, the court should engage in plenary review. that is a mixed question of fact and law. >> the finding about what happened in the world chamoli look at that for clear error, then we look at the implication. >> the court would have to look at it in light of the edence which shows that is all based on evidence that is three years old. they have no evide

was a little out of his mind, but this happens to him, he comes hunting with two guns, izh 27 and sauere him any peace, that well, alexander, tell me where to go? i'd like to hear your version. ekaterina, favorites. on monday on rtr. many of you check your email first thing when you wake up. and i, of course, am no exception. the champagne opened. do you want to get a sea of ​​positive emotions? tours to aphazia, i spent a week on holiday and i could barely fit into my skirt, you are at the right address here, please read. i can’t read, but a man has to earn money, yesterday i earned such money from my wife, the morning mail is on air and i, its presenter, nikolai ba. the most positive, morning mail with nikolai vaskov, on sundays on prt, crystal date, crystal gift, bitter, at five it’s normal, now even more, someone else’s family doesn’t give others peace, handsome, rich, but why not mine, i won’t miss him. so this is great, we’re getting married now, maria kulikova, hello, this is marina, i’m expecting a child from your husband, i hate you, no, i have a new number now, a new address,

new administration of justice, to protect the witnesses, and, you know, donald trump's lawyer, john sauerlike it was some magical incantation, because everything donald trump says andposts the for political speech in his estimation, there can be no restraint, no gag order, no limitation on it. and the judges weren't having it. both judge mow let and judge garcia made identical observations. they said there's a clear pattern here -- donald trump says something, posts something, and witness threats follow. so, it seems pretty clear that it was a wholesale rejection of trump's lawyer's argument, and we're likely to see some sort of a somewhat narrower gag order approved by the appellate court than perhaps the judge put in place in the first instance. >> let me ask you your feeling about where this goes with say a roberts supreme court. the roberts court has been very unsympathetic to donald trump on certainly any questions surrounding january 6th, most questions surrounding his appeals regarding criminal trials and civil trials against him. i'm curious, do you think that would hold up here t