WASHINGTON - eTradeWire -- The New York judge overseeing former President Trump's fraud trial has just issued a limited gag order for all parties barring Trump and any party in the case from posting or speaking publicly about members of his staff.

The order came after the former president released on Truth Social personally-identifying information about his principal clerk while the fraud trial was underway.

But this order, just like the one requested earlier by special counsel Jack Smith, can easily be circumvented by members of Congress, PACs, bloggers and other influencers who support Trump, notes public interest law professor John Banzhaf, and expert on free speech issued.

Virtually all of what Banzhaf said about Smith's proposed gag order also applies to the one just issued by Judge Arthur Engoron:

But even if U.S. Judge Tanya Chutkan grants in its entirely and without any changes the original motion by special counsel Jack Smith seeking what has been described as a narrowly tailored gag order, it will still contain a hole big enough to drive a truck through, and there may be nothing the court can do about it, says Banzhaf.

More on eTradeWire News

• What To Inspect When Buying A Used Car
• Who Has Been Distracted During Work or Athletics, from Debris falling Between the Shoe and Sock
• Exel Solar U.S. Emerges in response to Growing Solar Demand
• Revolutionizing sustainability with a plant-based gold leaching solution and technology to recover gold from ore while reducing environmental impact
• Local Microschool Wins National Recognition

Thus, even if, to the surprise of many, Trump himself does not defy the proposed order once it was issued, many of his supporters - including members of Congress, talk show hosts, members of PACs, and other organizations - can still do exactly what is prohibited by the order.

Professor Banzhaf filed the formal legal complaint which led to the investigation and indictment of Trump in Georgia, but he has played no role in Trump's federal criminal proceedings.

Therefore, the law professor notes that he, like virtually every other American, would still be free to talk about or otherwise inform others about the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses, and/or to make statements about any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflammatory or intimidating; or in the alternative, happen to be praiseworthy, supportive, or consoling.

So the irony is that if the motion is granted and the gag order issued - and if Trump, rather than defying it, simply asks his supporters with huge followings to repeat his claims - more people are likely to accept the claims coming from many different supposedly-reliable sources rather than any such claim coming from Trump himself.

http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf