Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan, who has been handling the criminal case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith that accuses former President Donald Trump of attempted election interference, has clearly been unimpressed with the levels of compliance by the defendant with expectations of orderly proceedings.
In recently reimposing a gag order that blocks public attacks on Smith, Smith’s staff, and witnesses, Chutkan pointed to comments made by Trump in the brief period in which the order was suspended while she considered Trump’s request for a longer-term halt while he pursues appeals. Trump specifically ranted online against Mark Meadows, who was chief of staff in the White House when January 6 happened and who media reports suggested had provided information to prosecutors. Trump suggested that what Meadows would have done in such a scenario would have inherently amounted to lying… and ripped into the possibility that the ex-official had taken a deal.
“Some people would make that deal, but they are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future our Failing Nation. I don’t think that Mark Meadows is one of them, but who really knows?” Trump said.
And here’s how Chutkan replied to those angry comments belittling Trump’s associate: “This statement would almost certainly violate the Order under any reasonable definition of “targeting.” […] The statement singles out a foreseeable witness for purposes of characterizing his potentially unfavorable testimony as a “lie” “mad[e] up” to secure immunity, and it attacks him as a “weakling[] and coward[]” if he provides that unfavorable testimony—an attack that could readily be interpreted as an attempt to influence or prevent the witness’s participation in this case.”
Chutkan, in that portion of her decision to reactivate the gag order, was discussing how a necessity for a close reading of potentially covered statements didn’t mean the gag order’s prohibitions couldn’t be reasonably enforced at all. Read more here.
