🏅 Top traders

I have tried to stay informed on this issue to the best of my ability and answer questions in the comment section whenever they came up.

The market seems to agree with my position, resolving No.

This market was created by request of @AdamTreat , hopefully I have done a good job on it.

Hi everyone, there is less than a day remaining.

I have looked again at the latest order from Chutkan and it still looks like she has blocked him from criticizing the prosecutors, but not specifically herself. The fact that Trump was able to insult her on social media after this was released seems to indicate that he's allowed to criticize her.

Although the requested gag order has been partially granted, the description clearly says it has to include the judge herself.

This quote from the Washington Post yesterday seems to also agree with my assessment:

> Chutkan, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, also didn’t include herself among those off-limits under the order. That means Trump’s criticism of her — including a social media post late Sunday in which he called her a “Biased, Trump Hating Judge” — is still allowed.

There is still time for things to change today, but that is my update based on my very best ability to look at the facts of what has happened. I have made no changes to the description of the market since creation and I have not participated in the betting.

The judge’s order covers all prosecutors and court staff which would include Jack Smith and Judge Chutkan herself.

“The order prohibits Trump from making statements about potential witnesses or disparaging comments about the prosecutors, court staff or support personnel.”

https://www-nbcnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna122711?amp_js_v=0.1#webview=1&cap=swipe

Trump gag order back in effect in federal election interference case

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's ruling Sunday reinstates the order to limit Trump's comments about witnesses or disparagement of prosecutors while his team appeals.

@CivilizedGuy This is just putting the same order back after it was temporarily suspended to consider the appeal, right?

@Joshua Has anything changed in the order from the previous round, or is it just reinstated?

Trump has already criticized the judge:

If the order protects her, I'd wager something would happen from a post like that?

So far, I am not convinced this is the case.

@Eliza I don't see anything about any changes, just reinstating the same thing.

More sources seem to agree that the current order does not protect the judge. But if she expands it before the closing date to include herself, this can still resolve Yes.

Donald Trump barred from making statements targeting prosecutors, possible witnesses and the judge's staff by narrow gag order in 2020 election subversion case

https://apnews.com/article/trump-capitol-riot-gag-order-judge-chutkan-b5f59c6688504c952df5f70029228f9e

@AviS That looks like it will cover statements regarding Jack Smith. For the purposes of this question, it must also limit speech criticizing the judge herself. Hopefully there is a written document released that will clarify the situation.

@Eliza Shouldn’t “any other court personnel.” include the Judge?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/16/trump-court-hearing-judge-gag-order-jan-6/

@Eliza I bet NO based on "potential jurors" because I think that's exceedingly unlikely.

@AviS I think we're going to find out pretty fast because if Trump thinks he's still allowed to criticize the judge, he's 100% going to do so 😅

@FrederickNorris The government requested that in the screenshot of the order, but it's quite possible the judge 'partially grants' the order. That is why there is a specific line about what it "must" include.

@Joshua I agree and I plan to use that as evidence one way or the other if it happens.

@Eliza Wait, are you saying what it "must" include is the real condition, not the quote directly above what it must include, which is the definition of the market?

@FrederickNorris I mean that's been in the resolution criteria the whole time, but also just to speak very generally I am seeing this being described in the coverage as "partially granting" the order.

@FrederickNorris I will try to help:

• The quoted part refers to "this specific request"

• I guarantee someone out there is going to characterize today's events as "granting" the request and someone else may very well characterize it as "not granting" or "partially granting"

• If the question said the entire request had to be granted as written, the market would have immediately shot to 2% and stayed there until the closing date.

• If the question did not specify some criteria for what "must" be included, then we would have a huge battle in the comment section as soon as the hearing finished because it was nearly a certainty that "some" part of the request would have been granted.

• I strongly suspect market participants were well aware of this, because they kept the market's probability around 40% through the entire duration of the market and it is also back to around 40% now after significant developments

That is, it seems like everything that happened today was not necessarily surprising for anyone?

Is the previously scheduled hearing for 16 October still going ahead as planned? I expect that this could be a definitive moment for this market.

As noted in another comment, I will refrain from resolving No until the existing closing date, but I would resolve Yes as soon as I saw the proper evidence.

Not enough, right?

@Joshua I haven't seen the report yet, but I will re-state the language from the description in case it will help anyone:

• The general idea of the question is if she will "grant [this] request".

• It is highly unlikely that the full request is granted exactly as written in the quoted part of the description

• Any part that is granted MUST include a gag preventing him from criticizing the judge herself, and Jack Smith

If it does prevent him from criticizing both the judge and Jack Smith, then I will evaluate the entirety of the situation and resolve Yes immediately if I think it has met the criteria. If I don't think it has, I will wait until the listed closing date in case the order is expanded/changed/updated before resolving No.

Here's the NYT thread.

The key detail missing I see is nothing about barring Trump from attacking her personally. We still don't have the full language of the order though:

@Joshua “any other court personnel.”https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/16/trump-court-hearing-judge-gag-order-jan-6/

I read this as being a ban on the people that work for the judge, not the judge herself. That's also how Trump's last gag order went in NY. He can criticize the judge, but not the judge's staff.

@Joshua See also this coverage from the AP