Hearing over the protective order just wrapped up. Judge compromised on a few things, Trump will be allowed to discuss publicly discovery (evidence) that is not deemed sensitive, and may not relay publicly any personally identifying information related to discovery. DOJ tried to insist that Trump must be accompanied by his attorney's at all times if he is reviewing, stating he has a tenacity for holding onto sharing information that he shouldn't but doesn't want to let go of, and that such an order exists in the FLA docs case and he agreed to it. She wouldn't go that far but did say he was not able to review any evidence unattended in any room with electronic or copying devices, and his lawyers must review his notes to ensure he does not record any personally identifying information or sensitive information.
Aside from the details of the protective order, judge emphasized two things on a number of occasions: Trump is bound by the conditions of his release at arraignment, at one point insinuating his recent behavior has been in direct violation, and that any further harassment of officials in this case or potential witnesses or jurors will meet action, and that while he will be afforded every right of speech and the first ammendment, that speech must yield to the rules of the court process. She also made clear to Trump lawyers in a number of exchanges that inside this court room it is about the rule of law, and politics and political campaigns will not factor into any decisions. She made clear that the defendants future aspirations do not exempt any aspect of the rule of law or court process: "Presidents are not Kings, and the defendant is not President"
This is her first appearance in this case, a magistrate oversaw the arraignment. It was clear she was giving a fair ruling on the protective order, and a fair warning that he will be treated just as any other defendant before her in a federal felony case. Her closing remarks:
"I intend to ensure the orderly administration of justice in this case as I would with any other case. Even arguably ambiguous statements from parties or their counsel … can threaten the process. In addition, the more a party makes inflammatory statements about this case which could taint the jury pool ... the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly ... I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings"