Listen, I understand the disdain some conservatives feel for the former president. I share the sentiment. But if you’re cheering on a judge who’s inhibiting political speech on rickety grounds, you’re no friend of the “democracy” or the Constitution.
“Mr. Trump may still vigorously seek public support as a presidential candidate, debate policies and people related to that candidacy, criticize the current administration and assert his belief that this prosecution is politically motivated,” Chutkan explained. “But those critical [F]irst [A]mendment freedoms do not allow him to launch a pre-trial smear campaign against participating government staff, their families and foreseeable witnesses.”
Who is Chutkan to dictate the contours of a presidential candidate’s political speech? What if one of the “participating government staff” or a family member is compromised by partisanship? Moreover, preemptively suggesting that without gagging, Trump will engage in a “smear campaign” is as prejudicial to the case as any of the inflammatory things Trump has thrown around.
[I’m inclined to agree with Harsanyi in principle here, although the real problem is that the prosecutions are taking place during the candidacy. Gag rules on public comment before jury selection in high-profile cases are not unknown, after all. That’s one reason for discretion in charging such crimes in the middle of a campaign, although one can argue that *not* charging such crimes would be just as problematic in terms of political choices. — Ed]
Join the conversation as a VIP Member