Gag on this
Last week, William Barr made some unflattering remarks about Donald Trump. He called his former boss “a very petty man” with “a fragile ego.” Barr added that Trump would probably cause “chaos” if he were to serve another term as president.
Trump, of course, fired back at Barr. He called the former Attorney General ”gutless” and “weak,” among other things.
In doing so, Trump violated the gag order imposed on him by Judge Tanya Chutkan in the criminal case brought by the special prosecutor in Washington, D.C. That order bars Trump from making comments that “target. . .any reasonably foreseeable witness in the case.” Barr is a reasonably foreseeable witness.
When Trump took his latest shot at Barr, Judge Chutkan had only just reinstituted the gag order. Thus, Trump was able to avoid being sanctioned by saying (truthfully, I’m pretty sure) that he didn’t know he was in violation of a court order.
However, Trump is now banned from firing back at some of his critics, including Barr, General Mark Milley and Mike Pence (Pence, though, is no longer running for president and may stop talking about Trump). Trump faces this ban despite the fact that he is running for president and therefore should, at a minimum, be free to answer any statement that suggests, as Barr did, that he’s not fit for the presidency.
Ringside regulars and those who followed me elsewhere won’t be surprised to read that I agree completely with Barr’s comments about Trump. In my view, he is not fit for the presidency. At the same time, I cannot defend an order that limits Trump’s ability to respond to attacks against him, however accurate they might be.
Chutkan’s order strikes me as a blatant case of election interference. It allows some of Trump’s enemies to take free shots at a leading presidential candidate without the possibility of him responding.
And for what purpose? I doubt Chutkan believes Barr, Milley, or Pence will be intimidated.
Maybe she fears that Trump’s attacks will endanger their physical safety. But what basis is there for such a belief?
Trump has blasted half of official Washington over the years. As far as I know, other than on January 6, 2021, no Trump supporter has ever responded by putting the safety of a Trump target in jeopardy. And the threat to Mike Pence on that day occurred in the context of one-off riot in a location where Pence was trying to conduct business. It’s very unlikely we’ll see a repeat of such a riot, and if we do Barr, Milley, and Pence won’t be in the area.
I should also note that Chutkan’s order does not prohibit Trump from commenting adversely about Justice Department officials and Chutkan herself. But if anyone is at risk of experiencing violence from Trump supporters (and I don’t believe anyone is), it’s the judge and the prosecutor.
Even the ACLU, no friend of Donald Trump, agrees that Chutkan’s gag order is improper. It argues that the order is too broad and too vague.
To me, the order looks like a case of a judge waging lawfare against a presidential candidate she despises. Chutkan is a hard-left, Trump-hating judge. Her sentences in prosecutions of January 6, 2001 defendants have at times been harsher than those recommended by the prosecution. And in processing Jan. 6 cases, Chutkan repeatedly blamed Trump for the riot.
Her gag provides confirmation, though none was needed, that Trump cannot get a fair trial in Chutkan’s courtroom. It’s also true, though, that Trump could not get a fair from a Washington, D.C. jury regardless of which judge handled the case.
But at least a better judge wouldn’t be blatantly interfering with the presidential election by blocking Trump from responding to attacks by some of his critics. And interfering with the 2024 election is at least as big a goal of this prosecution as convicting Trump of crimes.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will review Chutkan’s gag order. That court is packed with anti-Trump judges, too. But maybe, like the ACLU, they will see the order as a bridge too far.