"I'm Coming After You"
Get ready for a titanic clash of political strategy and judicial procedure
At his latest arraignment, Donald Trump was admonished by Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya:
It is a crime to try to influence a juror or to threaten or attempt to bribe a witness or any other person who may have information about your case, or to retaliate against anyone for providing information about your case to the prosecution, or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice. Do you understand these warnings and consequences, sir?
Trump said he understood.
That was last Thursday.
On Friday, Trump took to his social media platform to announce, in all caps: IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU. Which most people would regard as, you know, a threat.
Within hours, the Justice Department asked the Court for a protective order against Trump, citing his social media outburst to have him restrained from talking about evidence the government is about to share with his lawyers during the discovery phase of the proceedings. Jack Smith’s office wrote:
Such a restriction is particularly important in this case because the defendant has previously issued public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him.
Trump’s lawyers have until today to respond.
The Justice Department’s request falls short of asking for a gag order preventing Trump from discussing the case, but it will be interesting to see how the presiding judge, Tanya Chutkan, reacts to Trump’s antics.
Despite Trump’s inability to control himself, he knows exactly what he’s doing. Absent a legal defense in Court, Trump is waging a political campaign to rally his supporters by attacking the legitimacy of the prosecution. By ostentatiously ignoring the court’s demand not to threaten anyone, Trump is loudly proclaiming he doesn’t care what the judge says.
He is telling his supporters he can do anything he wants, and by extension so can they.
The court’s response to this should be to curtail Trump further and, if he ignores Judge Chutkan’s future orders, to restrain him pending trial. The judicial process demands it.
Any other defendant would be in prison already—which is why any other defendant would back down.
Not so for Trump. Blithely ignoring a court order enhances his legal jeopardy but advances his political ends. The more the court constrains what Trump can say, the more Trump can play the victim for his supporters by screaming he is being denied freedom of speech.
As a legal matter, Trump’s claim is baseless. No one has the right to threaten witnesses and political opponents. But as a political matter, being rebuked by the court galvanizes a base that’s primed to believe their freedoms are under assault.
And if the judge imprisoned Trump pending trial—which, again, is where this would lead for any defendant who had never worked in an oval-shaped office—it would serve to make him a martyr to the deep state in their eyes.
Trump is telling his supporters he can do anything he wants, and by extension so can they.
I strongly suspect Jack Smith recognizes this and is being circumspect in his demands to restrain Trump. But if Trump can successfully prevent the court from blocking his outbursts, he will undermine the legitimacy of one of the few institutions that can hold him accountable.
This is where things get interesting—and risky. If Trump didn’t have a political party behind him amplifying his unfounded claims of political persecution, he would be just another mob boss. But his political position puts justice in a bind: hold Trump accountable and bolster his political strategy or back away and appear weak.
Trump stands to be flattened in a trial. He can only win if he can thwart the legal system and delegitimize one of the few institutions that can hold him accountable.
Donald Trump relishes acting out. But what he’s doing isn’t just throwing a tantrum. It’s dangerous and we need to recognize it as such, while bracing for a confrontation in short order between his survival strategy and the demands of justice.
Well, Matt, as you've said numerous times, reality and fake reality are on an inevitable collision course. So ... let them collide already.
Perhaps Judge Chutkan should call the defendant in for a more pointed lecture, an increase in bail and a walking tour of the facility where he will be held (pending trial) if he doesn't shape up.