Freedom of expression or harassment of witnesses? Judge Tanya Chutkan decided Monday to impose a limited gag order on former President Donald Trump, barring him from attacking prosecutors, witnesses and court personnel through his public statements in a presidential election interference case. As of 2020, that’s still against him in Washington. Chutkan laid out the broad outlines of the order after a hearing that lasted just over two hours and discussed the contours of freedom of expression in a case like his.
This is an unprecedented situation in the history of the United States. Trump is seeking election as president despite being accused of 91 crimes in four separate criminal cases. This makes it difficult, on the one hand, to respect the right to freedom of expression and, on the other hand, to prevent them from influencing the jury or witnesses through their disqualifications and attacks. Judge Chutkan sought a Solomonic solution. With his thesis that he is suffering from a politically motivated “witch hunt,” Trump will be able to continue criticizing President Joe Biden and the Justice Department. He may also, as he did, denigrate the city of Washington and the jurisdiction over the case. However, he may not direct disqualifications, insults or threats against witnesses, the prosecutors accusing him or court staff.
The judge has not announced how she plans to enforce her ruling and said she will decide in due course whether Trump does not comply with her order. The decision comes after the judge in Trump’s civil fraud case in New York issued a more limited gag order banning personal attacks on court staff after Trump defamed Trump, the judge’s chief adviser, in a social media post. In the Washington case, Judge Chutkan had already imposed small restrictions that were accepted by Trump when he issued the conditional release.
During the hearing this Monday, Trump’s lawyer John Lauro repeatedly emphasized that freedom of speech protects the former president and that some of the witnesses in the case, such as Mike Pence, are political rivals in an election situation, he has the right to criticize them . However, Judge Chutkan noted that many other witnesses were not political rivals and that Trump had sent threatening messages against them. “I will prohibit statements about potential witnesses or the subject of their testimony. If you want to criticize Mr. Pence, you can, but you cannot criticize Mr. Pence because of what happened in this case. Without this restriction, there is a real risk that other witnesses will be intimidated or that other witnesses will be reluctant to come forward or face the same harassment or intimidation,” Chutkan said.
Additionally, the judge emphasized that many of her attacks were directed at officers who were simply doing their jobs. He gave several examples, such as Trump calling the special prosecutor investigating him, Jack Smith, a “thug.” In announcing his decision, he noted that Trump could not launch a “smear campaign” against prosecutors and court staff. “No other criminal should be allowed to do that, and I won’t allow it in this case,” he said. “It’s not about whether I like the language Mr. Trump uses. “This is language that poses a threat to the administration of justice,” he said.
Earlier, during the hearing, which was attended by about 80 people, including about twenty journalists and Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, Trump’s loyal squire, the judge said that politics had been left out of the court. John Lauro, Trump’s lawyer, said an attempt was being made to “censor a political candidate in the middle of a campaign” and that the solution was to delay the trial until after the November 5, 2024 presidential election. He also claimed that Trump’s comments were in response to “oppression” and “tyranny,” in a claim that at times seemed more political than legal.
Join EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without restrictions.
Subscribe to
Chutkan flatly refused to postpone the trial, emphasizing that the defendant “does not have the right to say and do exactly what he wants.” “They keep talking about censorship as if the defendant had full First Amendment rights. She did not. We’re not talking about censorship. “We are talking about restrictions to ensure fair administration of justice in this case,” he added.
The judge’s decision is appealable and could end up with a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, three of the nine members of which were appointed by Trump. The former president can appeal the order now issued or the penalties that the judge may impose on him. Lauro has already stated that it is “impossible” to enforce a silence order and that he will immediately appeal.
Prosecutors proposed to Judge Chutkan “a narrow and clearly defined restriction” that would prohibit Trump from making statements “about the identity, testimony or credibility of potential witnesses” and “statements about parties, witnesses, attorneys, court personnel or potential jurors.” are derogatory and inflammatory or intimidating.” In their brief, they argued that the defendant’s recent out-of-court statements were aimed at undermining the public’s trust in an institution – the justice system – and undermining trust and people – the court, the jury , the witnesses and the prosecutors – to intimidate. They also noted that “the defendant knows that when he publicly attacks people and institutions, he inspires others to carry out threats and harassment against his targets.” The allegations included some of the president’s statements, including one that he always repeated again in a threatening tone: “If you take action against me, I will take action against you.” The former president also attacked the judge herself, who was appointed by President Barack Obama.
The former president’s defense believes the Justice Department is trying to unconstitutionally silence him and violate his freedom of speech on behalf of President Joe Biden, his likely rival in the 2024 election. “This same request came after negative polling for President Biden. His administration’s plan is simple: publish a 45-page indictment, discuss its talking points and leak them to the press, and then cynically attempt to invoke the court’s authority to impeach President Trump and those who act on his behalf to prevent him from presenting his version of history to the American people during a political campaign. “This desperate attempt at censorship is prima facie unconstitutional,” they insisted in their response.
Trump, for his part, warmed up this Monday in his fundraising messages of the last few days: “If the incumbent president gets away with silencing his main opponent in the middle of an election that he is clearly losing, then we have truly become one.” The Marxist dictatorship of the Third World,” he said in a letter sent this Sunday asking for donations to his campaign.
Judge Chutkan has set the trial start date for March 4, 2024, the eve of Super Tuesday, the crucial day in the primaries for this year’s presidential election. If the schedule is adhered to, it would be the first criminal trial against Trump.
In the indictment for this case, which was Trump’s third indictment, prosecutors charged him with four crimes: conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstructing or attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy to Violation of civil rights. Trump claims the election was stolen from him, but prosecutors are not accusing him of this grand, baseless hoax, but rather his actions aimed at changing the result and preventing the certification of Joe Biden’s victory.
Follow all international information on Facebook and Xor in our weekly newsletter.