Welcome to the Eric Erickson Show podcast. Our two.

Greetings. Welcome across the nation. It is Eric Erickson here. You struggle to come up with adjectives or to sound, oh, not sound too pompous, but it actually

is kind of a big deal today. Donald Trump is going to be arraigned, arrested, arraigned,

released into his own custody, and fly back to Mar-a-Lago. Alvin Bragg gets his pound

to flesh against Donald Trump. And even on CNN, I'm watching CNN in particular because Fox is definitely of the right,

MSNBC, absolutely of the left.

CNN has a somewhat balanced panel of Trump haters.

They're trying to be more reasonable.

I do have some friends involved.

And even at CNN, I find it notable. They're a little bit incredulous about Alvin Bragg trying to string all this stuff together. I want to move on to other stuff this hour. But before I do, I want to take Bill's phone call. A relevant question here, I'm getting from a lot of people on email. Bill, welcome to the show. Hey, Eric, I appreciate you taking my call. So I guess my question is about the constitutionality of a gag order

versus the First Amendment. I mean, how do you tell somebody you're not allowed to speak about

something when clearly the First Amendment says we can talk about anything? Yeah, okay, that's a great question. So courts have upheld gag orders of people

involved in litigation in large part because you want to make sure a jury is not persuaded. You don't want to influence a jury by talking

outside the courtroom, shaping media coverage, the jury's not supposed to look at it anyway.

Sometimes accidents happen. And so you're, you are about speaking to to an issue for a limited amount of time that is the duration of the trial while the trial is ongoing.

And courts have said that's a reasonable accommodation to allow for justice to be served without contaminating the jury pool and the like.

But, however, that is, it is a very, very, very high bar for judges to issue a gag order.

It is not the norm for judges to issue the gag order.

Now, the Daily Mail reported exclusively the judge was going to issue a gag order.

I said yesterday my theory was that the Daily Mail did not have sources.

The reason they don't have sources is because it's really hard to have a source to tell you what a judge is going to do when there hasn't been a motion filed for a gag order.

How can you say the judge is going to issue a gag order when no motion's even been filed asking for a gag order?

...