🍨

 The D.C. Court speaks:

“The record shows that Mr. Trump has repeatedly attacked those involved in this case through threatening public statements, as well as messaging daggered at likely witnesses and their testimony,” the ruling said. “The unique megaphone a defendant wields, amplified by social media, ramps up the risk of public and press reactions and attention capable of altering or swaying witnesses’ participation in the trial or the content of their testimony. The risk is particularly significant that public statements about certain witnesses’ involvement in the case may intimidate other potential witnesses from providing testimony, encourage them to alter their testimony, or dissuade them from cooperating with investigators.”

I’m not sure I agree with the court’s reasoning in narrowing the gag order, but they didn’t narrow it much:

The new version of the gag order bars Trump and his lawyers from making “public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding,” but also allows him some leeway if a high-profile witness makes disparaging comments about him. 

It also upheld the section of the order prohibiting Trump and his lawyers from making public statements about lawyers in the case, court staff, special counsel staff or their family members. The one exception is special counsel Jack Smith, who Trump continued to deride as a "thug" and "deranged" on social media after the appeals court stayed U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's gag order while it weighed his arguments. The appeals court found her order "should not have restricted speech about the Special Counsel himself."  

But the court also found that Trump “does not have an unlimited right to speak.”

So the narrowing itself is narrow. And the court expressly stated:

Mr. Trump is a former President and current candidate for the presidency, and there is a strong public interest in what he has to say. But Mr. Trump is also an indicted criminal defendant, and he must stand trial in a courtroom under the same procedures that govern all other criminal defendants. That is what the rule of law means.”

If Chutkan wrote her opinion with the appellate court in mind, this language is aimed at the Supremes. And as for Trump’s hopes to delay the trial:

The appeals court noted that Chutkan found in her gag order ruling that “'when Defendant has publicly attacked individuals, including on matters related to this case, those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed.' Mr. Trump has not shown that factual finding to be clearly erroneous, and we hold that the record amply supports it." 

The court also appeared to be skeptical of one of Trump’s proposed solutions, to delay his trial until after the presidential election. 

“Delaying the trial date until after the election, as Mr. Trump proposes, would be counterproductive, create perverse incentives, and unreasonably burden the judicial process," the ruling said. "In addition, postponing trial would incentivize criminal defendants to engage in harmful speech as a means of delaying their prosecution."

Two things: 1) evidence matters. Allegations and conspiracy theories don’t mean shit. The court does not function in a post-fact world.

2) Trump’s hope of delaying the trial just went up in smoke.

Now, will the Supremes reverse this? No. They didn’t help Trump in his election challenges, and they won’t help Trump now. Even Thomas and Alito don’t want to challenge the reasoning here on trial delays, and there’s no serious Constitutional issue in the gag order that they desperately need to address. Any more than there were issues in the election challenges they needed to address. The Supremes have a full plate.🍽️ They don’t need dessert..