Did you read about Trump’s arguments…er, uh, I mean his lawyers’ arguments…yesterday in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on why the gag order imposed by Judge Tanya Chutkan should be lifted altogether? In one legal eagle’s description, it was a stamp-your-feet-and-scream “unfair” performance for the ages. Trump’s lawyers told the court their client can’t be prevented from saying anything he wants to – not by the trial judge, not by the Court of Appeals, not by anyone – because he is Donald Trump, damnit, and nobody gets to tell him what to do!
The Court of Appeals spent almost two hours looking for some sort of objective criteria by which Trump can be prevented from saying stuff about the trial judge, Special Counsel Jack Smith, employees of the federal court or witnesses that could inspire others to threaten the safety of their persons or even their lives. The word “unprecedented” kept coming up because many “firsts” are involved. It’s the first time a former president has faced felony charges for crimes committed while he was president, the first time an individual engaged in a political campaign for the presidency has been so charged, the first time a federal judge has sought to impose restrictions on the right of a candidate to speak…
On and on with the “firsts.” The big “first” of course was that the defendant has the name Donald Trump, because until this moment, defendant Trump has gotten away with every scheme, every scam, every lie he’s ever uttered. Nobody has ever told Donald Trump what he can do or not do! The Trump lawyers’ point to the three judges on the D.C. Court of Appeals seemed to be, don’t you understand? We’re talking about Donald Trump here!
Forget about this crap that two days after Trump’s indictment in her court, Judge Chutkan received a death threat. A woman in Texas by the name of Abigail Jo Shry called Judge Chutkan’s chambers and left a voice mail message saying, “If Trump doesn’t get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you, so tread lightly, bitch. You will be targeted personally, publicly, your family, all of it.” A threat by what Trump’s lawyers called “a third party” doesn’t count. How can Donald Trump be responsible for something a woman in Texas says about the judge?
Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, frequently interrupted the judges when they were asking him questions rather than listen respectfully to what they had to say because, hey! We’re talking about Donald Trump here! The normal rules don’t apply, see? During one of his interruptions, Sauer made the argument that Trump’s statements about Judge Chutkan, or Special Prosecutor Smith, or the judge’s clerk, or Jack Smith’s wife, or potential witnesses such as William Barr or retired General Mark Milley could not be limited because his statements did not lead “directly” to the threats. The standard to limit Trump’s speech about anyone involved in the case against him should be proof of an “imminent threat” against those individuals. The appeals court judges were looking for “objective criteria” for a gag order, legal experts said.
One judge, Patricia Millet, contended that if Trump made an “actual threat” against the Special Prosecutor, the threat would violate his conditions of release under bail, and that condition could be used against his speech. But criticisms from Trump, like Barr is a traitor or Milley couldn’t be trusted, shouldn’t count because as public figures, they should have thick enough skin to deal with Trump’s snide taunts.
What about jurors, or even Judge Chutkan’s clerk, prosecutors said. They’re not public figures. The appeals court’s answer seemed to be, we’ll have to think about that because this is an unprecedented situation.
There was that word again, unprecedented. Trump’s lawyers flung it around like a legal mace in attempts to knock down any restriction on their client. They may as well have argued that stuff like objective criteria doesn’t apply here, because this is Donald Trump we’re talking about! Don’t you get it? Donald Trump isn’t interested in other people’s lives! The only criteria that apply to him is what he wants! He’s the guy who said he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose a vote, remember?
The Trump position before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was the same as his position when E. Jean Carroll sued him for defamation when he called her a liar for saying that he raped her. Who counts here, anyway? Me or that liar sitting over there at the plaintiff’s table?
Donald Trump’s answer in the E. Jean Carroll case, in the New York State case against him for lying on legal documents about his pay offs to women who were not his wife to shut them up about the affairs he had with them when he was running for president in 2016, and in the appeals court hearing over Judge Chutkan’s gag order – his answer to everything in his entire life has been, the rules don’t apply to me. I’m Donald Trump.
He can tell lies until he goes hoarse, but if a witness against him says something he doesn’t like, the witness is a “slimy liar” and Trump should be allowed to say it, because he’s Donald Trump. There is no objectivity or subjectivity here! We demand that Trumptivity be recognized as the only standard by which our client can be measured, his lawyers told the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
After the hearing yesterday, legal experts seemed to think that the circuit court will let stand some sort of objective limits on defendant Trump, but of course if that happens, he’ll appeal his motion to the Supreme Court. Trump’s justices on the Supreme Court will probably apply the same standard to Trump that they applied to themselves in their recent adoption of a code of ethics to control their own behavior: we can do anything we want, and what are you going to do about it?
As a nation, we are finally reaching a reckoning. Everyone has always known that there are two standards of justice in this country – the one for the owners, the rulers, and the one for everyone else. But there has never, or only infrequently, been instances when those unequal standards are exposed for all to see. One time was when the Supreme Court overruled Roe v Wade and exposed the double standard that values the rights of men over women.
And now we are about to see how the rules of our democracy are applied when it comes to Donald Trump. If he cannot be gagged by a court of law so that threats in his name cannot be made against decent citizens because of his lies and conspiracy theories – by his “free speech” according to his lawyers – then our democracy will be forced to acknowledge that there is one set of rules for Donald Trump and another set of rules for the rest of us.
Trump is testing the limits of the law in four courts at this moment. Juries in Washington D.C., Georgia, Florida, and a state judge in New York, will give us answers in those cases. But each of us can give our individual answers to Trump’s contention that the rules don’t apply to him with our votes. Juries may come to decide that he belongs behind bars in three of the cases against him, but we can decide that the one place he doesn’t belong is in the White House, the verdict he fears most of all.
This is all out of Roy Cohn’s book of tricks to delay justice by endlessly suing and countersuing the courts with teams of lawyers flinging tons of turds against walls to see what sticks. Then the judges will parse the questions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, make their decision months down the line, while trump remains free to cause more trouble and threaten more people he feels have wronged him. Then he will hire more lawyers to appeal the appeal and on and on it goes and he still stays out of jail. It is true that there is a two-tiered justice system in this country where the rich and politically connected can buy their way through the legal system and everyone else who can’t afford expensive legal representation get the crappy end of the stick every time…
“Trump is testing the limits of the law in four courts at this moment.”
And the miscreant will continue to do so until he meets with firm limits. Thousands of them. They’re way overdue.
Due process. That’s what he deserves. Like any other accused criminal. He’s not special. He needs to learn that.