The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals cast Donald Trump as a “significant and imminent threat” to the functioning of his Jan. 6 trial in a unanimous ruling that largely kept the overwhelming GOP frontrunner gagged.
Let him attack Jack… fine by me. It’s not helping him
I have to assume Donnie gets some satisfaction from being unseemly and shrill.
TFG has been on a leash for quite some time.
The more he carries on, the more I picture this being at the heart of it.
Donald Trump is a “significant and imminent threat” to the functioning of his Jan. 6 trial
That makes it unanimous nationally, doesn’t it?
Is there anyone left who doesn’t believe it? Anyone in the entire world?
The court’s opinion is long, but I think the gist of the changes made to the original gag order are captured in this paragraph. I think the bolded language represents the limitations imposed by the appellate court. (But others may read it differently.)
Specifically, we affirm the Order to the extent it prohibits all parties and their counsel from making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding. The Order is also affirmed to the extent it prohibits all parties and their counsel from making or directing others to make public statements about—(1) counsel in the case other than the Special Counsel, (2) members of the court’s staff and counsel’s staffs, or (3) the family members of any counsel or staff member—if those statements are made with the intent to materially interfere with, or to cause others to materially interfere with, counsel’s or staff’s work in this criminal case, or with the knowledge that such interference is highly likely to result.
The limitation regarding witnesses shouldn’t be that difficult to apply. Trump may try to weasel around it, but whether a statement is about the witness’ role in the proceedings is a normal fact question.
The limitation regarding Trump’s intent to interfere with counsel’s or staff’s work is going to be harder to deal with (like any question regarding intent). I think that both counsel and staff are probably better equipped to deal with the Trump’s intimidation campaign that regular witnesses are. Pretty harsh for the family members, though.
But of course, intent can be inferred from the content and context of the messages, just as Judge Engoron did when he concluded that trump was lying when he claimed he was referring to the witness when he was really attacking the law clerk again. If trump doesn’t have a clear reason to be talking shit about Mrs. Jack Smith, for instance, that’s good evidence all by itself that his intent is to interfere with the Special Counsel’s work. And it only takes a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know."
Is it going too far to suggest that, rather than keep TIFG on a tight leash, maybe a rope around the neck or a shock collar might be a more reasonable outcome?
I’m seriously tired of the goalposts being moved every time in his favor. Every conceded inch gives him a new incentive to try something else and the courts play in almost every single time.
And for what?
Tick Tick goes the Contempt Clock…
On the other hand, in Judge Chutkan’s court Trump will have to cliaim he was referring to the law clerk when he was really attacking the witness.
What are the odds he can keep that straight in that razor-sharp mind of his? 
The people that talk the most are always the ones with the least to say.
Bravo on the ruling.
And bravo on the use of the word in the article, “evinced.”
I’d say the 70M ignorant racist asshats who think he’s Orange Jesus still don’t get it.
Trump on a tight leash
(snicker)
Mental image of trump tied by that leash and left by an abandoned desert footpath
Question…
Would an image of secret documents on the defendant’s office floor be a “preponderance of evidence” or proof of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”? The referred image being made months after the defendant had been given a subpoena asking for return of said secret documents,
I think that the “with the knowledge…” line gets the court out of a lot of the intent issues. If someone could reasonably foresee – from a near-endless list of previous occurences – that a statement will lead to interference, they’re on the hook.
(So what’s the definition of interference here? Does someone actually have to be dead or injured, or does needing security or having to change daily routine or just having to deal with all the threatening messages count as being interfered with?)
