Judge Rips Trump ‘Stollen Election’ Attack On Meadows In Blistering Ruling: ‘Would Almost Certainly Violate’ Gag Order

Judge Tanya Chutkan singled out former President Donald Trump’s attack on Mark Meadows in a scathing ruling reinstating her gag order that took apart the Trump defense team’s arguments.

Judge Chutkan reinstated Sunday after some legal wrangling that included a temporary stay at Trump’s request so the judge could consider whether to lift the order pending appeal.

In her blistering decision reinstating the gag order, the judge knocked down the defense’s arguments one by one, including Trump’s frequent and false claims that it infringed on his First Amendment rights:

As the court has explained, the First Amendment rights of participants in criminal proceedings must yield, when necessary, to the orderly administration of justice—a principle reflected in Supreme Court precedent, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Local Criminal Rules.

…And contrary to Defendant’s argument, the right to a fair trial is not his alone, but belongs also to the government and the public … (emphasizing “the State’s interest in fair trials”); United States v. Tijerina, 412 F.2d 661, 667 (10th Cir. 1969) (“The public has an overriding interest that justice be done in a controversy between the government and individuals and has the right to demand and expect ‘fair trials designed to end in just judgments.’ This objective may be thwarted unless an order against extrajudicial statements applies to all parties to a controversy. The concept of a fair trial applies both to the prosecution and the defense.” (internal citations omitted)).

Defendant’s repeated appeals to broad First Amendment values therefore ignore that the court—pursuant to its obligation to protect the integrity of these proceedings—recognized those values but, in balancing them against thepotential prejudice resulting from certain kinds of statements, found them outweighed.

The judge also appeared to mock the defense team’s repeated use of the dictionary in arguing the gag order was too broad:

Defendant quotes Merriam-Webster Online’s definition of “interested” to conclude that the term “interested parties” includes could include “everyone ‘affected’ by or ‘involved’ in the case.” Motion to Stay at 26. But “interested party” is a well-established legal term of art meaning “anyone who both is directly interested in a lawsuit and has a right to control the proceedings, make a defense, or appeal from an adverse judgment.”

… Defendant focuses on the prohibition of “targeting” certain individuals, again quoting various dictionary definitions to assert that targeting could include not only identifying those individuals, but also attacking them, subjecting them to ridicule or criticism, or otherwise attempting to affect them. Motion to Stay at 25. But “restating a dictionary” to “search . . . for every facet” of relevant terms is not a proper vagueness inquiry. United States v. Bronstein, 849 F.3d 1101, 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “Rather, a statute is unconstitutionally vague if, applying the rules for interpreting legal texts, its meaning ‘specifie[s]’ ‘no standard of conduct . . . at all.’” Id. at 1107 (quoting Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614 (1971)). And a cardinal rule of interpretation is that context matters; “a word is known by the company it keeps.”…

The motion hearing and corresponding Order provide substantial context for and examples of the kinds of “targeting” statements that could result in “significant and immediate risk[s]” to “the integrity of these proceedings.”

The judge went on to contrast two Trump social media posts — one posted before the stay and one after — to illustrate the ease with which a violation of the gag order could be determined. While the former was permissible under the order, the judge took exception with this latter message:

I don’t think Mark Meadows would lie about the Rigged and Stollen 2020 Presidential Election merely for getting IMMUNITY against Prosecution (PERSECUTION!) by Deranged Prosecutor, Jack Smith. BUT, when you really think about it, after being hounded like a dog for three years, told you’ll be going to jail for the rest of your life, your money and your family will be forever gone, and we’re not at all interested in exposing those that did the RIGGING — If you say BAD THINGS about that terrible “MONSTER,” DONALD J. TRUMP, we won’t put you in prison, you can keep your family and your wealth, and, perhaps, if you can make up some really horrible “STUFF” a out him, we may very well erect a statue of you in the middle of our decaying and now very violent Capital, Washington, D.C. Some people would make that deal, but they are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future our Failing Nation. I don’t think that Mark Meadows is one of them, but who really knows? MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!

Judge Chutkan explained the difference:

This statement would almost certainly violate the Order under any reasonable definition of “targeting.”5 Indeed, Defendant appears to concede as much, Reply in Support of Motion to Stay, ECF No. 123, at 10 n.3 (“If the Gag order had been in effect, President Trump would have been unable to [make the statement].”)—and for good reason. The statement singles out a foreseeable witness for purposes of characterizing his potentially unfavorable testimony as a “lie” “mad[e] up” to secure immunity, and it attacks him as a “weakling[] and coward[]” if he provides that unfavorable testimony—an attack that could readily be interpreted as an attempt to influence or prevent the witness’s participation in this case. The plain distinctions between this statement and the prior one—apparent to the court and both parties—demonstrate that far from being arbitrary or standardless, the Order’s prohibition on “targeting” statements can be straightforwardly understood and applied.

The judge concluded “For these reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Stay, ECF No. 110, is hereby DENIED, and the administrative stay imposed by the court’s October 20, 2023 Minute Order is hereby LIFTED.”

It did not take long for Trump to lash out over the order, which he has continued to do for several days.