Former U.S. President Donald Trump boards his plane at Reagan National Airport on August 3, 2023 in Arlington, Virginia.
Will Trump Go to Jail Before His Trial Even Begins?
He has already violated a key condition of his release pending trial.
Friends,
At Trump’s arraignment last Thursday for trying to overturn the result of the 2020 election, Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya warned him that he could be taken into custody if he violated the conditions of his release, including attempting to influence jurors or intimidate future witnesses.
Calling him “Mr. Trump” rather than President Trump — thereby emphasizing that he was being treated as any criminal defendant would be treated — she said:
“I want to remind you that it is a crime to try to influence a juror or to threaten or attempt to bribe a witness or any other person who may have information about your case, or to retaliate against anyone for providing information about your case to the prosecution, or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice.”
The judge then warned Trump, “You have heard your conditions of release. It is important you comply. You may be held pending trial in this case if you violate the conditions of release.”
She asked Trump, “Do you understand these warnings and consequences, sir? Are you prepared to comply?”
Trump responded, “Yes.”
But not 24 hours later, Trump posted on social media a message that could be understood as an attempt to influence potential jurors or retaliate against any witness prepared to testify against him: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”
On Friday evening, prosecutors from the office of Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the court for a protective order to stop Trump from making public any of the information they were about to deliver to his lawyers under the discovery phase of the upcoming criminal trial, such as the names of witnesses who will testify against him.
They noted that such protection was “particularly important” because Trump “has previously issued public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys and others associated with legal matters pending against him.”
Citing his social media message from earlier in the day, they argued that publishing such information “could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses.” The prosecutors included a screenshot of Trump’s threatening post from that same evening.
On Saturday, the presiding judge in the case, Judge Tanya Chutkan, ordered that Trump’s lawyers respond to the prosecutor’s request for a protective order by 5 pm today.
All through the weekend, Trump continued to threaten potential witnesses. “WOW, it’s finally happened! Liddle’ Mike Pence, a man who was about to be ousted as Governor Indiana until I came along and made him V.P., has gone to the Dark Side,” he posted Saturday.
And Trump hasn’t stopped attempting to obstruct justice. On Sunday he called Special Counsel Jack Smith “deranged,” and in another all-caps message he accused Smith of waiting to bring the case until “right in the middle” of his election campaign. In another post he asserted that he would never get a “fair trial” with Judge Chutkan and jurors from Washington, D.C.
Folks, these statements directly violate the conditions of Trump’s release pending trial. They also could inflame Trump supporters — thereby endangering those who are trying to administer justice, such as Jack Smith and Judge Chutkan, as well as potential witnesses like Mike Pence.
***
It’s going to get worse unless Judge Chutkan (on her own initiative or at the urging of prosecutors) orders Trump’s lawyers to show cause why his release pending trial should not be revoked in light of his violation of the conditions of his release.
This would at least put Trump on notice that he will be treated like any other criminal defendant who violates conditions of release pending trial.
That’s what the rule of law is all about. At this moment, 400,000 criminal defendants in the United States are awaiting trial in jail because they didn’t meet a condition of their release.
Trump is now under the supervision of the court, as would be any criminal defendant after an arraignment. But he will continue to test the willingness and ability of the court to treat him like any other criminal defendant unless he’s firmly reined in.
The court must fully assert the rule of law during these proceedings, even if that requires threatening Trump with jail pending his trial.
Or actually putting him in jail.
What do you think?
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Friends,
At Trump’s arraignment last Thursday for trying to overturn the result of the 2020 election, Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya warned him that he could be taken into custody if he violated the conditions of his release, including attempting to influence jurors or intimidate future witnesses.
Calling him “Mr. Trump” rather than President Trump — thereby emphasizing that he was being treated as any criminal defendant would be treated — she said:
“I want to remind you that it is a crime to try to influence a juror or to threaten or attempt to bribe a witness or any other person who may have information about your case, or to retaliate against anyone for providing information about your case to the prosecution, or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice.”
The judge then warned Trump, “You have heard your conditions of release. It is important you comply. You may be held pending trial in this case if you violate the conditions of release.”
She asked Trump, “Do you understand these warnings and consequences, sir? Are you prepared to comply?”
Trump responded, “Yes.”
But not 24 hours later, Trump posted on social media a message that could be understood as an attempt to influence potential jurors or retaliate against any witness prepared to testify against him: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”
On Friday evening, prosecutors from the office of Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the court for a protective order to stop Trump from making public any of the information they were about to deliver to his lawyers under the discovery phase of the upcoming criminal trial, such as the names of witnesses who will testify against him.
They noted that such protection was “particularly important” because Trump “has previously issued public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys and others associated with legal matters pending against him.”
Citing his social media message from earlier in the day, they argued that publishing such information “could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses.” The prosecutors included a screenshot of Trump’s threatening post from that same evening.
On Saturday, the presiding judge in the case, Judge Tanya Chutkan, ordered that Trump’s lawyers respond to the prosecutor’s request for a protective order by 5 pm today.
All through the weekend, Trump continued to threaten potential witnesses. “WOW, it’s finally happened! Liddle’ Mike Pence, a man who was about to be ousted as Governor Indiana until I came along and made him V.P., has gone to the Dark Side,” he posted Saturday.
And Trump hasn’t stopped attempting to obstruct justice. On Sunday he called Special Counsel Jack Smith “deranged,” and in another all-caps message he accused Smith of waiting to bring the case until “right in the middle” of his election campaign. In another post he asserted that he would never get a “fair trial” with Judge Chutkan and jurors from Washington, D.C.
Folks, these statements directly violate the conditions of Trump’s release pending trial. They also could inflame Trump supporters — thereby endangering those who are trying to administer justice, such as Jack Smith and Judge Chutkan, as well as potential witnesses like Mike Pence.
***
It’s going to get worse unless Judge Chutkan (on her own initiative or at the urging of prosecutors) orders Trump’s lawyers to show cause why his release pending trial should not be revoked in light of his violation of the conditions of his release.
This would at least put Trump on notice that he will be treated like any other criminal defendant who violates conditions of release pending trial.
That’s what the rule of law is all about. At this moment, 400,000 criminal defendants in the United States are awaiting trial in jail because they didn’t meet a condition of their release.
Trump is now under the supervision of the court, as would be any criminal defendant after an arraignment. But he will continue to test the willingness and ability of the court to treat him like any other criminal defendant unless he’s firmly reined in.
The court must fully assert the rule of law during these proceedings, even if that requires threatening Trump with jail pending his trial.
Or actually putting him in jail.
What do you think?
Friends,
At Trump’s arraignment last Thursday for trying to overturn the result of the 2020 election, Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya warned him that he could be taken into custody if he violated the conditions of his release, including attempting to influence jurors or intimidate future witnesses.
Calling him “Mr. Trump” rather than President Trump — thereby emphasizing that he was being treated as any criminal defendant would be treated — she said:
“I want to remind you that it is a crime to try to influence a juror or to threaten or attempt to bribe a witness or any other person who may have information about your case, or to retaliate against anyone for providing information about your case to the prosecution, or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice.”
The judge then warned Trump, “You have heard your conditions of release. It is important you comply. You may be held pending trial in this case if you violate the conditions of release.”
She asked Trump, “Do you understand these warnings and consequences, sir? Are you prepared to comply?”
Trump responded, “Yes.”
But not 24 hours later, Trump posted on social media a message that could be understood as an attempt to influence potential jurors or retaliate against any witness prepared to testify against him: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”
On Friday evening, prosecutors from the office of Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the court for a protective order to stop Trump from making public any of the information they were about to deliver to his lawyers under the discovery phase of the upcoming criminal trial, such as the names of witnesses who will testify against him.
They noted that such protection was “particularly important” because Trump “has previously issued public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys and others associated with legal matters pending against him.”
Citing his social media message from earlier in the day, they argued that publishing such information “could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses.” The prosecutors included a screenshot of Trump’s threatening post from that same evening.
On Saturday, the presiding judge in the case, Judge Tanya Chutkan, ordered that Trump’s lawyers respond to the prosecutor’s request for a protective order by 5 pm today.
All through the weekend, Trump continued to threaten potential witnesses. “WOW, it’s finally happened! Liddle’ Mike Pence, a man who was about to be ousted as Governor Indiana until I came along and made him V.P., has gone to the Dark Side,” he posted Saturday.
And Trump hasn’t stopped attempting to obstruct justice. On Sunday he called Special Counsel Jack Smith “deranged,” and in another all-caps message he accused Smith of waiting to bring the case until “right in the middle” of his election campaign. In another post he asserted that he would never get a “fair trial” with Judge Chutkan and jurors from Washington, D.C.
Folks, these statements directly violate the conditions of Trump’s release pending trial. They also could inflame Trump supporters — thereby endangering those who are trying to administer justice, such as Jack Smith and Judge Chutkan, as well as potential witnesses like Mike Pence.
***
It’s going to get worse unless Judge Chutkan (on her own initiative or at the urging of prosecutors) orders Trump’s lawyers to show cause why his release pending trial should not be revoked in light of his violation of the conditions of his release.
This would at least put Trump on notice that he will be treated like any other criminal defendant who violates conditions of release pending trial.
That’s what the rule of law is all about. At this moment, 400,000 criminal defendants in the United States are awaiting trial in jail because they didn’t meet a condition of their release.
Trump is now under the supervision of the court, as would be any criminal defendant after an arraignment. But he will continue to test the willingness and ability of the court to treat him like any other criminal defendant unless he’s firmly reined in.
The court must fully assert the rule of law during these proceedings, even if that requires threatening Trump with jail pending his trial.
Or actually putting him in jail.
What do you think?