Federal Judge Orders Trump to Shut Up About Classified Docs

Donald Trump is banned from talking on social media about evidence in the classified documents case, thanks to a protective order issued Monday.

Trump pleaded not guilty last week to 37 counts of keeping classified information without authorization, making false statements, and conspiring to obstruct justice. Federal prosecutors requested the protective order on Friday, arguing they needed to protect “sensitive and confidential” information.

Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart has acquiesced, issuing an order that significantly restricts the ways Trump can access evidence in the case and share it online. Unless he has permission from a judge, Trump is not allowed to share information about the evidence to anyone not involved with the case.

He also cannot see any of the prosecutors’ evidence unless he is in the presence of his lawyers, and he definitely cannot keep any copies of the evidence. If he violates any of these new rules, he could face criminal contempt charges.

Trump also had to sign a form promising, like Bart Simpson writing on the chalkboard, “I will not further disclose or disseminate the Discovery Materials.”

Given Trump’s penchant for just tweeting out important decisions or insider information, it’s unsurprising that Reinhart issued a protective order. This isn’t the first time Trump had to be disciplined before a trial even got underway: In May, the judge presiding over Trump’s Manhattan criminal case on the alleged payment of hush money to Stormy Daniels issued a protective order stating that the people involved in the lawsuit are not allowed to share evidence from the case on social media. Trump can still discuss the case publicly and is only restricted from sharing information about the evidence.

Prosecutors had argued Trump has a “long-standing history” of attacking people involved in his legal disputes. The judge also ordered Trump to attend a hearing specifically to be told to stop trying to intimidate witnesses.

The Department of Justice waited a year to investigate Donald Trump for his alleged role in the January 6 insurrection, The Washington Post reported Monday.

A new investigation by the Post found that the DOJ resisted looking into Trump or members of his inner circle, even as evidence of an organized scheme to overturn the 2020 election piled up. Instead, newly sworn-in Attorney General Merrick Garland and his team opted for a “bottom-up” strategy, focusing first on the rioters and working their way up. Garland and his team refrained from directly investigating the former president out of fear of looking politically partisan.

Just hours after he was sworn into office, Garland met with acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Michael Sherman, who along with the FBI was responsible for prosecuting all crimes related to the January 6 attack. Sherman presented their work, which had resulted at the time in charges for nearly 300 rioters, with nearly 900 in  total identified.

Sherman had made waves when he said Trump could be considered guilty of the attack, but according to the Post’s investigation, his presentation made no mention of investigating Trump or his advisers. Investigators stayed away from Trump, even as more and more evidence appeared of numerous schemes intended to overturn a legitimate election.

More than a year later, in November 2022, Garland finally appointed special counsel Jack Smith to investigate Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents and his alleged role in the January 6 attack. The Post attributes this delay to “a wariness about appearing partisan, institutional caution, and clashes over how much evidence was sufficient to investigate the actions of Trump and those around him.”

Sherwin, senior Justice Department officials, and the deputy FBI director all opposed investigating Trump or his allies directly, arguing it was too early, the Post reported. But Garland then continued with this approach, giving Trump more time to spread lies about the 2020 election.

Trump pleaded not guilty last week to 37 counts of keeping classified information, some of it relating to national security, without authorization, making false statements, and conspiring to obstruct justice. He is still under investigation for his role in January 6 and under a separate investigation for his role in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia.

Two of Donald Trump’s ex-advisers warned over the weekend that the former president poses a massive threat to national security, in light of his recent indictment for allegedly mishandling classified documents.

Former Attorney General Bill Barr called Trump’s conduct “indefensible” on Sunday. Although he defended some of his former boss’s behavior, Barr opposed Trump running for office again.

“Should we be putting someone like this forward as the leader of the country, leader of the free world?” Barr told CBS’s Face the Nation. “He will always put his own interests, and gratifying his own ego, ahead of everything else, including the country’s interest, there’s no question about it.”

“He’s like a … defiant 9-year-old kid who’s always pushing the glass toward the edge of the table, defying his parents to stop him from doing it,” Barr continued. “It’s a means of self assertion and exerting his dominance over other people. And he’s a very petty individual … but our country can’t be a therapy session for, you know, a troubled man like this.”

Also on Sunday, former Defense Secretary Mark Esper told CNN’s State of the Union that Trump’s alleged handling of classified material was “unauthorized, illegal, and dangerous.” He compared Trump’s actions to those of Jack Teixeira, the Massachusetts Air National Guard member accused of leaking sensitive military documents online.

When asked if he thought Trump could ever be trusted with national secrets again, Esper replied, “Based on his actions, again, if proven true under the indictment by the special counsel, no.”

“I mean, it’s just irresponsible action that places our service members at risk, places our nation’s security at risk. You cannot have these documents floating around.”

Trump was charged with a total of 37 counts for keeping classified information, some of it relating to national security, without authorization, making false statements, and conspiring to obstruct justice. Barr and Esper are the latest former Cabinet members to turn on Trump over the indictment.

Former national security adviser John Bolton said the indictment should end Trump’s political career, and former chief of staff John Kelly said Trump was “scared shitless” at the prospect of actually being held accountable for once.

It’s worth noting, though, that all of these men defended Trump during his time in office and continue to justify some of his behavior. Still, their comments underline just how serious the charges Trump faces are and how indefensible his actions were.

Dr. Peter Hotez is a respected vaccine scientist, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine and professor of pediatrics and molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, who has devoted his career to improving global public health. He is also the author of Vaccines Did Not Cause Rachel’s Autism: My Journey as a Vaccine Scientist, Pediatrician, and Autism Dad, a book that draws on his experience as a doctor and the father of an autistic daughter. Podcaster and conspiracy theorist Joe Rogan and profoundly unfunny Twitter CEO Elon Musk spent the weekend trying to bully him into debating Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the efficacy of vaccines.

The saga started on Saturday, when Hotez shared a Vice article about how Spotify—which signed Rogan to a multiyear exclusive contract in 2021 that is rumored to be worth $200 million—has stopped “even trying to stem” the podcast host’s “vaccine misinformation,” which was focused on Rogan’s three-hour-long interview with Kennedy. “Peter, if you claim what RFKjr is saying is ‘misinformation’ I am offering you $100,000.00 to the charity of your choice if you’re willing to debate him on my show with no time limit,” Rogan tweeted. Musk quickly backed him up, writing, “He’s afraid of a public debate, because he knows he’s wrong.”

Hotez has offered to appear on Rogan’s podcast but has rightfully refused to debate Kennedy on the issue. Given the popularity and influence of Rogan’s show, there are persuasive arguments for appearing, if only to correct the wild statements that are frequently shared about not just the Covid-19 vaccine but all vaccines. But appearing with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would likely only legitimize those views. Kennedy has spent more than a decade spouting conspiracy theories with no basis in fact about vaccines. As Hotez noted to MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan, “Anti-vaccine disinformation … is now a lethal force in the United States. I offered to go on Joe Rogan but not to turn it into the Jerry Springer show with having RFK Jr. on.”

The goal of the “debate” Rogan is trying to host is not to hash out the truth or to finally decide if vaccines are safe and effective or not. Vaccines are safe and effective: This is settled science. The goal is to sow doubt and confusion over both settled science and the value of expertise, both in medicine and in the wider world. Hotez is right to avoid it. But he is already paying a price: He says he was “stalked” on Sunday by anti-vax protesters who were waiting for him outside his Houston home.

Governor Greg Abbott signed an extreme bill targeting drag performances on Sunday, making Texas the fourth Republican-led state to enact such a law.

The bill passed both the House and Senate in May, following last-minute changes that opponents worry will create a slew of new, unforeseen crimes when the measure goes into effect in September.

The new law will criminalize any performances that occur or could occur in front of a minor if they appeal to “prurient interest” or are of a sexual nature. Performers could be charged with a misdemeanor (and face up to one year in jail, a $4,000 fine, or both), while any business that hosts the show would face a $10,000 fine. The bill’s sponsor stripped out any specific references to drag, but opponents argue the vaguely worded legislation would still target LGBTQ people.

The text was amended during debates to remove specific mentions of the word “drag,” and just before the final vote, lawmakers also removed the definition of “premises,” raising concerns that drag performances in private homes could also be policed.

The law is extremely broad, which actually creates a host of other complications. A group of lawyers previously told The Dallas Morning News that the measure could restrict performances by artists such as Madonna and Miley Cyrus, which often feature sexual dancing. The text could even affect bachelorette parties, if they involved sex toys or other paraphernalia. The new changes could even impact cheerleading and criminalize sexual conduct between consenting 17-year-olds (17 is the age of consent in Texas).

Movie screenings and art history classes could similarly come under fire. And of course, the law will affect its original target: drag performers, Pride parades, and transgender people just trying to live their lives.

Some people say the measure was already singling out LGBTQ people before it was even signed. Kerry Lynn, who runs a business that sends drag queens to people’s homes for birthday or bachelorette party performances, said drag venues and performers have seen a spike in threats over the past year and have been targeted by neo-Nazis.

“Regardless of the content, the proposal of these bills have created an excruciating year for my business and drag performers,” Lynn said when the bill was heard in a House committee in late April. “These words in this bill create movements which become headlines that pave the way for those to feel justified in acting out hostilely and violently.”

Texas is now the fourth state to pass a law banning drag performances. Tennessee was the first, in March, followed a month later by Florida. A Tennessee bill was blocked before it could go into effect, on the grounds that it violated free speech. But LGBTQ groups in Florida are already canceling Pride celebrations in light of the new law. In May, Montana Governor Greg Gianforte signed a drag ban so broad it could prevent glam rock, wrestling, and even performances by Dolly Parton.