Trump Lawyers Beg Judge Not To Muzzle Him

Lawyers for Donald Trump are currently begging the judge overseeing the indictments that Trump is facing in Manhattan to not issue a protective order that would prevent Trump from talking about the case in public. They argue that this would restrict his candidacy if he can't address the indictments and explain it away - but that's a farce. The REAL reason they don't want him to be muzzled is because they know he can't be controlled and he'll violate the order creating more legal headaches, as Farron Cousins explains.

Don't forget to like, comment, and share! And subscribe to stay connected!

Connect with Farron on Twitter

*This transcript was auto-generated. Please excuse any typos.

Last week, prosecutors with the Manhattan District Attorney's office requested that the judge issue a protective order, basically muzzling Donald Trump, according to his lawyers, to prevent him from presenting evidence in the case to the American public. And this week, his lawyers finally got around. I mean, I know they've been busy. They got that other trial to worry about, but they finally got a law around to filing their response to the request for a protective order where they're begging the judge now to please don't muzzle our client because it'd be a violation of his first Amendment rights. Let me read you what these morons filed in court this week. The people have proposed what would be an unprecedented and extraordinarily broad muzzle on a leading contender for the presidency of the United States prohibiting President Trump from publicly discussing the evidence against him infringes on President Trump's constitutional right to make his case to the American people for why he should be elected president.

This is in practice, an attempt to gag a leading candidate for the presidency of the United States. And it is a clear infringement upon the First Amendment rights of the President Trump and the American electorate. Now here's the thing, if Donald Trump wants to talk about the case, he's actually still allowed to do that. The Prote protective order, by the way, did not prohibit that. Ed, of course, the protective order's not even in place yet. Um, what it did do was it limited what Donald Trump was able to physically get his hands on in terms of evidence, and it would prohibit him from talking about that evidence in front of the American public, which by the way, makes a lot of sense when you consider the fact that we don't have a jury selected yet. So if Donald Trump were to go, and his lawyers know this, by the way, so if Trump were to go out and start presenting the evidence that of course is not publicly available and try to trash it or somehow refute it, not in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion, that could actually be viewed as possible jury tampering because the jury would've already been tainted.

But maybe that's the whole point of it, right? Maybe that's why they don't want this protective order. They want Donald Trump to go out there and taint as many potential jurors as possible by showing them evidence that they are not yet supposed to have, because that is the only thing this protective order would do. It would prevent Donald Trump not from, you know, slamming everybody involved with it, although it should, but it won't. It just says, listen, he can't talk about the evidence. This is a pending criminal trial, and we don't want this idiot going out there and showing the public, like, here's their evidence right here. Let me tell you why it's fake. You will have your chance to do that. Your First Amendment rights

Will not not be infringed upon. Neither will your other constitutional rights that Republicans always seem to forget exists. Like they think, like First Amendment, second Amendment, uh, nothing else matters. You also have the right to a trial by jury. You have the right to counsel all that. I mean, that's in that Bill of Rights, but you also can't taint a jury pool. You also can't go out there and undermine a criminal investigation. Your chance to do that is in court. That, I mean, that, that that's pretty much what a trial is like. You go out there in the courtroom and you say that these things are not real. They're wrong, they're misleading, and then you use your evidence to prove that none of this stuff actually happened the way the prosecutors say it happened. That's where you make your case, not in the court of public opinion, but in the court of court.