The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2:

• Jonah E. Bromwich, Ben Protess, and William K. Rashbaum of The New York Times write: “Manhattan prosecutors on Monday asked the judge overseeing their criminal case against Donald J. Trump to prohibit the former president from attacking witnesses or exposing jurors’ identities… The gag order in the Manhattan case, if the judge approves it, would bar Mr. Trump from ‘making or directing others to make’ statements about witnesses concerning their role in the case. The district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, also asked that Mr. Trump be barred from commenting on prosecutors on the case…The Manhattan criminal case was the first of Mr. Trump’s four indictments to be filed and is scheduled to go to trial on March 25. Last year, the district attorney’s office accused Mr. Trump of 34 felonies, saying he had orchestrated a cover-up of a potential sex scandal with a porn star that could have hindered his 2016 presidential campaign… Mr. Bragg has cast Mr. Trump’s actions as election interference, arguing that the cover-up led to the withholding of important information from voters shortly before they headed to the polls.” Rich notes, who exactly was victimized by these payments? Voters can’t truly be considered impacted, as Trump didn’t win New York in 2016 or 2020 anyway. You can read the full New York Times’ article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/nyregion/trump-gag-order-hush-money-trial.html
• On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases (Moody v. NetChoice LLC. and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton) which will determine whether social media companies are permitted to engage in politically based content moderation—or if this amounts to a form of censorship. But shouldn’t private companies be permitted to act autonomously without government compulsion?
• Adam Liptak of The New York Times writes: “The Supreme Court seemed skeptical on Monday of laws in Florida and Texas that bar major social media companies from making editorial judgments about which messages to allow. The laws were enacted in an effort to shield conservative voices on the sites, but a decision by the court, expected by June, will almost certainly be its most important statement on the scope of the First Amendment in the internet era, with broad political and economic implications. A ruling that tech platforms have no editorial discretion to decide which posts to allow would expose users to a greater variety of viewpoints but almost certainly amplify the ugliest aspects of the digital age, including hate speech and disinformation. Though a ruling in favor of big platforms like Facebook and YouTube appeared likely, the court also seemed poised to return the cases to the lower courts to answer questions about how the laws apply to sites that do not seem to moderate their users’ speech in the same way, like Gmail, Venmo, Uber and Etsy.” You can read Liptak’s full breakdown here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/us/politics/supreme-court-social-media-texas-florida.html