Imagine that a guy gets arrested for robbing a bank, then claims he can’t be prosecuted because he’s already running for mayor. That’s basically Don’s latest con. He thinks that, by announcing his new presidential candidacy far in advance of his many indictments, it somehow means he’s magically immune.
But how sweet it is that federal judge Tanya Chutkan – who ascended to the bench when the U.S. Senate confirmed her 95-0 – is wise to the stench of dung.
Trump basically thinks that just because he’s auditioning for the only job he can possibly get at this point (no employer anywhere would hire a guy accused of 78 felonies), that he can therefore say pretty much anything he wants, even if it sounds like he might be intimidating potential witnesses in his upcoming federal coup trial. But at a hearing last Friday, the judge laid down the law and drew lines in the dirt:
“He’s a criminal defendant. He’s going to have restrictions like every other defendant…The fact that he is a candidate does not give him greater or lesser latitude than any other defendant…This is a criminal trial. I will not factor in the effects it will have on a political campaign…The existence of a political campaign is not going to have a bearing on my decision(s)…
“The fact that he is running a political campaign currently has to yield to the administration of justice. And if that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say in a political speech, that is just how it’s going to have to be…The defendant’s free speech is subject to the release conditions imposed at arraignment and it must yield to the orderly administration of justice.”
When Trump lawyer John Lauro tried the candidacy con, the judge shot him down:
“You are conflating what your client needs to do to defend himself and what he wants to do politically. And what your client does to defend himself has to happen in this courtroom, not on the internet…Even arguably ambiguous statements (by the criminal defendant), if they can reasonably be interpreted to intimidate witnesses or the prejudice potential jurors, can threaten the process…To the extent your client wants to make statements (about potential witnesses) on the internet, that has to yield to witness security…I will take whatever steps are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings.”
We don’t yet know what steps she may indeed take if ultimately provoked – on social media thus far, he’s mostly been attacking her – but the bottom line is that she, not he, controls the playing field. (After he’s likely indicted this week in the Georgia coup case, the local DA and the judge will do the same.) His lifelong flight from accountability is over.
Judge Chutkan is saying that if Trump wants to be a candidate, fine – but that’s merely his “day job.” His real job (finally!) is to comport himself like any other criminal defendant on trial for multiple felonies. And if he “makes inflammatory statements about this case which could taint the jury pool,” she says she may have no choice but to “proceed to trial quickly.” Which is the last thing Trump wants, because even he surely knows that a potential criminal conviction long before the ’24 election would not be…how shall we say this…a good look.
Someone on social media said it well (I wish i knew who it was; I wish I had thought of it first):
“Trump is not being indicted in the middle of his campaign. Trump is campaigning in the middle of his indictments.”
—
Addendum: Even though Trump hasn’t yet been indicted in Georgia, he’s already assailing witnesses. On social media today, he’s upset that Jeff Duncan, a former Republican lieutenant governor, is slated to testify tomorrow to the grand jury that’s poised to sign off on indictments in the state’s coup case. Trump says that Duncan is a “failed” person, “a nasty disaster,” and even though Duncan is on board to testify, “he shouldn’t.”
The italics are mine.
Trump is saying out loud that a potential witness against him should defy a grand jury subpoena. Just wait til those new felonies are handed down. According to Georgia law, a criminal defendant can only be released on bail if he or she “poses no significant risk of intimidating witnesses or otherwise obstructing the administration of justice.”
I don’t know whether locking him up in advance of trial is the best answer. But I’d applaud a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation.