Trump's attorney, John Sauer, seemed unable to defend his legal position that the gag order attempting to restrain his client was overbroad and limiting Donald from speaking his mind. As the Court of Appeals hears their complaint, it does not seem Team Trump is finding a warm reception. The appeals court has suspended the gag order until the hearing could be conducted, but Sauer seems unable to explain why they should not reinstate it.
Sauer argued that the terms of the gag order, first imposed by District Judge Tanya Chutkan, went overbroad and were a violation of the former president's constitutional rights, claiming that Trump's arguments did not constitute a "clear and present danger."
But Millett challenged Sauer, saying that under case law there is a distinction between participants and outsiders, and wouldn't the former have a stronger standard? Sauer danced around the question, and a frustrated Millett said, "You can't give me anything."
She then pointed out that even stipulating to Sauer's view, there is extensive Supreme Court law saying that, "Clear and present danger isn't mean to be a mechanical process, it's a balancing test" between the defendant's rights and the risks of their conduct.
I guess we are about to find out if threatening people and intimidating witnesses is considered free speech.