Former President Donald Trump told reporters he was being “railroaded” in the multiple cases against him as he entered the courtroom at 60 Centre Street in Manhattan on Tuesday.
On Monday, the federal judge presiding over the case against him in Washington, D.C., had issued an unconventional gag order limiting who the candidate can speak about.
“This is a rigged situation,” he said. “And in other trials we’re being railroaded—you saw yesterday where they take away my right to speak. I won’t be able to speak like I’m speaking to you, and I’m not saying anything wrong; I’m saying the truth.”
In Iowa on Monday, just after the order was issued, he told a crowd of supporters he would appeal the order.
Gag Order
The full text of the order by Judge Tanya Chutkan is as follows:“All interested parties in this matter, including the parties and their counsel, are prohibited from making any public statements, or directing others to make any public statements, that target (1) the Special Counsel prosecuting this case or his staff; (2) defense counsel or their staff; (3) any of this court’s staff or other supporting personnel; or (4) any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of their testimony.”
While the order was described in reports on Monday as “limited” and “partial,” the actual language of the order is still broad. It is, however, narrower than what the special counsel’s office had originally requested, which would have also prevented President Trump from claiming that the case against him is politically motivated.
It also prevents the prosecutors from attacking President Trump’s legal team, but not necessarily from making comments targeting President Trump himself, which Mr. Smith has done.
During the Monday hearing about the gag order, attorney John Lauro argued this would be an unprecedented effort to censor a political candidate in the middle of a campaign. Potential witnesses include outspoken critics of President Trump, like former Attorney General Bill Barr and former Vice President Mike Pence, both of whom have access to large media platforms on which they can continue to criticize the leading Republican candidate.
In turn, President Trump would not be allowed to defend himself against their statements.
During the hearing, Judge Chutkan had suggested President Trump could still speak about potential witnesses, but not in relation to events that are part of the case. The formal order specifies that this applies to only the candidates who are running against President Trump for the Republican nomination, such as Mr. Pence.
The order will not prevent President Trump from criticizing the government generally, including President Joe Biden, his administration, and the Department of Justice. Judge Chutkan also added that the order still allows President Trump to say he is innocent of the charges against him, and that his prosecution is politically motivated.
She also mentioned sanctions as a penalty for violating the order in the Monday hearing, though specific penalties and methods of enforcement were not listed in the order.
The order was filed Tuesday along with the judge’s opinion, in which she explains her reasoning for the order.
“Undisputed testimony cited by the government demonstrates that when Defendant has publicly attacked individuals, including on matters related to this case, those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed,” she wrote.
President Trump had made social media posts in which he called Mr. Barr a “slimy liar,” for instance, and the judge said this cast doubt on a witness in a way the prosecutors couldn’t respond to. Mr. Lauro had argued that Mr. Barr would likely say he wasn’t intimidated by President Trump’s remarks, and he would have advised his client not to make such posts.
Judge Chutkan wrote in her opinion that President Trump has made statements that “pose a significant and immediate risk” that witnesses and staff will be intimidated or influenced by the fact that they may become subject to harassment if President Trump is allowed to continue to use social media freely.
“And that risk is largely irreversible in the age of the Internet; once an individual is publicly targeted, even revoking the offending statement may not abate the subsequent threats, harassment, or other intimidating effects during the pretrial as well as trial stages of this case,” she wrote.
She dismissed arguments that such an order would not be proper while President Trump is campaigning for president.
“First Amendment rights must yield to the imperative of a fair trial,” she said, citing precedent. “Defendant’s presidential candidacy cannot excuse statements that would otherwise intolerably jeopardize these proceedings.”
