Judge Rips Trump For Creating An ‘Immediate Risk’ To Witnesses For Federal Trial

0
1026

Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan has formally issued her gag order restricting public statements by former President Donald Trump in the context of the criminal case against him originating with Special Counsel Jack Smith and accusing him of election interference.

In the document, Chutkan references the recent history setting the rhetorical stage for her move, which was at the request of the federal Department of Justice. That background includes the recent claim by Trump that there is a precedent in history for the execution of Mark Milley, the retired general who until recently was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and who is a known witness in these proceedings.

“The court finds that such statements pose a significant and immediate risk that (1) witnesses will be intimidated or otherwise unduly influenced by the prospect of being themselves targeted for harassment or threats; and (2) attorneys, public servants, and other court staff will themselves become targets for threats and harassment,” the judge wrote. The terms of the order block Trump and others in the case from targeting Smith, his staff, court staff, or witnesses and their anticipated testimony. Though the demands technically cover Smith and his side as well, there is no recent history of government personnel making statements of the sort that Trump publicly issues so regularly.

Trump can still comment more generally about the case, so any contention he’s completely blocked from speaking out is false. Chutkan also discussed in the newly formalized order the judicial precedent that establishes Trump’s rights to free speech under the Constitution’s First Amendment as simply not absolute, whether in the context of his ongoing campaign for president or something else.

It’s Trump’s second set of restrictions following a partial gag order from the judge in the New York fraud case from the state’s Letitia James. Trump had singled out a member of court staff for highly personalized antagonism online, and there’s a precedent for this kind of language producing violence or the threat of it.