[God luvs America]

Can someone please explain what this means for those of us that are clueless when it comes to rulings? Thanks

[Oystir]

Don’t talk about witnesses; especially ones that haven’t testified

[Tell It Right]

My take: don't talk about witnesses (including government officials) particularly in their testimony. For example, the order chastises a post by Trump for saying someone would be intimated to change his testimony in the case. The new court order didn't like that.

But the new court order says Trump has the free speech to talk about that same person in every other way (and listed an example post from Trump against the same person but didn't speak specifically about how that person would testify about this case, so the new court order that example of free speech from Trump is protected). In situations like that, this District Court order fusses about the lower court restricting Trump's free speech too much. IMHO, it has good language in that regard saying that our protected free speech is especially about Trump or anybody else being able to criticize government. It also reminded the lower court that it'd be unfair to hamstring Trump as a candidate to not be able to rebut the many criticisms he's getting, including criticisms that fuss at Trump regarding this case. They say Trump can speak publicly all he wants about this case ---- as long as he doesn't specifically criticize someone's testimony, especially future testimony (I'll bet he'll say blah blah blah because he's blahb blah blah).

[chopperk]

Chutkan is playing right into Trump’s hands.

[Rlsau1]

The decision process for most judges today is: I want this, now I have to find some justification for it. If there isn’t any legal justification, I’ll just make up one.
Far too many judges are terminally stricken with a god complex.