In Stalins Soviet Union as well as in Hitlers Nazi Germany a person would be arrested and sent to a concentration camp if they were accused of speaking out against the state. Even worse, they probably would be executed just for talking. This was a basic rule under fascist and totalitarian governments. It was just one part of a plan of total censorship and oppression as a means of controlling the very thoughts and opinions of its citizens. In the 1930s, political speech and criticism of the government were dealt with by placing its citizens in labor camps and later by mass execution. There is nothing more despised by Americans than this kind of censorship. Every citizen has the right to defend him/herself in the public forum.
This is America; it is not Hitlers Germany nor is it Stalins Russia. When Judge Amy Berman Jackson imposed a gag order on Roger Stone it brings to mind both of those despicable regimes. This gag order is a prior restraint on the free speech rights of the one person qualified to publicly defend himself from criminal accusations; Roger Stone. The idea of a gag order is to prevent the defendant or his counsel from materially prejudicing a jury. It also extends in scope to preventing the defendant or his counsel from tipping public opinion in favor of the defendant. The gag order then is for the honorable desire for a fair trial.
How in Gods name is a gag order on defendant Stone going to ensure a fair trial? The media has already convicted Stone as part of the Russian collusion delusion. The fact that CNN had their cameras rolling as 29 Federal officers (in full tactical SWAT type uniforms) invaded his home in a pre dawn raid went a long way to condemning Stone in the public forum. All day long media outlets played the video tape of his arrest. If thats not creating a bias against a fair trial, I dont know what is.
The media has all the means to say anything they want about Roger Stone. The fact that a gag order prevents Stone from defending himself in the press guarantees a unfair trial. A gag order undermines the ability of a defendant to obtain a fair trial. Does Judge Amy Berman Jackson really believe that if Stone spoke out about his case he might change the worlds opinion of him? Does she really think that Stones criticism of Muellers tactics will somehow damage the case against him? Is it fair that he not be allowed to make statements in his own behalf to the public while the media continues to paint him as a shady conspirator who colluded with the Russians?
In the late 1980s, the Supreme Court ruled in a case involving a Las Vegas attorney who during a press conference attacked the prosecution for covering up police corruption and for scapegoating his client. The Supreme Court said this: the lawyer spoke at a time and in a manner that neither in law nor in fact created any threat of real prejudice to his clients right to a fair trial or to the States interest in the enforcement of its criminal laws. In addition means an attorney may take reasonable steps to defend a clients reputation and reduce the adverse consequences of indictment, especially in the fact of a prosecution deemed unjust or commenced with improper motives. This includes an attempt to demonstrate in the court of public opinion that the client does not deserve to be tried.
Roger Stone makes his living by speaking and writing. Judge Jackson is considering putting Stone in jail for criticizing Mueller in the introduction section of his new book. Are Muellers feelings hurt? Stone couldnt possibly think that briefly criticizing Mueller in print would constitute a violation of the gag order. Hes not allowed to talk about his books, he cant sell his books through social media and hes not allowed to give his opinion on the most important and life threatening situation of his 66 years. He is basically prevented from earning a living.
This situation is intolerable. It goes against the principals of the very ideals that make America the greatest country in the world.