Will Trump's Big Mouth Land Him in Jail?

For decades Donald Trump has viewed himself as being above the law be it tearing down historic buildings in New York City contrary to city restrictions, operating his business like a crime boss, slandering and denigrating public officials, or trying to subvert the 2020 presidential election through a coup attempt. Now, with multiple criminal charges against him, Trump is continuing his attacks on prosecutors and judges which had you or I engaged in such behavior, we'd already be in jail.  As  result, the judge presiding over his criminal case in Washington, DC, has entered a protective order that in a nutshell is ordering Trump to shut his mouth and be quiet and only operate through his legal counsel - individuals who in my view are either insane to take Trump as a client or of questionable morality - like the rest of us.   As a piece in The Atlantic suggests, Trump will likely defy the judge and ignore his legal counsel and, as a result, could in theory find himself headed to jail - a development that would thrill me and I suspect many others.   The sad reality is that had Trump been held accountable for his crimes over the years he might never have made it to the White House and the nation could have avoided a horrific trauma.  Here are article highlights:

When Donald Trump appeared last week in a Washington, D.C., courtroom for his arraignment on federal election charges, the presiding judge gave the former president a few simple instructions for staying out of jail while he awaited trial.

Trump could not talk to potential witnesses about the case except through lawyers, Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya told him, and he could not commit a crime on the local, state, or federal level. Both are standard directives to defendants. But then Upadhyaya added a warning that seemed tailored a bit more specifically to the blustery politician standing before her: “I want to remind you,” the judge said, “it is a crime to intimidate a witness or retaliate against anyone for providing information about your case to the prosecution, or otherwise obstruct justice.”

When Upadhyaya asked Trump if he understood, he nodded. Fewer than 24 hours later, Trump appeared to flout that very warning—in its spirit if not its letter—by threatening his would-be foes in an all-caps post on Truth Social: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” Over the following week, he attacked a potential witness in the case, former Vice President Mike Pence (“delusional”); Special Counsel Jack Smith (“deranged”); and the federal judge assigned to oversee his case, Tanya Chutkan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama (Smith’s “number one draft pick,” in Trump’s words).

Trump’s screeds highlight a challenge that will now fall to Chutkan to confront: constraining a defendant . . . who seems bent on making a mockery of his legal process.

“She’s in a tight spot,” Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney in Michigan, says of Chutkan. Conceivably, the judge could find Trump in contempt of court and toss him in jail for violating the terms of his pretrial release. But even though in theory Trump should be treated like any other defendant, former prosecutors told me that he was exceedingly unlikely to go to prison over his pretrial statements. And Trump probably knows it. . . . . I think as a result, he has a very long leash, and I think he will simply dare her to revoke [his freedom] by saying the most outrageous things he can.”

At a pretrial hearing today, Chutkan issued her first warnings to Trump’s lawyers about their client, according to reporting by Steven Portnoy of ABC News and Kyle Cheney of Politico. “Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech,” she said. “But that right is not absolute.” She said Trump’s presidential candidacy would not factor into her decisions, and she rebuffed suggestions by a Trump lawyer, John Lauro, that the former president had a right to respond to his political opponents in the heat of a campaign. “He’s a criminal defendant,” she reminded him. “He’s going to have restrictions like every single other defendant.”

Chutkan said she would be scrutinizing Trump’s words carefully, . . . “I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings.”

Chutkan had called the hearing to determine whether to bar Trump and his lawyers from publicly disclosing evidence provided to them by prosecutors—a standard part of the pretrial process. The evidence includes millions of pages of documents and transcribed witness interviews from a year-long investigation, and the government argued that Trump or his lawyers could undermine the process by making them public before the trial.

[T]he effect of Chutkan’s courtroom comments was to put Trump on notice. If he continues to flout judicial warnings, she could place a more formal gag order on him, the ex-prosecutors said. And if he ignores that directive, she would likely issue additional warnings before considering a criminal-contempt citation. A further escalation, McQuade said, would be to hold a hearing and order Trump to show cause for why he should not be held in contempt. “Maybe she gives him a warning, and she gives him another chance and another chance, but eventually, her biggest hammer” is to send him to jail.

Perry doubts that Chutkan would imprison him before a trial. Trump has ignored warnings from judges overseeing the various civil cases brought against him over the years and has never faced tangible consequences. “He has done it so many times and he has managed to skate so many times that he certainly is emboldened,” Perry said.

If there is to be equality under the law, Trump needs to go jail if he can't keep his mouth shut.  It really is that simple.