Back to MAGA man.
Then last night, an interesting new filing.
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 120 Filed 10/25/23 Page 1 of 32
A Guide to the Various Trump Investigations
Confused about the inquiries and legal cases involving former President Donald Trump? We’re here to help.
Oct 26, 2023 - Michael Popok - Meidas Touch
The Department of Justice – in an explosive new filing – is calling Donald Trump a menace to society, and is demanding that a federal judge in DC not only reimpose her gag order on him, but also make as a condition of his release from custody that he no longer attack witnesses or face JAIL TIME. Michael Popok of Legal AF reports on the government’s efforts to convince Judge Chutkan, based on Trump’s conduct just this week, that Donald Trump should no longer be given the benefit of the doubt and needs to be re-gagged immediately and face the threat of jail time to stop him from attacking prosecutors and continuing his campaign of witness intimidation.
(page 5) … In the defendant’s view, for example, because he is entitled to say that “this prosecution is politically motivated,” it must also be acceptable for him to refer to the prosecutors as “deranged” “thugs,” and to use his social media account to identify members of the prosecutor’s family. Id. at 45-48. Because the defendant is entitled to raise “the issue of potential judicial bias,” he must also be free to post a photograph of a court staffer and falsely allege that she is the “girlfriend” of a political adversary. Id. at 51-53. Because the defendant is entitled to say that “misconduct by a joint chief of staff is intolerable in a democratic society,” he must also be free to post on social media that “in times gone by” the appropriate “punishment” for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff “would have been DEATH!” Id. at 56, 59-60. Because the defendant is entitled to “comment on Bill Barr’s activity as attorney general,” or discuss whether he “might have a position in a future administration,” he must also be free to call Barr “a slimy liar,” and to suggest that he, too, should be “executed.” Id. at 69-73. Defense counsel did not dispute that, when the defendant uses social media to target a perceived adversary in this manner, harassment, intimidation, and threats from third parties often follow. But he maintained (id. at 26, 60-61, 67-68) that, unless the defendant himself is delivering or inciting the threat, the Court was powerless to take prophylactic measures to prevent such harassment—and, in any event, some of the defendant’s targets were (page 6) “tough-edged political people,” id. at 74, who would not be deterred from testifying despite such intimidation and threats.
After hearing from the parties, …
(page 7) …Thus, the defendant “can certainly claim he’s being unfairly prosecuted” and “may still vigorously seek public support as a presidential candidate, debate policies and people related to that candidacy, criticize the current administration, and assert his belief that this prosecution is politically motivated.” Id. at 83-84. But, like every other criminal defendant, he does not have “carte blanche to vilify and implicitly encourage violence against public servants” and he may not “launch a pretrial smear campaign against participating government staff, their families, and foreseeable witnesses.” Id. at 84-85.
These narrow restrictions, the Court found, “are consistent with the rights secured by the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, and . . . are both necessary and narrowly tailored to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings as well as to protect the safety of the people assisting with them.” Id. at 85. …
Some say, character is destiny, we shall see.