Trump has desperately tried to delay his Manhattan hush money lawsuit over falsifying business records, and has tried multiple times to postpone his trial date scheduled for January 6 on charges of trying to overturn the 2020 election. But he also defied a restraining order issued by Manhattan Judge Juan Marchan and U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in his January 6 federal trial to protect the targets of his threats from actual danger. He laments that the gag order violates his First Amendment rights and impedes his presidential campaign.
In other words, Trump seems uninterested in the possibility of immediate justice, a quick acquittal, and release from the gag order, and instead delights in inciting a mob against his legal tormentors.
Prosecutor’s documents and judges’ rulings in these cases reveal the shocking impact of Trump’s incitement to cult followers, bomb hoaxes, personal information leaks, and death threats. Trump’s threatening behavior prompted around-the-clock security for the judge and prosecutors and special measures to conceal the identities of jurors.
This is the behaviour of someone running for president, and it speaks to his ability to incite dangerous passions. Far from being chastised by the violence that erupted from his incendiary rhetoric on January 6, 2021, President Trump has continued to make harsh accusations that could incite his supporters to attack those they perceive as enemies.
For example, in ruling last winter on Trump’s appeal of Chutkan’s gag order, a federal appeals court in Washington noted that Chutkan’s “pattern of recorded statements and their real-time, real-world impact pose a significant and imminent threat to the functioning of the criminal justice process.” The court upheld an order blocking a tried-and-true tactic: “laundering communications about witnesses and addressing their potential participation in the trial through social media posts and other public comments.”
The election campaign does not give Trump an unfettered right to endanger others by “dressing up his messages to witnesses in the guise of political speech.” The court rejected Trump’s plan.
Postponing the trial until after the election, as Trump has proposed, would be counterproductive, create perverse incentives, and unfairly burden the judicial process. Allowing prejudicial speech to go unchecked for an even longer pretrial period would simply compound the problem. A delay would not bring back witnesses who have been suppressed by Trump’s words or the reactions of those he says he will “listen to.” [him] “Not like anyone else.” Moreover, postponing trials would give criminal defendants an incentive to make damaging statements as a means to delay prosecution.
Similarly, in the aftermath of the New York hush money case, Trump appears to want all gag orders lifted so he can continue to harass jurors, trial officials, and their families. A response from District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office last week explained, “The key issue, therefore, is not whether the orders prevent the defendants from speaking freely about this case — which has never been the case — but rather, whether there is reason to maintain the orders’ limited protections for certain participants in this criminal proceeding.”
The district attorney argued that because Trump’s minions were trying to uncover the identities and addresses of the jurors, protections for the jurors must of course continue. (“This Court already recognized the broader interest of protecting the jurors from ‘physical injury and harassment’ when it entered a protective order prohibiting the disclosure of the jurors’ names and addresses.”) Similarly, the district attorney argued that staff, court officials, and their families still needed protection. He agreed to lift the orders on witnesses because their testimony was complete.
What does all this reveal about Trump and his attacks on the justice system?
First, the gag orders may have had a welcome effect on Trump, who often seems afraid to speak out when the stakes are high. In the hush money case, Judge Marchan made a rare dissent from the bench after Trump argued that the gag orders would prevent him from testifying. Trump never ended up testifying, but she appeared to suggest that the orders might also prevent him from addressing his supporters or participating in presidential debates. By seeking to lift these orders while simultaneously exaggerating their scope, Trump is once again playing the victim and encouraging his supporters to join him in a fight of revenge.
Second, the Washington DC blackout on the January 6 trial might have been lifted, in whole or in part, if Trump had agreed to follow the original trial schedule. But as Trump learned in New York, he has a lot to lose in court: his defense is weak and the facts against him are strong. When a regular jury (such as in the two E. Jean Carroll civil defamation cases and the New York criminal case) evaluates his conduct, he risks losing — and losing badly. So delaying the trial would suit his purposes, even if a gag order had been issued..
Third, Trump has repeatedly argued that his campaign needs to be allowed to make statements that are forbidden by court order (threatening statements to judges’ families, jurors, etc.). Do we need any more evidence that Trump is trying to make an atmosphere of violence, intimidation, and revenge central to his campaign? Trump needs to demonize judges, prosecutors, etc., because without them he loses an important source of imagined persecution. Right now, Trump needs every demon he can think of.
