Garlique healthy Blood Pressure formula helps maintain healthy Blood Pressure with a custom blend of ingredients. Im taking charge, with garlique. Im mark coats, thank you so much for watching, cnn tonight with sara sidner, the amazing women that she is and reporter starts right now. Hey, sarah. Hey, great show from. You i watch the whole thing. Thank you, appreciate. It susan. Good evening to you im sara sidner, this is cnn tonight, donald trump trying to use Freedom Of Speech to knockdown special counsel jack smiths requests to a federal judge to impose restrictions on what trump can say about evidence in the 2020 election interference case. His attorney is accusing prosecutors of trying to restrict trumps First Amendment rights. Well talk about. It also ahead, on the attack, a new political targets in the 2024 race for the white house, Vice PresidentKamala Harris, republican candidates are increasingly going after her, suggesting that a vote for biden at his age is really a vote for harris. Should we be afraid of facial Recognition Technology . A detroit mother explains what happened to her when police used it while she was eight months pregnant. [inaudible] it was about Six Police Officers at my door. The officer asked, are you porsche . I said, yes. She said what we have a warrant for your arrest. And initially, i was like okay. You cant, what do you mean . I thought it was a joke. My full interview with her, my full interview with her is just ahead tonight. But first, trumps tyrants and the latest case against him. Tomorrows news tonight as time ago, judge Tanya Chutkan indicated you will hold a hearing on the prosecutions for requests for protective order to restrict what donald trump and his legal team are allowed to share publicly. She wants both parties to present her with options by three pm tomorrow, when a hearing can be held. I want to bring in cnn legal journalist joey jackson, a Criminal Defense Attorney and overall human. And also fantastic, a former federal prosecutor. Joey, to you first. The judge is wasting no time here, putting a deadline, saying three pm tomorrow. Do you think there will be a ruling tomorrow . I do not know there will be a ruling, sarah, but i certainly think it is the beginning of what the judge will contemplate, will be the guidelines and the guardrails for the case. Protective orders are not unique in cases. You have to, you when youre given discovery, which is information necessary for a case to move forward, prosecutors, jen will tell you, have all of this discovery and information that they have to hand over for people like Defense Attorneys to evaluate to success. It is certainly appropriate for a judge to say, hey, we are going to limit with defensive tierneys can do. Even as it relates, are, or not owing to the public dissemination, but as it relates to your client. We do not want you to give copies your clients, if you do you have specific information to protect witnesses. So, i think theres concern to us back to how that information is going to play out, the judge is doing the right thing. Lets have a hearing, lets talk about what the protocols should be, lets get a ruling moving forward, and i think it could be as early as tomorrow, but i think certainly it will be shortly thereafter if it is not. Take a look at the arguments in the potentially. Jennifer, trumps legal team is responding. Here is what some of them are saying to the special counsels proposal for protective order, restricting what trump can say about the evidence. Trumps team says the proposal imposes on his first upends meant right. Will that argument fly . No, it does not fly at all. It is grounded, it is as grounded as the argument with the First Amendment protects his commission of crimes. Neither of these things make sense, discovery and protective orders are about, as joey said, giving the information to the defense so that they can prepare their case. It is not about letting him speak publicly about the evidence, about looking happen witnesses. I mean one of the things the judge is going to have to weigh here is the possible intimidation of witnesses, the impeachment upon the integrity of proceedings, the privacy of witnesses, their safety. Weve had lots of instances where donald trump has threatened, intimidated, witnesses, jurors, grand jurors, judges in the past. The judge should not let him do that. That is not infringing on his First Amendment rights, that is her control over the trial process. You have to safeguard the defendants rights but she also has to make sure that the witness and the integrity of the process is protected. Donald trump on his social media has already gone after the judge in this particular case in washington d. C. And over the over again the special counsel. Here is something he said that is put into this request for him basically not to be able to say everything he wants to about the evidence in the case. He says if you go after me, im coming after you, to argue against these restrictions. And now, the trump team says look he wasnt threatening, he was just using generalized political speech. I mean, is that a possibility . It sounds like a bit of a threat. So, sarah, the problem is that words matter and how you director matters, the context of the words matter, what you suggest that people should do matters. I think there is no greater evidence of that then january 6th. The statement that the president made at the time now certainly the indictment doesnt relate to that, but it proves the point that when you say things and you have followers that buy into things, people could get hurt. So, you have to protect the dignity of the process, the department of the process, and most importantly peoples bodily integrity. People can come after others, so i think that, we start with the speaker, remember, who got attacked, the speakers husband, so, yes, enough of this, lets have a trial, an appropriate trial, and constrain your client so he doesnt do anything to get people who could have a problem. I have to ask you as a Defense Attorney, they are vigorously defending him in this. But, behind the scenes, are they concerned about their client constantly doing these things . So, i think is a lot of concerns. I think this concern we respect to the allegationss concern with regard to the defenses they are raising as it relates to this First Amendment and how the First Amendment protects anything and everything you could possibly do. Thats not true. Obviously the concern about the client going off the reservation and becoming a person you cannot constrain. The judge may have a lot to say about that with respect to what he could do, and not only what he can do what he can say, we know he doesnt necessarily listen to everyone, what happens to him as a result of what he does and if you violate the judges order. Jennifer, the trump team referenced this recent post from President Biden that salute to the dark brandon memes. These argue that biden is capitalizing of the indictment of the campaign, and theyre trying to make the argument that this is similar kind of political speech. Biden is not under indictment last i checked. Nor is biden threatening witnesses, or judges, or other participants in the proceedings. I mean, this is apples and oranges. He can go out and make his political speeches, he can say that hed be a better president than biden, he can say all the things he wants to say, but disclosing confidential witness information, threatening people, telling his followers to get these people, i mean all of these things are out of bounds for obvious reasons. I think that joey is right, i think the judge is going to keep on a ferry very short leash on this stuff. Having sat through a couple of these trials, one of the conspiracy trials with the oath keepers where you have multiple defendants, some of those defendants literally said that donald trump inspire them to do what they did and they use that as a defense. It didnt work, but to your point that words matter. People took those words and his words very seriously and went forth and committed crimes. Im going to take a closer look at another one of trumps legal defenses. What do you think of this idea of aspirational arguments . I think that, we live in a country were speech is protected. But there is limitations on speech. We all know. That what are they . You cant defame someone as it relates to saying things that are false that impair an impugn their reputation, their integrity, and caused them in injury. You cant yell fire in a theater. What is my points . My point is that you cannot get away with plotting schemes about fake electors, about telling the Vice President of the United States to halt this in reverse the process, about getting involved and making phone calls to tell people to find votes. It is not aspirational. Those are actions that lead to significant crimes. So, whether it is a crime will be a jurys determination. But, you cannot excuse crimes merely by saying it is protected speech, there is nothing to see here. That is not how the process works. Just real quickly, Chris Christie talks about this and they want to get to it. Can we have the sound of Chris Christie. He believes trumps former white house Chief Of Staff mark meadows is cooperating with the justice department. Do you think that that is the case . I dont know. Everyone wants to know and mark meadows is doing. Hes been so silent, he does not seem to be loyal to trump or on team trump anymore. They seem to be worried about that. They have not seen him cooperating visibly, but, i suspect that he is. When i say cooperating, i mean he is being cooperative. I do not know if he would plead guilty and be a cooperating witness under government parlance. I suspect they would immunize him for his testimony, but the fact that we have not seen him come off suggesting that he is trying to stay under the radar. I think he is probably going to be a witness in this, and that is enormous because he has really had his hand in the operations of all of these pieces of this game. Jeff rogers, joey jackson, thank you so much for joining us this evening. All, right i want to bring in jim curtly, professor of media ethics and law at the university of minnesota. And contributor don jean, former Nixon White House counsel. Thank you both for joining us. John, we just talked about meadows. If he is cooperating, can you give us a sense of significance of importance of testimony it might be . It would be as important as mine was during watergate, itll be actually more important because he was at the scene of so many of the activities that occurred that are causing trump the policies hes got. He would be a remarkable star witness if hes cooperating. Hes got an attorney who can guide him that way. I dont know how you work it out or if youd make a plea deal. But hed be a powerful witness and trump would be in deep trouble. That was a significant thing you just said that it wouldnt be as big as you testifying back in the days. President nixon. I do want to get john, your take, on Something Else the trump attorney said over the weekend. Lets go ahead and listen to the. Would you be open to having cameras in the courtroom during this trial . One i personally want the public to see what is going on in this country right now. I want the public to see whats kind of prosecution is going on. So, . Yes i want the public to see the evidence if you ask me what my personal opinion is, the answer is absolutely id like to see that. What i am concerned about is the government has already signaled they do not want the press and the American People to see the evidence in this case, because they filed an Emergency Protective Order to prevent that from happening. Havent been allowed in the Federal Courts since 1946. Should they be, in this case, in particular . Is that to me . Yes. I think they should be. I have long thought they should be. I have watched it happen at the state level it, has been quite successful and in a number of states if there is a theater aspect to it, but there is also an educational aspect to it. And watergate, people began to learn what is happening when these Senate Hearings occurred. That is when they got an education. That is what will happen here. It wont be just soundbites are being taken, which they fear is the reason not to have him. A few academics do not like it and they have studied it and dont find that it is affective for those of you who dont study it think so. I think it makes the courts open a, gives us the impression that we know its going on and i think we learn from it. Jane, i know i was in your state in minnesota when the judge and the Derek Chauvin case and the murder of george floyd broke with the Longstanding Court rules in your state of minnesota and did decide that it was imperative that cameras belonged in the courtroom from gavel to gavel. This is something this will never did before. What would be the best argument for allowing cameras in the Federal Court case . I think in any case, any highprofile Criminal Case like this, first of all, to put a First Amendment right to be there, the public does. It is not practical for most people to attend the trial. As a Supreme Court justice once said, we do not demand infallibility from our institutions, but it is unrealistic to expect us to have confidence in them if we cannot see what is being done. What the chauvin pa prove is that we can have a highprofile controversy case, you can set of rules, you can have a judge was clear about what conduct will be permitted and what will not be, and it goes forward. I think it is fair to say that the Public Confidence in the verdict in the chauvin case was enhanced in measurably by the fact that we got to watch the whole thing and not have to rely on secondary spin about what was going on in the courtroom. Id have to agree with you just having been there and watching people see how it unfolded. People, including the Defense Attorney who thought the case was fair, i do want to talk to you about donald trump himself because he is known to say wild things to make faces, and the like, he likes the camera. Thats no secret. Would it be a disruption, do you think, in a case like this, jane . Well , here is the thing, judges have been inherited authority to control the courtroom they. Dont like to give up control and i think thats one of the big reasons they dont like cameras in the courtroom. It is going to be up to the Presiding Judge and all of Donald Trumps trials to make it clear that that kind of conduct is not going to be permitted, not from him, not from any of the attorneys, not from anyone in that courtroom. Itll be an interesting thing to see because of course in a normal trial, the judge would not hesitate to impose a Content Order on somebody who did not obey. Itll be interesting to see what happens here, but truly, i believe that if the judge maintains control in the courtroom, donald trump is going to have to learn that he simply cannot act like that. As you know in the chauvin trial, partly because of covid, one of the ways that are Presiding Judge held up with this is by having very strict restrictions on where people could physically be in the courtroom. They are behind plexiglass, they had to stand behind a podium. Posturing, running around, was not permitted. Im not saying that necessarily be a good idea here, but it would be one option the judge could consider. There was only one or two chose for each of the Family Members and only one person from the media also that could be in there as somebody from the polls. So, it did restrict who could be in the court. And 20 very smoothly, judge was very strict everyone. Thank you both, john dean, and jane i appreciate you coming on the show. Thank you. Thank you. Just ahead, the republican candidates increasingly using a new tactic on the Campaign Trail. Attacking Vice PresidentKamala Harris as a way to undercuts President Biden. Will it work . A bit later, a nightmare scenario, the use of facial recognition turned one mothers life upside down. Oh searchable, verified reviews. Thats better than the ham, and ive never said that. Booking. Com booking. Yeah upbeat music awww. Awww. Awww. Nope. Constant Contact delivers the Marketing Tools your Small Business needs to keep up, excel, and grow. Constant contact. Helping the small stand tall. Ma ma ma ma [clears throut] for fast sore throat relief, try Vicks Vapocool drops with two times more menthol per drop , and the powerful rush of vicks vapors for fastacting relief you can feel. Vicks vapocool drops. Fast relief you can feel. This is remington. Hes a member of the family, for sure. We always fed him kibble it just seemed like the thing to do. But he was getting picky, and we started noticing some allergy symptoms. We heard about the farmers dog and it was a complete transformation. His allergies were going away and he just had amazing energy. Its a nobrainer that remi should have the best nutritious and Delicious Food possible. Im investing in my dogs healt