Trump indictment: Judge schedules hearing on federal prosecutors’ gag order request

The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s indictment on conspiring to overturn the 2020 election charges, set a hearing for next month to hear arguments on the federal prosecutors’ request for a limited gag order.

>> Read more trending news

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan set the hearing for Oct. 16, according to The Associated Press. It would be primarily centered around special counsel Jack Smith’s team’s request to order Trump from making any “inflammatory and intimidating public statements” about possible witnesses, lawyers and other people who are a part of this case.

The trial is set for March 4, 2024, according to the AP. It will take place in federal court in Washington.

Earlier in the week, Trump’s attorneys reportedly denounced the gag order request, the AP reported. They claimed it was an attempt to “unconstitutionally silence” Trump’s political speech.

Chutkan also earlier in the week ruled against Trump. According to the AP, the defense requested she recuse herself from the case. Chutkan refused, stating that there was no reason for her to step aside.

Federal prosecutors filed this motion on Sept. 15 asking for a “narrow, well-defined” order that will work to “preserve the integrity of the case and to avoid prejudicing potential jurors,” the AP reported.

“Since the indictment in this case, the defendant has spread disparaging and inflammatory public posts on Truth Social on a near-daily basis regarding the citizens of the District of Columbia, the court, prosecutors and prospective witnesses,” prosecutors wrote, according to The New York Times.

“Like his previous public disinformation campaign regarding the 2020 presidential election,” they wrote, according to the newspaper, “the defendant’s recent extrajudicial statements are intended to undermine public confidence in an institution — the judicial system — and to undermine confidence in and intimidate individuals — the court, the jury pool, witnesses and prosecutors.”

Comments on this article