"I 100% understand everybody’s concerns for the parties, the lawyers, and frankly myself and my staff based on what we’ve seen in other cases," District Judge Sarah B. Wallace said.

The Colorado judge who is overseeing the first significant lawsuit that might actually bar Donald Trump from the state's 2024 presidential ballot issued a protective order on September 22.

She said that the protective order prohibiting threats and intimidation in the case was required to guarantee the safety of everyone involved.

Including herself and her staff.

The order prohibits parties in the case from making threatening or intimidating statements.

Trump's lawyer opposed the order.

Scott Gessler, a former Colorado secretary of state representing Trump in the case, said it wasn't required because "threats and intimidation already are prohibited by law."

For those wondering why anyone would oppose this, it might be confusing as to how anyone could ever interpret less threats and intimidation as a bad thing.

But here's the question I would like you all to consider?

Who is deciding what constitutes threats or intimidation?

If it's only liberals that are allowed to decide what is allowed, then you could see how this order could pretty quickly become weaponized.

"We do have robust political debate going on here," Gessler said. "For better or worse, this case has become a focal point."

Around America, lawsuits have been attempting to keep Trump off the ballot.

Dozens of lawsuits have been filed around this country recently, seeking to disqualify Trump from the 2024 ballot. Their logic is that the 14th Amendment contains a clause barring anyone "who swore an oath to the Constitution and then 'engaged in insurrection' against it from running for office."

Sean Grimsley is an attorney for the plaintiffs in this case. He was the one who proposed the protective order that was confirmed by the judge.

Grimsley had cited federal prosecutor Jack Smith's decision to seek a gag order against Trump as one of the inspirations for the order of protection.

"At least one of the parties has a tendency to tweet - or Truth Social about witnesses and the courts." Grimsley said.