Yup.

I just like the analogy:

"Former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb said he does not expect the gag order issue to get to the Supreme Court," the Messenger reported.

“I don't see the Supreme Court ever taking that up, as gag orders are routine and Trump’s status as a presidential candidate is not a legal defense to a gag order any more than if Jeffrey Dahmer had decided to run for president,” he said, according to the news report.

Remember, over half of the "legal experts" on cable TeeVee or (worse!) Twitter, will say whatever doomful thing they can to be sure they're back on the next day.  Sensible, level-headed legal opinion doesn't bleed, so it doesn't lead.

I don't know of any First Amendment principal that makes a nominee for candidacy for POTUS a special category deserving extra-super special protection.  In one sense all speech is "political speech," and stopping Trump from doing whatever any other criminal defendant would not be allowed to do is not gagging his political speech in ways impermissible under First Amendment jurisprudence.

At least not until a court says so, and the rapid hearing date of the D.C. Circuit on Trump's D.C. gag order doesn't augur well for Trump.  Looks to me like they want to get it out of the way muy pronto.  And I still don't see the Supremes showing any interest in the case. As the article cited puts it:

The high court has sided against Trump or failed to take up his arguments in recent cases involving Congressional efforts to obtain his tax returns, the 2020 election, and other topics. The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case brought by his former 2020 election attorney, John Eastman stemming from a dispute with the Congressional panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

I mean, here's Trump's "argument" (which more and more is indistinguishable from what his attorneys are presenting in court(s)):

“We will appeal, and we will win that appeal,” Trump said of his D.C. indictment in a video posted to social media later that month. “It is Election Interference, & the Supreme Court must intercede,” Trump said in another post on Truth Social.  

No, it isn't.  That's a DOJ doctrine for deciding when to open an investigation or bring charges against certain public individuals.  It's not a doctrine of law or Constitutional law.  And unless he can make an argument that is legally compelling, the Supremes have better things to do.

The legal jockeying falls against the backdrop of a political landscape in which any delay could be just as helpful to Trump as a high court victory. 

But Chutkan has set jury selection for February, which means the trial in March is ON!  The only possible delay now is a stay from an appellate court (or the Supremes) of the entire case, which ain't gonna happen because the arguments on the Motions to Dismiss are so ludicrous.  (I stand by my earlier argument/prediction on that topic.  Trump's appeals of those motions go the way of Ivanka's attempt to quash her testimony.  BTW, after the stay was refused, she dropped her appeal. It was over.) 

He's going to be a convicted felon by summer. Whether the appellate court blocks his incarceration, is the only question left open.  IMHLO, anyway.