Donald Trump walks a fine line … he takes unnecessary legal risks in exchange for firing up his die-hard supporters even more. Prosecutors weren't playing around after Trump took to Truth Social to post, "If you go after me, I'm coming after you." Again, supporters loved it, but it did lead to a request for a protective order.
Trump: "If you go after me, I'm coming after you!" pic.twitter.com/PoLkcVOaBv
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) August 4, 2023
https://t.co/NgZxZujITX pic.twitter.com/9Z3GrJIeSc
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) August 5, 2023
Former president Trump has long posted social media comments that undermined his position in court or those of his Administration. The latest is such an example where he declared “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU.”...
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 5, 2023
...It was made to order for Smith who immediately used it to ask the court to limit Trump's access to discovery: "in recent days...the defendant has issued multiple posts either specifically or by implication including the following, which the defendant posted just hours ago.”
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 5, 2023
...The existential threat of these cases has not reduced Trump exclamatory statements. He is also reinforcing the Smith's narrative with these postings. He is still firing in all caps as his lawyers prepare to ask the court for a dismissal.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 5, 2023
...It is entirely tone deaf to post "the Supreme Court must intercede. MAGA!” The justices are not keen on being called forth with a MAGA cheer...
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 5, 2023
...That is true even if they agree, as I do, that this indictment goes too far and should be addressed by the Court. It is particularly ill-timed when it could be difficult for appellate courts to review these questions on a pre-trial basis. https://t.co/qfyokv8iWa
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 5, 2023
There is nothing wrong with this statement. He’s calling out the deep state that has been coming for him for years.
— SazzygirlinCali (@RjbRocklin) August 5, 2023
But he called for SCOTUS to intercede in a subsequent post.
— Sandy 〽️ (@RightGlockMom) August 5, 2023
They have enough liberal-incited headaches of being political.
It’s like a Rorschach test.
— FartingCows&Airplanes (@yestradamous) August 5, 2023
People who trust him think it’s obvious he means in needed, legal ways.
People who don’t, think he means in nefarious ways, which is an obvious case of projection.
Respectfully, his court appearances have a fixed and predetermined outcome regardless of what defense he mounts. Not even Johnny Cochran could get him acquitted in DC, for example. So he might as well have his say.
— JawjaJim 🇺🇸 (@JimJawja) August 5, 2023
But they claim not to be going after him, merely administering impartial justice under law…if they feel threatened they are self-evidently confessing bad faith…the correct response would be to say that they have not unfairly singled him out!
— Laurence Jarvik (@lajarvik) August 5, 2023
So, he's saying what they're actually doing, and that's problematic?
— Freddie de Boer (@frederikdeboer) August 5, 2023
It's about time someone will go hard after those evil people.
Taunting your persecutor is the only way
— RL Scott (@rlscottrl) August 5, 2023
It has to be done and I get it
Get used to it! He is fighting back against the abusers of the legal system.
— RJ (@matpro661) August 5, 2023
To his credit, Trump doesn’t allow the corrupt government to set the terms of this engagement.
— Two-Pump Chump! (@montypythonfun) August 5, 2023
Yeah cause I’m sure if he sat there quietly they’d be so fair and reasonable with him. 🙄🙄🙄
— Jen in KC (@jenmickmars) August 5, 2023
Best words ever. An eye for an eye. God would want you to defend yourself.
— nancyonnine (@nancyonnine) August 5, 2023
He needs to keep his mouth shut.
— Jay Donaldson (@JayDona75791829) August 5, 2023
We all know that's not happening.
Mr. Turley,
— DOC (@doctormalibu) August 5, 2023
It was arguably intentional. Not a "mistake".
Consider what may come from a protective order limiting Trump'sa access to evidence or limiting his political speech in the middle of a campaign Jonathan.
How fast can Trump get a Supreme Court Review of his D.C.… pic.twitter.com/kRVKZqKkJB
Mr. Turley,
It was arguably intentional. Not a "mistake".
Consider what may come from a protective order limiting Trump's access to evidence or limiting his political speech in the middle of a campaign Jonathan.
How fast can Trump get a Supreme Court Review of his D.C. Indictment? Trump’s attorneys have a procedural tool to get to SCOTUS quickly (3 to 6 months) by appealing any interim order the Court may make in D.C. restricting his access to evidence or his free speech and political speech rights.
There is an expedited path to SCOTUS with an interlocutory appeal of the proposed order under 28 U.S. Code § 2101(e). He would not have to wait for a final judgment at trial.
Quoting:
“(e) An application to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review a case before judgment has been rendered in the court of appeals may be made at any time before judgment.
See also Supreme Court Rule 11
Quoting:
“A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals before judgment is entered in that court will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court." See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e).”
Hmm.
It was a campaign promise.
— Mary Seat 🍊 (@SeatMary) August 5, 2023
I hope he fulfills it.
As some have mentioned, it's not like he's going to get a fair trial anyway.
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member