Gagging Donald Trump: Why Smith’s “Narrowly Tailored Motion” is Neither Narrow Nor Wise

Below is a longer version of my column in the New York Post on the gag order motion docketed Friday night in Washington, D.C. by Special Counsel Jack Smith. While described by Smith as “narrowly tailored,” even a cursory consideration of the broad scope and vague terms belies such a claim. It would sharply limit the ability of former President Donald Trump to publicly discuss the evidence and allegations in a case that is now at the center of the presidential campaign.

Here is the column:

Ronald Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”

After Friday night, we can add nine more: “a narrowly tailored order that imposes modest, permissible restrictions.”

Those words were used by Special Counsel Jack Smith to propose a gag order that would sharply curtail the ability of former President Donald Trump to criticize Smith and his prosecution.

The Smith motion is anything but “narrowly tailored.”

Indeed, short of a mobile “Get Smart” Cone of Silence, it is chilling to think of what Smith considered the broader option.

Smith told District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., that Trump could “present a serious and substantial danger of prejudicing” his 2020 federal election interference case.

Smith compared Trump’s comments on the trial to the “disinformation” spread by Trump after the 2020 election — the subject of the indictment.

The motion states that Trump’s “recent extrajudicial statements are intended to undermine public confidence in an institution — the judicial system — and to undermine confidence in and intimidate individuals — the Court, the jury pool, witnesses, and prosecutors.”

I have long criticized Trump’s inflammatory comments over these cases, but Smith’s solution veers dangerously into core political speech in the middle of a presidential election.

Ironically, Smith’s move will likely be seen as reinforcing Trump’s claim of intentional election interference by the Biden Administration.

I do not view it that way, but I do believe Smith is showing his signature lack of restraint in high-profile cases, a tendency that led to the unanimous overturning of his conviction of former Virginia Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell.

Smith seeks to bar comments “regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses” and “statements about any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflammatory, or intimidating.”

Gag orders have become commonplace in federal trials, particularly high-profile cases.

I have criticized the increasing use of gag orders for years due to concerns over the free speech. Typical orders often seek to shutdown public comments in the interests of protecting jury pools. Even “narrower” orders are written with vague terminology like “disparaging” and “intimidating” that expose defendants to punitive action if they cross uncertain lines in public defending themselves. No one seriously questions the ability of courts to limit the release of sealed material or to bar threatening comments directed at jurors, witnesses, or court staff. Moreover, there are laws on the books allowing for the prosecution of cases of threats or efforts to influence jurors or witnesses.

More importantly, this is no typical case.

Smith has pushed for a trial before the election and the court inexplicably shoehorned the trial into a crowded calendar just before the Super Tuesday election.

Judge Chutkan previously stated that “I cannot and I will not factor into my decisions how it will factor into a political campaign.”

This motion, however, would impose substantial limits on a national political debate and begs the question of whether the court is failing to balance the rivaling constitutional interests in this unprecedented situation.

It could not only test Chutkan’s position but prompt an early appeal.

One of the top issues in this presidential campaign is Trump’s insistence that the Justice Department and the criminal justice system have been weaponized by Democrats.

He was running on that issue even before the four separate criminal cases were filed against him in Florida, Georgia, New York, and Washington, D.C.

More importantly, it is an issue that is resonating with tens of millions of Americans.

One poll showed 62% of the public viewed the prosecutions as “politically motivated.”

Another poll shows that 65% still view the prosecutions as “serious.” Between these polls is found a raging debate among citizens and candidates over the merits and motivations of these cases.

Under Smith’s proposed motion, almost everyone (including Biden) will be able to discuss this case but Trump himself.

Disparaging criticism of Smith or key accusers could land Trump in jail under an ambiguous standard.

That is a rather hard standard to respect when you are alleging that Smith is part of a politically motivated hit job.

Moreover, gagging Trump would not impact the level of inflammatory or insulting commentary.

By scheduling a trial of the leading candidate for the presidency in the middle of the election season, the cases will continue to occupy a high level of coverage and commentary.

This jury pool will be inundated with such commentary on both sides and Trump’s prior comments on the case will be replayed continually in print, radio, and television outlets.

In light of that reality, the question is whether gagging Trump will materially change the impact on potential jurors.

Conversely, it will gag a candidate on a major issue before the public.

Worse yet, one of the potential witnesses is one of Trump’s opponents: former Vice President Mike Pence.

Other potential witnesses are political figures who have engaged in commentary on the underlying allegations.

To be clear, I criticized Trump’s Jan. 6 speech while he was giving it.

I supported Vice President Mike Pence and his certification of the election of Joe Biden.

Despite my disagreement with Trump on that day and his claims of voting fraud, he is making his case to the American people on his past conduct.

This was not some manufactured claim to allow him to poison a jury pool. It has been building for years and long ago some of us predicted that this election would be the largest jury verdict in history.

These courts have elected to daisy-chain trials before the election.

The timing guaranteed the maximum level of coverage and commentary. At this point, a broad gag order is like running for a hand pump on the Titanic.

A truly “narrowly tailored” order would focus on comments deemed threatening to witnesses or jurors.

However, banning disparaging and inflammatory comments about the prosecution or accusers would create a Damocles sword dangling over the head of Trump in every speech.

In making his case that he acted lawfully in the prior election, Trump will be pummeled with specific claims from witnesses and the prosecutors.

Moreover, after long alleging the weaponization of the criminal justice system, any comments on the motivation of Smith and the Justice Department will be — by definition — defamation.

Meanwhile, Judge Chutkan’s own comments about Trump have been repeatedly quoted in the media and are the basis for a motion for her to recuse herself.

For example, in sentencing a rioter in 2022, Chutkan said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man – not to the Constitution.”

She added that “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.”

Judge Chutkan’s promise not to consider the political campaign in ruling on these motions will now be tested.

The trial of a former president in the midst of a presidential election is a unique situation and may require greater accommodation than Chutkan is inclined to give.

There may be a judicial argument for gagging Trump, but it raises serious constitutional concerns. Is it really worth the cost?

Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.

199 thoughts on “Gagging Donald Trump: Why Smith’s “Narrowly Tailored Motion” is Neither Narrow Nor Wise”

  1. To anyone with rational thinking abilities; the fix is in for Joe Biden. The corrupt political camp with members such as Smith, Chutkin; Hillary; Obama; Strozk, Page, Lerner, Obama, McConnel, Biden, Comey, Brennan, and a cast of thousand Swamp-Deep-State political hacks pretending to be Americans, there can never again be a fair election or fair justice from the Department of junk justice..

  2. Is there really a UNIVERSAL Get Out Of Jail For Free Card??

    Well, yes, there IS such a thing! But it is kept well hidden and is known about by only a very few though, due to various reasons. The main one, is the populace is kept ignorant, dumbed down, as some like to say, via the public fool system. No one is taught real history or how to think about things anymore. Virtually no one knows what logic is or how to use it. Nearly everyone is taught only the mantra of “go along to get along”. Another one is “Why tell the truth, when a lie will serve almost as well?”. As if truth is a rare commodity that must not ever be wasted on trivial things, being saved for only the most momentous of occasions!
    So, what things could possibly be written on this all powerful and totally universal card? There are many things, but all of them have one concept in common, all of them expose some kind of fraud that is going on in the legal system. This may not seem like such a big deal at first glance, but it IS a big deal! It’s because fraud is one of the major things that the legal system is supposed to stand in opposition to, but without committing copious amounts of fraud on a daily basis, the current legal system couldn’t exist at all! Whom of the Actors, Operators, Agents or Officers that run the privately owned legal system, would ever tell you that compliance with it is done strictly on a voluntary basis? It MUST be done on that basis, because it is a criminal enterprise, and no man or woman can be forced to join in any criminal activities! To get around that technicality, the legal system uses something called implied consent, which is no consent at all, since fraud is involved. Look up the definition of Consent in any law dictionary, and then see how it applies to the legal system. While you are at it, look up Contract, Fraud and Person too, and see how those definitions fit into the legal system.
    When one looks at the legal system as just a few snippets of it here and there, one at a time, it is difficult, if not impossible, to know what the entire picture looks like! But after looking at enough of those tiny little bits and pieces, recognizing how they overlap and interact with each other, remembering the importance of each one and its complexity and its location, the bigger picture can be seen to emerge from all of the chaos and confusion.
    Consider now the reversal of a land mark case called Roe v. Wade, in 2022. Back in 1973, the USSC/SCOTUS made a decision about the life or death of unborn babies. Then, 49 years later, a whole new panel of “judges” said that it was an egregious mistake that had been made, without ever bringing in any new evidence, witnesses or legal theories! How is that possible? One day the decision of 9 men was totally valid, as it had been for 49 years, and then suddenly, the next day, it was not! What almost no one noticed there, was that the USSC/SCOTUS announced to the whole wide world on that very same day, that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial when it comes to making sound and logical and correct legal decisions! If those men in what is considered to be the highest court in the land could not render a correct decision, then how can ANY court in the 100% corrupted legal system, make correct decisions at ANY time? Are we to wait around for 49 years to see if it was right or not?
    Another thing on this most magical of cards, is the demand for a copy of our written guarantee of actually getting a fair trial! If we do not have that guarantee, then every fake trial instantly transforms into one of two things; either it is a pure gamble with no outcome known beforehand, like in a coin toss, or, it is a well orchestrated scam being run on us, with an outcome that is known well in advance of the conclusion of the “trial”. There is no third option possible there, so take your pick of those. No man or woman can be forced to make bets or compelled to participate in any kind of a crime! If there is such a law, and it is a valid one, then where can it be found so all can read it and agree to it?
    We can add to that card The Seven Elements Of Jurisdiction, the Void For Vagueness Doctrine, Fraud upon the Court, the definitions of the words Contract and Fraud. And don’t forget that anything that is alleged to be a bona fide contract, is vacated for fraud, threat, duress, coercion, mistake, illegality, immorality, impossibility, insanity, unlawfulness or age of minority. Those things violate the five ESSENTIAL elements of a contract, and since there is no possible means to measure out how much violation of them is OK and how much is too much, we must not have any at all.
    There is a maxim of law, the legal system, which states that fraud vitiates all that it comes into contact with. Only a mere and brief contact is all that is required, not a thorough mixing in of the fraud like the spices in a cake mix! So we do not need some crazy idiot in a black robe who is self deluded into thinking that he/she has been elevated to being some kind of god or other, to adjudicate on the amount of fraud that is OK to have, and how much is too much!
    This card is indeed universal in nature, because if a fair trial cannot be guaranteed, then what is the point of having one? Even in a country under a Communist dictatorship, like we have here in America at present, where guilt is determined by criminals before the fake trials even begin, why bother with one? Why not just take all apprehended people, and execute them right there on the spot and save all of that wasted time, effort and money? What is to be gained by having any fake and rigged up trials, except to distract the populace from what is really going on?
    The legal system, as has been shown earlier, is just one big scam being run on us all! Papers such as The Legal System Is Even WORSE Than Gambling!, The Achilles’ Heel Of EVERYTHING In The Universe!, Pulling The Teeth Out Of The Mouth Of The Legal System, The Scam Of The Legal System, The Holes In The Legal System, Any Person Subject To…, Betrayal Of The Public’s Trust, I Do Not Recognize, Alleged Jurisdiction, Are These Questions Too Hot To Handle?, Do Not Detain Do Not Molest List and many more, are extra sources to read for this data and come to a greater understanding of the world around us.
    It IS the completely corrupted legal system with all of its Officers, Agents, Actors and Operators, that enforces the tyranny of the few upon the many of society. The legal system has NO justification for its breaking of its own rules and regulations! And THAT is why the legal system MUST be run on a completely voluntary basis, none can be compelled into joining it, if they do not want to, because it runs contrary to the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.
    When enough people are educated in these facts and can see the logic in them, they will begin to decline the offer to be a part of the criminal cabal we call the legal system, they will call it into question, and it will lose too much business to be able to stay in business! And speaking of business, EVERY courtroom in America is listed in Dun & Bradstreet as a business, because that is exactly what they all are! They are set up and run to generate profits off of the uneducated majority! What business can keep its doors open, if no profits are being made?
    What would happen, if just 4% of the people who are scheduled for a fleecing in the legal system, submitted an Affidavit to the court, stating that they promise to not commit any kind or amount of fraud, and demanded that every other participant must do the same? WHO will take up that challenge? Certainly not the fake judges with their prostituting attorneys they keep in their back pocket! Not one of the private attorneys or LIEyers will sign it! Not one Bailiff or any Clerk of the Court or Public Defender will do so either! No Deputies or police officers will ever dare go near it! Who will be left then, other than the Court Reporter, whose job is to record accurately the proceedings of the scams and other crimes going on in there? The Circus Maximus will be devoid of all of the men and women who put on the show trials, so there won’t be any need for any spectators to be there. Don’t forget to ask what is the EXACT AMOUNT of crime that any man or woman has a Right to commit or is obligated to endure, and what is the BASIC PREMISE that is being operated off of, in the instant case too!
    What do we do then to get our justice when we are injured in some way? We go back to Common Law Courts like we had before the case of Eerie R.R. Company v. Tompkins in 1939, when the legal system was hijacked by the criminal B.A.R. THAT is what we do! The jury of our actual peers get to decide our cases! “And who are a man’s Peers? They are his friends, neighbors and business acquaintances, for who else should know him better in order to judge him?”. Let those last few words weigh on your mind, for they ARE the truth that needs to be heard!

  3. Inexplicably Turley ignores the elephant in the room. Trump must shut up, must not defend himself in the court of public opinion, but, Judge, Media, Smith, Lawyers may all discuss the evil Trump with impunity because something free speech. As for “poisoning the jury pool” this is impossible, as the jury will be selected by A.I. as the Stone jury was – look it up as the evidence is there. Sadly, Turley is getting seeing the system for what it has always been and struggles to reconcile it. Trump had a right to criticize the election because Common Core math says he should: In far to many places more people voted than are registered to vote. When a good election is 60% turnout, the idea that in some cases more people voted than are registered to vote is Common Core math, and Trump, being a business man does not subscribe to it.

    Folks do realize the 2018 EO gave him real time data on the election, right? Real time, data different from the media’s real time data stream provided to them. Also, he said all of this while President, if this stands at all it means everything Joe ever said, including the incoherent stuff, is actionable including calling Putin a Killer, because, it was mean and untrue.

    But worse than that, Turley and the rest cannot seem to reconcile this famous Kissinger Sentiment: Voting is too important to be left up to the people. Folks like Turley really struggle with the idea that we have terms like Vote Rigging, Gerrymandering, Redistricting and so on for a reason: elections are far to important to be left up to the people. The terms are not a conspiracy theory, but exist for a reason – folks do that in every election from Unions to Presidential races, and with A.I. driven tech they no longer need to do the old school techniques anymore.

    Even more confusing to the intellectual class, they fail to see the truth. It is 100% true that there is “no evidence of widespread voter fraud” because that PR Branding was meant to be true. It has never ever been widespread, it has been intimate, small, detailed and exclusively been mathematically driven, until Joe. No one has disputed Trump’s 74m votes. People have disputed the math that leads to Joe getting 81m having never drawn a crowd of more than 100 during his entire basement based campaign. “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

    So we have 74+81 or 155 million votes cast, during a “pandemic,” so during a time where voting was made harder, more votes were cast, not less, than usual and the percentage is implausible given Joe won only where he needed to win to win both the now more important “popular vote” and the “we must end the electoral college” vote. Read that again, Joe won only where he needed to win, he didn’t win anywhere where it was not mathematically important – only common core math can explain those odds.

    Fun fact: If Trump got more votes than in 2016, so where did they come from? We’re told libs hate him, independents hate him, and conservatives abandoned him because the economy and things like the Abraham Accords were horrible, also mean tweets. So where did the votes come from if Joe took 81m including all those Trump haters? It is all Common Core Math at best.

    Saying all of that above is heresy for many, because they foolishly believe Henry was just kidding (but Henry hates democracy see CIA history in other countries for proof), and that all the voting horrors in this country and the world are just conspiracy theory. Turley is wrong, Trump didn’t question the election and to blame him is ignorant, it is a Representative Republic, so he is under obligation to so as his constituents ask. Those who voted for him in the Representative Republic, not a mob rule, wondered how 155m were cast at all and he was Obliged to honor their questions. That’s ignoring 81m for a guy who cannot complete a sentence, and was bounced out of the race decades earlier for being a proven liar, plagiarizer and far worse. Who redeemed Joe that he could get all these votes is a question that means “election denier.” Look up any President on Google with “groping children” and see what turns up, then ask how Joe was redeemed? Why was Joe redeemed at all? Of all people in the universe to run for President, why was Joe Biden the only choice? Why has Joe been pushed on us for decades, despite few liking him or seeing him as anything other than a grifter Why Joe Biden in 2020?

    Turley might want to ask this question of himself. Gore disputed the election results in the now famous “hanging chad” incident and it took just one lawyer, Jim Baker, to resolve the matter and he didn’t go to jail for questioning the results and wasn’t called an election denier. Prior to the 2020 election Joe had 1000 lawyers, led by the Perkins Coie Mafia, deployed to attack any challenge to the most fair and transparent election in history. If the elections are not up to dispute – ever, and are always fair but with some Ruby Freeman type mistakes here and there, it begs the question: Why was the 1000 personal legal campaign army led by the Clinton Legal Machine needed and who paid for it?

    Then we have this, why are the lawyers for Trump being disbarred in a coordinated effort, despite the fact that in 7 years of deranged TDS the only “charges” brought against him are a joke? Why, after 7 years, are folks actually trying to defend these charges, given all the others failed. Fact, Trump is the most investigated man in all of human history, all, every country, every military, every press person, every internet hacker, every intelligence agency, every armchair guy with a internet connection: Fanny Willis is the best that could be found in 7 years, why? Billions, yes, Billions spent investigating him world wide, 10’s of millions of stories, and… Fanny Willis is the smoking gun sheriff??? 60+ declassified depositions from government folks including Lisa Page and Brennan all say “we found nothing…” but Fanny Willis emerges the hero?

    It matters not, before the end of the year, the country will be dealing with all of it in ways they never expected and will be forced to reconcile more than they can possible deal with, how do I know this? Easy, Joe never canceled the 2018E.O. on election interference despite canceling nearly all the others but the 2018 and, of all things, the 2017 asset seizure for trafficking, which, if you read the laptop documentation points to Hunter.

  4. The Biden regime is illegitimate therefore these politically motivated charges are also illegitimate. The Biden DOJ/FBI must be ignored.

  5. The machine has abolished election day in favor of election month. It has abolished decentralized counting of ballots by neighbors in front of neighbors in favor of centralized counting in closed rooms where election observers are routinely driven away. It has abolished clear and neutrally observed chain of custody for ballots in favor of ballot handling by highly partisan unobserved postal employees who have every opportunity to divert individual ballots according to either the known tendencies of individuals whos mail they handle or of neighborhoods they handle.

    The machine has replaced auditable paper trails with editable digital processes subject to hacking or centralized corruption which leaves no paper trail.

    The machine has replaced elections with kingmaking, and it is prosecuting Trump [and others] for lese magesty for talking about it.

    1. Well put.

      “All ballots are equal, but some ballots are more equal than others.” (a slight change from Orwell’s original words)

  6. “While described by Smith as ‘narrowly tailored’ . . .” Yet in reality: “a cursory consideration of the broad scope and vague terms belies such a claim.”

    Here again we see the Left’s delusional attitude toward words: Words mean whatever we feel they mean. And our words have the mystical power to alter reality.

    The kicker is that even they do not believe those words. But they want others to.

  7. “Under Smith’s proposed motion, almost everyone (including Biden) will be able to discuss this case but Trump himself.” (JT)

    Frist the Left concocts a show trial to kneecap its primary political opponent. Then it demands that the government gag that opponent.

    Stalin would be proud.

  8. This and all related issues – trials timings, Federal or state court, change of venue, similar things I don’t know about – should be combined into one case and moved through the Appeals process and up to SCOTUS as its first order of business next month. The best outcome would be to move the whole mess past the election (wouldn’t any similar cases take years to reach trial anyways?). When Trump loses the Republican nomination or after he loses it and chooses to run as an independent and then loses that, the person who ends up replacing Biden on the Democrat ticket will pardon Trump and all of this will become moot. There are too many important things on the agenda of the American people. This crap does not even register in Gallup polling on what’s important to Americans

    1. The above is what happens when a male visits a surgeon to transition to womyn, the surgeon snips the brain instead of the testicles because they both are the same size, and babbles incoherently ala Joseph Biden.

    2. Trump losing the R nomination? Well, the swamp would certainly love that. However, his lead is increasing, not decreasing.

      1. “Trump losing the R nomination? Well, the swamp would certainly love that.”

        And only the Soviet Democrats would be more in despair if Trump lost the R nomination. The Soviet Democrats believe that Trump is the most likely R nominee that would cause independents and the undecided to hold their noses and vote for Biden – again – rather than vote Republican.

        Pretty much the same as the only ones who love Trump talking about himself instead of Biden more than Trump himself are the same Soviet Democrats.

  9. So Jack Smith, aided and betted by an enthusiastically supportive, mis-and-disinformation media whom hate Trump with deranged zeal can prejudice a future jury but Trump is supposed to shut up and take it, hoping the jury will miraculously set aside the steady diet of lies and distortions they’ve been fed daily by the media when considering the (non) evidence of a case brought for purely political reasons? I don’t think so. Courtroom trials are legal theater and we all know it now. Gag orders are only to hobble the defendant because the government’s prosecutors are inept and have a weak case that should have been thrown out. Give ’em hell, Donald! And when you’re elected again, hire bulldogs into the Justice Department who will relentlessly go after and prosecute these maniacal prosecutors and put them in prison for a long time for their staggering abuse of power and of the law.

  10. Free speech is paramount in a democracy. There is no free and fair election without free speech. The people-the voters-should decide who becomes President after each candidate expresses himself fully in the exercise of his right to free speech. The Government’s request for a gag order, if granted, would impinge on voter’s right to cast an informed vote, whether one is Republican or Democrat, pro-Trump or not. Why are so many silent when the most basic of our constitutional rights is threatened?

  11. For Gigi: (But any of the other “they” feel free to help they out)

    What was the inflation rate when Trump left office?

    Is 3.3% higher or lower than 3.2%?

    Did the inflation rate rise again in August?

    Is the President the only one who could have activated the DC Gaurd on Jan 6?

    What did the Chief of the Capitol Police say about the response to Jan 6?

    Are there any secret oil fired power plants in Texas?

    How many oil fired power plants are left in the US, and are any in Texas?

    Are crude oil and natural gas the same thing?

    How much MORE does a $240k home cost, on a 30yr note, at 7% vs 3%

    Is the real mean household income higher or lower than it was on 2021?

    What has the poverty rate done since Biden took office?

    How many people died of Covid in the US during and (for the same time frame) after DJT?

    Does evidence have to “be a crime” to be evidence “of a crime”?

    Who did Hunter and Zlovchevsky call (your best guess) from Dubai in Dec, 2015, and WHY?

  12. So, everyone in the world including the prosecutor, the press, politicians, and Trump haters can publicly comment on this case — except the defendant.

    1. From page 2, second paragraph of the motion for recusal:

      Moreover, although a judge’s opinions are entitled to some deference when based on a judicial source, the Disqualifying Statements have no such origin.

      Faith. We are supposed to have faith (entitled to some deference) in our judges. That ship sailed a long time ago, was sunk to the bottom of the ocean with the nonstop torpedoing of Federal Judges and SCOTUS Justices by the tyrants of the “Anointed” Social Justice cultists. Destroying societal institutions has consequences.

  13. Turley says that preventing Trump from publicly making statements “regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses” and “statements about any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflammatory, or intimidating.” would ” sharply limit the ability of former President Donald Trump to publicly discuss the evidence and allegations in a case that is now at the center of the presidential campaign.” So, is Turley saying that Trump has some Constitutional right to make “disparaging, inflammatory and intimidating” remarks about witnesses, prospective jurors, attorneys and court personnel? Note that Smith is asking that Trump refrain from “disparaging,…inflammatory or intimidating” statements NOT publicly “discussing the evidence and allegations” of his criminal indictments, which are NOT “the center” of his campaign–that’s just purchased Turley-talk, otherwise known as spin. Trump has politicized his criminal indictments and routinely insults Jack Smith, Judge Chutkin, and Fani Willis, but Democrats and Joe Biden do not respond in kind. Have you heard Joe Biden comment about Trump’s indictments? Does HE call Trump names, like “crooked, lying, racist, rapist” (each of which is accurate, BTW), as payback for Trump’s insults? No on both counts. Trump is a petty, vindictive pathological liar. If there is to be a fair trial, he should be muzzed against “disparaging, inflammatory or intimidating” remarks about attorneys, witnesses, jurors or court personnel. Judges have a duty to take steps to protect the integrity of our justice system, which is necessary because of Trump’s emotional immaturity and inability to follow the advice of counsel who, no doubt, have told him to shut the F up. Just today, he admitted to Kristen Welker that HE made the decision, not based on his counsels’ advice, to go for the Big Lie. So much for the “advice of counsel” defense that he just shredded, thanks to his own ego-driven big mouth. He would do well not to keep going on interviews, but that ego just can’t stay away from the cameras, which will be his undoing.

    Tell us, Turley, paid pundit, could you as a prosecutor or defense counsel make “disparaging, inflammatory or intimidating” remarks about the “testimony or credibility of prospective witnesses, attorneys, “..or… “court personnel or potential jurors”? You know the answer to that one–it would be serious misconduct for you to do so. If your client was NOT Donald Trump, could your client do these things? Why should Trump, a proven pathological liar, be allowed to try his case in the media, especially since he cannot refrain from insulting people and lying?

    1. Look who decided to man up, and actually post at the top of a thread, rather than glug glug glugging way down the page hoping to spill the lie and not be seen.

      Well done, Gig!!

      LIAR who calls trump a liar.

      Shall I list them all again, Gigi?

      I swear, you would have had stock in Q tip, with all the wet willies you would have received.

    2. How about posting that Welker video, so we can see it for ourselves. God knows it wouldn’t be the first time you claimed someone said something they NEVER said. And yet you never link when asked to….

      1. “crooked, lying, racist, rapist”

        I’m pretty sure your boy would have trouble spitting that out. Bwahahahaha

        But he does tell lies about Trump ALL THE TIME. I think I may have even heard him say that Trump left him with 8% inflation. Did I hear him say that Gigi???

    3. By the way, you DO understand Turley doesn’t read your drivel, right?? Figure maybe he drops in to see what you brilliant scholars have to say???

      You third person pinheads are hilarious or pathetic, I haven’t decided which.

    4. Apparently you aren’t understanding Prof. Turley’s point. Part of Trump’s political platform is, and has long been, long before any indictment came down, that the Deep State is corrupt and even the judicial system cannot be trusted as a neutral arbiter. This is a position that resonates with a large portion of the electorate. Trump’s impeachments are viewed by many (I’d say most, in fact) in that group as prima facie evidence of how deep the rot goes.

      Yet for Trump himself to continue to criticize those impeachments as unwarranted and politically motivated, and for him to add these indictments to the pile of evidence (as his supporters already see them), will now, by definition, be viewed by the court as defamatory and could land him in jail. He can’t continue to make the same speeches or statements that he was making before any indictment, because his theme has long been Deep State corruption.

      You can disagree with him (and I know you do), but it’s not enough just to assert that he’s being defamatory and shouldn’t be allowed to say such things.

      There’s also the point that the judge who’s going to decide whether he is being defamatory or intimidating is a person who, in her role as a judge, has already revealed a strong negative opinion about him. There’s also the fact that the DC jury pool is already irredeemably “tainted” with regard to Trump – not a chance in hell he gets more than maybe one juror who is even disposed to listen to his case, much less one who is coming in with such a positive view of him or the case that he can hope for a hung jury. And there’s also Turley’s point that everyone else, and I mean everyone else, is going to be talking about this case in the most inflammatory terms. Trump is the only person who won’t be allowed to do so, even in his own defense in the public sphere, say in an interview.

      To quote a prominent Democrat, what difference, at this point, does it make?

  14. Just imagine: Trump is participating in a debate. His opponent(s) bring(s) up the indictments, and accuses him of all the things Smith is alleging. Trump cannot defend himself due to the gag order.

  15. I do not see how you can write that Smith’s actions are not election interference. The only reasonable options are (1) they are intentional interference and that is the primary goal, (2) interference is secondary to some other, primary goal, or (3) interference is merely a by product. But to say election interference is not part of Smith’s thinking is just bizarre.

    1. Everything Demunists do is bizarre. Their entire totalitarian idiotology is built from a steaming mountain of lies. They MUST continually lie, because truth is an “existential threat” to their ambitions.

  16. The jury pool is already tainted in DC. – Trump couldn’t make it any worse. No Republican can even consider getting a fair trial in that venue.

      1. So how do you account for the juries that found some of the J6 defendants not guilty on some charges?

        LMAO. Sometimes I have to read your crap twice because I’m not sure if it’s satire.

            1. Hey, great substantive response to the comment that pointed out that some J6 defendants did get aquitted in DC, which proves they don’t rubber-stamp everything the prosecutor presents–totally shoots holes in your argument, so you post a cartoon. Come on, insult me for pointing this out.

              1. Or, it might prove that the prosecutors overreached so far that even the a$$hat libtards in DC couldn’t even swallow it.

                I didn’t argue anything, other than he was a dodo for saying that.

                His argument was weak sauce and I let him know it. Now I just explained why, for the low IQ in the room.

                1. I was about to call it a night, but I will gladly stick around for this. You seem to have grown a pair suddenly. Still not too bright, though.

                    1. I sincerely doubt that. What you do have, is an affinity for parachuting in, dropping your lies, and unicorn out. How about you go to the top of todays topic and answer for what you said. You won’t because you are a coward as well as a liar.

                      I run a business, play baseball, golf, tennis, and chess. I go to softball, dance, and gymnastics with my grands. I spend very little time replying to your drivel, while you choose to write paragraphs chocked full of lies.

                      Telling the truth takes waaayyy less time than making up lies.

              2. What, do you think Demunists should get a participation trophy just because one or two of them did something sane?

Leave a Reply