Or, alternatively, trump can take his phone with him but his Defense Counsel has to babysit him to make sure he does not copy anything onto his phone. And if the defendant takes notes, regarding sensitive materials, the Defense Council must inspect those notes. It is sort of like the sats, only its all part of a federal criminal indictment. As the prosecution argued for that provision, they noted dryly and pointedly, trump has shown a tendency, a desire to hold on to material which he should not have. Yes, that is correct, trump was caught having taken more than 300 classified documents with him to his Florida Beach house when he left the white house. The reason this all had to be ironed out today is because Special Counsel smiths team is going to start handing trumps Team Evidence to review before they all go to trial. Those rules are part of a much larger protective order that judge chutkan ordered today, outlying what evidence trump cannot share from this case outside court. And we learned as part of all of this that there is a lot of evidence to be handed over. The government is ready to hand over 11. 6 million pages of documents, all preloaded onto a discovery software, for attorneys to review and a hard drive that has evidence, like data obtained through these stored communications act. That means data that was collected by thirdparty Companies Like twitter or, say, verizon. But maybe most intriguingly on that hard drive are hundreds of Audio Recordings of Witness Interviews that the government is ready to hand over. And you can imagine how threatening or intimidating it would be if trump did Something Like post snippets from those reportings on to say, truth social. The point of todays hearing was to iron out all the rules around that stuff before trump could get his hands on any of it. And what was revealed in the course of all of this is that judge chutkan very much has Donald Trumps number. She knows who she is dealing with here. When the judge was, well, while she was clear about defending trumps actual First Amendment rights, she was also appropriately skeptical about trumps arguments for Special Treatment. He is a criminal defendant, judge chutkan said. He is going to have restrictions like every single other defendant. The fact that the defendant is engaged in a Political Campaign is not going to allow him any greater or lesser latitude than any defendant in a criminal case. To drive this home, judge chutkan referred to trumps president ial campaign as his, quote, day job. His day job. Okay. So, in addition to showing that donald trump was not going to get any white Glove Treatment here in this courtroom, judge checkin also made clear that trumps rights were not the only writes she is concerned with. She is focused on the rights and safety of the witnesses and the jurors in this case. You may remember that part of the reason for todays hearing in the first place it was to discuss this this truth social post that trump made saying if you go after me i am going after you. Special counsel jack smiths team argued that statements like these could threaten or intimidate witnesses, and that trump should be barred from making them. Earlier this week, trump let everyone know what he would do in response to a restriction like that. Crooked joe now wants the thug prosecutor, this deranged guy to file a court order, taking away my First Amendment rights so that i cant speak. Listen to this. We dont want you to speak about the case, the case. I will talk about it, i will. They are not taking away my First Amendment rights. I will talk about, it i will, i will. Points for honesty, i guess . Today judge chutkan indicated she was not down for that. She pointed other potential witnesses here may not have had the kind of protections he has as a former president. And that she, quote, could see the possibility for a lot of problems here. I can see the possibility for a lot of problems here. And dont we, all judge chutkan . Remember former u. S. Ambassador to ukraine Marie Ivanovich testified against trump in his first impeachment in 2019 . While she was testifying, donald trump was live tweeting about her. Or do you remember when he harassed and intimidated georgia poll worker ruby freeman, sheamus, women who do not have secret Service Protections and could be witnesses in this very case . They remember that. And so apparently does judge chutkan, who was clear today that he would not stand for that kind of behavior or any kind of behavior that even suggested witness intimidation. Quote, even arguably ambiguous statements from parties or their counsel, if they can be reasonably interpreting interpreted to intimidate witnesses or prejudice potential jurors, can threaten the process. And now, given how frequently trump threatens people publicly and the judges wording about even arguably ambiguous statements, that feels like a line that trump could cross any second. And as of today, we finally have an answer as to how judge chutkan will reprimand mr. Trump if he does cross this line. Quote, the more a party makes inflammatory statements about this case, which could taint the jury pool or intimidate potential witnesses, the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly. One of the main objectives of trump and his legal team so far has been to slow this trial down. Today, the judge used that desire as both a carrot and a stick. The more trump breaks, judge chutkans rules and talk about a case outside of court, the faster this thing will go to trial. That now that those ground rules have been put in place, the new and very urgent question is, how long until trump breaks them . Joining me now to discuss all this is david errant, former prosecutor in the dojs National Security vision, and a former manhattan assistant district attorney. And ryan reilly, nbc news justice reporter who was inside the courtroom for todays hearing. Thank you both. Ryan, let me start with you. On paper, it feels like judge chutkan it is sort of a wet blanket, but not a a cold dose of reality to the realities the defense seem has been about a case they could make to her on a number of fronts. What can you tell us about her general posture towards the defense today . Theres definitely a lot of side eyes, i think, from some of the lines we saw coming from Donald Trumps defense. But really of the word of the day to me that she used six different times was yield. That means that the defendants other rights, his First Amendment rights, must yield to the process of this court, must yield to the administration of justice. And that basically saying, listen, all these concerns you have play second fiddle here. They are not the main concern. My main concern is making sure this case goes forward, making sure that this case is handled fairly, and making sure we can get a jury trial. Like you said, it was that carrot and stick sort of situation where, you know, theoretically, in any other case, you would have that idea of Potential Contempt Of Court coming down. That is something here. But of course, you know, it is hard to imagine is getting into a scenario where the judge is actually going to lockup donald trump pretrial. But that is potentially something that would go down the line. I do think that could be a better way of sort of enforcing this. Judge chutkan saying, listen, the more you violate these, rules the quicker we will have to go here. There is a very logical reason for that. Because future comments could spoil the jury pool and make it more difficult to get a fair trial going in here. Of course, donald trump doesnt want this case to go to trial in d. C. , but the rules in d. C. Are, hey, we are going to try to see the jury. That has not worked in any of the january 6th cases ive covered thus far, where that is just really been shot down and the Voir Dire Process can actually work, if you have jurors swear an oath and promise they will obey that, oh they can handle these cases fairly. Yeah. I feel like she really went for the defenses Achilles Heel by suggesting not talking about fines, nothing about jail time but the thing that they do not want to do, which is have a speedy trial. Dave, what is involved, i guess for those of us who dont understand the sort of length of time that is minimally required to have a federal trial. How reasonable is it to say im going to move this date up the more you infringe on the protective order . What practically can that mean . I think there are limits to what it practically can mean. Its not as though every time there is a violation the trial date gets ratcheted two weeks or earlier. That would not be workable. I think it is more of a thematic or general point the judge is making, that there are inevitably moments leading up to a trial when schedules have to get altered one way or another, and one thing the judge is going to be thinking a lot about is the costs of delaying. And here, the judge talked very explicitly about how very, a very significant cost of delay that could be fundamental to the fairness and efficiency of the trial. Ryan, i was struck by the fact that she sort of dismissively suggested that the president s candidacy, sorry, the former president s bid to be president again it was a day job. I mean, up until this point, i think theres been a sort of deference, at least in terms of narrative to donald, the idea of Donald Trumps campaign in 2024. But judge chutkan seemed completely uninterested in that. I wonder how that squares with her posture generally towards other january six defendants. Yeah, that was a very interesting. I think she is searching for a term or a word at the moment. That is what she stumbled on. Its probably an accurate description. That is probably how she thinks of it in terms of other cases that have were handled. This isnt something that he needs to do. This is something that he wants to do. And the priority, she kept saying, was the courtroom proceedings, the priority isnt litigating in this case in public. That is not what this trial is ultimately about. That is what she really wants them to get their focus on. Certainly, they have the First Amendment right to talk about the charges in general, but she really wanted to make it clear that you cannot violate those rules and intimidate, intimidate jurors, as weve seen donald trump do in the past. Its interesting because i do think the judges in quite a spot here in terms of these threats are certainly going to be directed at her. Donald trump has already made clear he wants a different judge and she shouldnt have been assigned to this. Thats not something you hear his lawyers arguing in court. That is something that the Special Counsels office pointed out, that there is already this divide between what donald trump is saying on truth social and what his lawyers are actually doing in court. That is going to probably be a split that she would probably like to bring in a little bit, right . Bring them back on the same page. But ultimately, i think that there is this huge combination happening between the legal and a political where it really is the whole ball game, to when this trial ultimately get set for. They are sort of wanting to make the election stand in for a jury trial here. Yeah, clearly. For many reasons, right . Dave, im struck by ryan you know, when we talk about the various Judges Postures towards donald trump and how trump would like a different judge on this. Presumably, you dont like someone more like aileen cannon. I think what we have with the American Public right now is a study in terms of two federal judges, right . One, aileen cannon, thus far, in all the rulings, has seemed deeply differential to the fact that donald trump is running for president. And here we have Tanya Chutkan in washington, d. C. , who stated almost the opposite tack, as ryan explained, just kind of a so what if you are running for president . I guess my question is, which do you think is more unusual in terms of staking out a position towards this 2024 president ial bid . Its unusual for a judge to have to take a position on the defendant running for president , of course. I think what we are seeing in d. C. Is a reflection of the truth in every criminal case. The defendant has plenty other things to do and plenty other things going on in their life rather than show up in court, abide by court rulings, you know, obey the judges orders. But the judge is really having none of that in d. C. And, you know, that is again playing it down the middle. There has been, i think, a little bit of flexibility given the realities of the position that the former president isnt and his needs to be able to speak. But when it comes to anything that would affect the fairness, the efficiency, witness safety, witness security, integrity of evidence, this judge is going to be applying the exact same rules that she would be applying in any other case. I think as an experienced former public defender, this judge has seen quite a lot. Shes seen a lot of defendants, she knows a lot of how different defendants behave, some of their tricks, some of the pitfalls of how defendants might behave. She knows what control has to be exercised over a defendant consistent with that defendants First Amendment and due process rights. Can i just follow up on that, dave . In terms of the protocols shes established here, the notion that trump has to have his Defense Counsel babysit him, effectively, when he is looking at sensitive material, they have to check his notes if he takes any when he is looking at the materials, how unusual is that . You know, it was in the prosecutors proposed order. In my former career, you know, within the context of classified information, that was definitely the kind of thing that you would see in there. What really struck me here was the red line version that the defense proposed to the judge, or they sought to strike out explicitly that chaperone or babysitting or hall monitor provision. And the judge, this isnt just a judge accepting a document that was presented to her and signing it. This is the exact clause that was litigated. This was redlined. The red line was rejected. This judge, you, know regardless of how it might go in any other case, this judge was squarely presented with the question of, does she have confidence enough to allow the former president of the United States to take notes that are appropriate . And this judge decided, no, that the judge only has confidence or would only have that confidence if the defendants, the former president s attorneys scrubbed his notes and made sure he had not written down anything he wasnt allowed to. I think john lauro probably does not want to have to be the person to scrap Donald Trumps notes. I have to ask you, speaking of trumps lawyers, they kept referring to this with group of Volunteer Lawyers who might need to be granted access to the evidence they were litigating in court today. Why is the trump team using Volunteer Lawyers . I ask that because the New York Times reporting trump super pac, which has done far been footing a lot of the legal bills here, is in a cash crunch. Are we to believe trump is running out of money and needs Volunteer Lawyers in this case . He is certainly raising a lot of money off of the cases altogether. But i think it could be an issue for, him because he does have a lot of legal issues. Remember, he is paying for the representations of a lot of these people who are caught up, especially in both investigations, but whove been caught up both in the maralago investigation as well as this investigation overall, to keep them in the tent, make sure they are not stepping outside the bounds. The way they would sort of frame that is making sure that perhaps young staffers arent having their Financial Lives destroyed because they represented, they work for the president at one point. That is going to eat up a lot of money, that is going to be a lot of billable hours people can put in their. That is really they are in this moment right now where i do think they are burning through a lot of money. Certainly, there are a lot of people who are probably willing to do that for free to some capacity. Its a lot of documents they are going to have to sort through here. I think just manpower is really going to be needed to get through some of this and a tremendous amount of discovery. Yeah, 11. 6 million pages. For the record, the super pac is using the roughly 30 cents of every dollar donated to spend on legal bills. Dave aaron and ryan reilly, thank you guys both for your time tonight. Really appreciate it. Thank you. We have a lot more this evening, as we always do. From wiretaps to the savings and loans scandal, what donald nixon, billy carter, Roger Clinton, neil bush, and other president ial Family Members have in common with hunter biden and also what they dont. Thats coming up next. When i was diagnosed with hiv, i didnt know who i would be. But here i am. Being me. Keep being you. And ask your Healthcare Provider about the number one prescribed Hiv Treatment, biktarvy. Biktarvy is a complete, onepill, onceaday treatment used for hiv in many people whether youre 18 or 80. With one small pill, biktarvy fights hiv to help you get to undetectable and stay there whether youre just starting or replacing your current treatment. Research shows that taking Hiv Treatment as prescribed and getting to a