WITCH HUNT!!!
Trump is taunting the judge in the J6 case, daring her to put him in pre-trial detention.
Donald Trump has an extremely limited vocabulary (from the standpoint of words). One repeated phrase — which he utters very strongly — is “WITCH HUNT”. Have you ever considered that he might be an actual witch who is being hunted?
Glaz, July 21, 2023:
A witch-hunt is when you repeatedly break the law and the authorities elect to prosecute your malfeasance. Wait, wait; that can’t be right.
A witch-hunt is when you whine about how you’re being treated by law enforcement after you’ve called for political opponents to be “locked up” and pressured foreign governments to initiate public “investigations” of others. That’s probably a little closer to the right definition. Maybe I can do better.
Maybe it’s when you want something to be political so that it can’t be personal or otherwise have anything to do with the stuff you’re on record doing and can’t logically defend in a court of law. I may be onto something here. This is harder than I thought.
I could look it up of course. The problem is it won’t help me understand how Donald Trump interprets the term. He says it a lot. I don’t presume to think he even knows what he means when he says it. It’s a deflection, something to rile up the base, flood the know-nothings with a tsunami of word garbage until they can’t tell what side is up.
But what if Trump is admitting to us that he is in fact a witch, and he’s being hunted for what he can’t help being? . . . You may think this theory is a little far-fetched. I mean, a witch? Really? . . . Let’s examine the evidence, shall we. . . .
Last week, Trump stated in court he understood the conditions of his release (as opposed to being held in prison until his January 6 Insurrection trial begins). Those conditions, as outlined by Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya, were to “not communicate about facts of the case with any individual known to be a witness, except with counsel or the presence of counsel” and (most importantly) to not commit any new crimes, which could potentially lead to him being detained. Trump was told that it is a crime to “influence a juror or try to threaten or bribe a witness or retaliate against anyone” connected to the case. Trump stated that he understood these conditions and signed a court document indicating the same.
Then he spent the entire weekend violating those conditions of his release. He insulted the judge who will oversee his trial, stating he would immediately call for her dismissal or recusal. He said this about Jack Smith at a GOP dinner in South Carolina on Saturday: “Deranged Jack Smith. He’s a deranged human being. You take a look at that face, you say that guy is a sick man. There’s something wrong with him . . . This guy’s a maniac.”
Apparently, Trump believes he will benefit whichever way this is resolved.
Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law scholar, University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University, the co-founder of the American Constitution Society:
Trump’s plan is (1) to gloat if he gets away with trashing witnesses in defiance of the judge’s orders and (2) to play victim and make the judge’s life a living hell if she imprisons him to enforce her mandate. She should call the coward’s bluff.
Barbara McQuade, a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School, a legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC, and a former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan (2010-17):
With social media post blasting Pence, a witness in the election interference trial, Trump is daring Judge Chutkan to enter a gag order. If she enters an order, he will cry foul. But, if she declines to do so, Trump will intimidate witnesses with impunity.
Andrew Weissmann, a professor at NYU Law School and a former Assistant United States Attorney (1991-2002):
Just to be clear, any other defendant who did this, who was facing six counts of obstruction of justice . . . I think would be remanded, meaning would be sent to jail and have to await trial in jail.
Karen Friedman Agnifilo, Meidas Touch, August 6, 2023 (my emphasis):
As a three-decade former state prosecutor in New York, I have never seen a defendant treated as leniently as defendant Trump. He has a rap sheet with 3 open felony indictments, 78-charges, in 3 separate jurisdictions. He has repeatedly threatened prosecutors, judges, and potential witnesses and has his own 757 jumbo jet at the ready to fly anywhere in the world and can abscond at any time. And the nature of his charges are among the most serious there are — he is accused of stealing our nation’s most sensitive secrets, trying to destroy evidence of his crimes, committing fraud in the oval office, and causing a violent insurrection in order to attempt to steal an election he lost, and our democracy. Imagine if he were Black or Muslim. There is no doubt he would be incarcerated pending trial. . . .
In both of these instances [Trump’s recent posts of “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” and a photo of Joe Biden, Fanni Willis, Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, and Jack Smith labeled as “The Fraud Squad”], he has not only (allegedly) committed a crime, but he has also violated his terms of release from custody. . . .
[In addition to the release conditions in Trump’s most recent Federal indictment,] in the New York State case, Judge Juan Merchan also required that Trump not commit any new crimes and stated that he is to “refrain making comments or engaging in conduct that has the potential to incite violence, create civil unrest, or jeopardize the safety or well-being of any individuals” and “do not engage in words or conduct which jeopardizes the rule of law, particularly as it applies to these proceedings in this courtroom.”
Defendant Trump has plainly violated his release conditions.
He has (allegedly) committed several crimes with his thinly veiled threats, and by (allegedly) committing these crimes, he has violated the most important condition of his release — namely that he must not commit any crimes. He has (allegedly) at least committed the crime of Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree in violation of which reads in pertinent part:
A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when:
“With intent to harass another person, the actor communicates, by computer or any other electronic means, a threat to cause physical harm to such person, and the actor knows or reasonably should know that such communication will cause such person to reasonably fear harm to such person’s physical safety.”
In any other situation, with any other defendant who threatened his prosecutor the day after being arraigned in federal court for inciting a riot and attempting to overthrow our democracy, the prosecutor would march into court, bring the threats to the attention of the judge, and the judge would likely find the defendant in violation of his release conditions and incarcerate him.
Trump will appear before the judge this afternoon.