Trump ‘Protective Order’ Could Gag Him On Election Fraud | CLIP | Crossroads

Good evening and welcome to Crossroads. Trump's plan to use the latest indictment as a way to expose the evidence of election fraud in 2020 may be crushed by the Justice Department. Former President Donald Trump was indicted last week in Washington on four charges. It's alleged right now at least that his claims that the election had been rigged, his attempts to litigate based on that, to get dueling electors in place, and then his alleged involvement in the January 6th riots, all of these are being framed as a planned conspiracy. The court case will require prosecutors to prove that Trump did not believe the 2020 elections were rigged. And I'd say it's gonna be a hard thing for him to do. Trump's legal team was quick to fire back saying they would use discovery and subpoenas and they're gonna show the American people every single piece of evidence available, everything they can find to show why Trump did believe and still does allegedly that Biden and the Democrats stole the election. But that plan may have just ended. While the case is still going forward and we can assume that Trump will still use discovery and still use subpoenas to gain access to all of that evidence, that information is unlikely to ever see the light of day. Not only that, but if Trump talks about rigged elections or January 6th, some of his major campaign discussions, it's possible he could face charges for violating a court order if they go through with this. They found a way to muzzle him. To eliminate some of his main defenses being lobbed against him from both sides of the aisle. Republicans and Democrats actually now, both attacking him. And this comes in the form of a protective order. Let me explain. On Friday, Trump wrote on Truth Social, If you go after me, I'm coming after you. The Justice Department jumped on him. They said it was a threat. Prosecutors requested the U.S. District Court judge in charge of the case issue a protective order. But what's interesting is that that protective order, it doesn't actually protect them from Trump. It doesn't protect them. It protects the evidence in the case from going public. In particular, it prevents that evidence from being shown to the American people. Now look, I don't know about this, you know, I don't know how stopping the public from seeing evidence resolves an alleged threat from Trump. But that's their claim. They're sticking to it. The prosecutors even laid out why there should be a protective order. And according to AP, they said this, They said that they're going to hand over a substantial amount of evidence to Trump's legal team. And apparently a lot of the information they say is sensitive and confidential. Now look, if we go by the official narrative, we've been shown all the necessary evidence on January 6th, all the evidence on election fraud that we need to see. We're told the courts, Congress, they all seem to agree that the official narrative is irrefutable. So why would sensitive or confidential information be harmful? Why would that be a threat? Wouldn't any evidence that hasn't been shown to the public just help their case? And maybe it could even help restore public trust in the institutions. And I'd say, wouldn't that be a great thing right now ahead of the 2024 elections? Well, maybe unless the evidence shows otherwise. And the real irony here is that if the judge chooses to keep this information hidden from the public, much of the public is going to believe that's the case. On the part of Trump's legal team, they told AP that Trump's truth social post was not about the prosecutions. He wasn't threatening them, they say. They say it was in response to the dishonest special interest groups and Super PAC. They also claim it represented the definition of free speech. Now, while waiting on the judge's orders, Trump issued some post condemning Mike Pence, who is going to be allegedly testifying against him and against the judge. So given that they use that to call for protective order, we'll see how it goes. Let me explain. On Saturday, Trump wrote that the former vice president, Mike Pence, has quote, gone to the dark side. He refuted one of Pence's main claims and wrote, I never told the newly emboldened, not based on his 2% poll numbers, Pence to put me above the Constitution or that Mike was too honest. He is delusional and now he wants to show he's a tough guy. On Sunday, Trump requested the judge recuse herself and for the case to be moved out of Washington. Trump wrote, we will be immediately asking for recusal of this judge on very powerful grounds and likewise for venue change out of DC. And he also said that special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the case, is interfering with the 2024 elections by choosing to prosecute the case right now. And notably, Trump also went viral on Sunday because of a Truth Social post he had condemning representative Nancy Pelosi and he wrote, I purposefully didn't comment on Nancy Pelosi's very weird story concerning her husband, meaning the Hammer Time one, but he said, but I can now, I, sorry, but now I can because she said something about me with glee that was really quite vicious. I saw a scared puppy, she said, as she watched me on television, like millions of others that didn't see that. I wasn't scared. Nevertheless, how mean a thing to say. Now, Trump, of course, has a reputation for his so-called mean tweets. The question right now is whether he should be able to comment on the case and show his side of the story. Now, when he will inevitably be attacked by establishment news outlets and others on the case. I mean, for context, special counsel Jack Smith, who he's accused of attacking right now, made public scorching accusations against Trump in the indictment. Should Trump not be allowed to contest that? Pelosi and others have repeatedly attacked Trump. Mike Pence made public comments alleging Trump's guilt. Should he not be able to say otherwise? If it's wrong for Trump to verbally attack them, then is it also wrong for them to attack Trump? Now, maybe they should all have protective orders if that's the case, but the case is actually bigger than just political infighting. It actually has a lot to do with public perception. Let me explain. We're told right now that Trump has damaged public trust in the election system. We're told that January 6th represents a type of radicalization of Trump's base, the MAGA extremists. So why would a full disclosure of evidence be a bad thing? And there are also alleged problems in the case brought against Trump as well. Special counsel Jack Smith was just called out for problems in his classified document case against Trump in Florida. Hugo Lowell of The Guardian just reported that the Florida judge says Smith's special counsel used an out-of-district grand jury to continue to investigate and or to seek post-indictment hearings. Many others have noted examples of double standards. In fact, videos have been going viral on X, formerly known as Twitter, of Democrats denying the 2016 elections, calling for the Electoral College to switch votes. The public now knows many other officials took classified documents. We know that the Trump-Russia scandal was a giant hoax. We know the Hunter Biden laptop was real. Both of these issues were used to interfere in previous elections. So why is Trump being treated differently? Why are other officials not facing similar charges? Well, look, the perception is that the American justice system is being weaponized politically. It's not just, you know, for domestic politics and so on. It's also damaging as well for foreign affairs.