For Donald Trump, there is no separating his legal and political prospects.
That’s because Democrats decided their only hope of victory next year was weaponizing the justice system against Trump.
And Donald Trump is about to win one huge legal battle that will flip the 2024 election on its head.
The first of Donald Trump’s sham criminal trials is set to commence on March 4, 2024, in Washington, D.C.
Biden prosecutor Jack Smith bent the law to concoct a bogus case that Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy to contest the 2020 election even though there are no laws specifically making anything Trump did illegal.
But since legal and political are intertwined, the Biden Justice Department also sought a gag order muzzling Trump from speaking out about any party to the case – that included the judge, the prosecutors, Joe Biden, the Justice Department and witnesses who are Trump’s political opponents.
Never before in American history had the sitting president asked a court to restrict the political speech of his opponent.
But Obama Judge Tanya Chutkan – an out-of-control left-wing partisan who clearly made up her mind about his case already – agreed and granted the Biden administration the ability to regulate Trump’s comments about the case.
Trump’s lawyers immediately appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals where an interesting hearing took place.
Chutkan’s order was too much of a full-frontal assault on the Constitution for her fellow Obama judges, Patricia Millett and Nina Pillard, who both struck a skeptical tone about the gag order.
Millett asked the prosecution how Trump was supposed to respond when political opponents attacked him on the basis that these criminal charges made him unfit for office as the order rendered Trump competing on an uneven playing field.
“He has to speak ‘Miss Manners’ while everyone else is throwing targets at him?” Millett asked. “It would be really hard in a debate, when everyone else is going at you full bore. Your attorneys would have to have scripted little things you can say.”
Millett was less than impressed with Smith’s team’s argument about how the integrity of a criminal justice proceeding superseded all other considerations.
“[Your position] doesn’t seem to give much balance at all to the First Amendment’s vigorous protection of political speech,” Millett continued.
Millett made it clear she intended to severely narrow down this gag order as even an Obama judge could recognize the courts had no business interfering in the political realm.
“There’s a balance that has to be undertaken here. We certainly want to make sure that the criminal trial process and its integrity and its truth finding function are protected,” Millett added. “But we’ve got to use a careful scalpel here and not step into … skewing the political arena, don’t we?”
Pillard also questioned Smith’s team’s contention that Donald Trump’s comments represented witness intimidation as she scoffed at the idea that high-profile individuals like former Attorney General Bill Barr or former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley would change their testimony out of fear of incurring Trump’s wrath.
“I would assume that their testimony would not be affected,” Pillard declared.
That the Biden administration even asked for this gag order proved Donald Trump’s point that these criminal charges are nothing more than election interference.
The Obama judges in this case recognized that point and they are now trying to rescue Joe Biden from a mess of his own administration’s making.
Great American Daily will keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story and the rest of the breaking news in politics, please bookmark our site, consider making us your homepage and forward our content with your friends on social media and email.
