The judge set bail at $200,000 for defendant Trump, which seems a rather silly amount. After all, if he’s a billionaire as he claims, then walking (or running) away from $200 grand really won’t make much of a difference in his life. If bail is warranted at all, then make it matter, as in $2 billion. But then, if the judge doesn’t see any potential for Trump fleeing the country and setting up a government in absentia if things take a turn for the worse, then why impose bail at all? Release him on his own recognizance unless there is a reason to set bail. Bail is not punishment, no matter how much you want to see him punished sooner rather than later, and over and over.
But the kicker here isn’t the money, which presumably Trump can afford by relying on the naivete of his supporters donations, but the conditions of bail.
Under his bond agreement in Georgia, Mr. Trump cannot communicate with any co-defendants in the case except through his lawyers. He was also directed to “make no direct or indirect threat of any nature against the community,” including “posts on social media or reposts of posts made by another individual.”
The terms were more extensive than those set for other defendants in the case so far, which did not specifically mention social media. In the past, Mr. Trump has made inflammatory and sometimes false personal attacks on Fani T. Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, who is leading the case.
The direction not to communicate with co-defendants except through lawyers is surprising. In the ordinary scheme of prosecution of multiple defendants, the defendants regularly talk, discuss their defense, their options and their joint strategy. It’s very much a part of the nature of a group charged with conspiracy to engage in mutual discussion for the benefit of their defense. It is not, per se, improper, unless communication is being used to suborn perjury, to intimidate co-defendants not to cooperate, to threaten or coerce them to do something untoward.
But making “no direct or indict threat” against any of the co-defendants, the witnesses, the prosecutors and the judge is another matter. There is the question of what constitutes a threat, which can include implicitly telling his sycophants to take action against any of the other players in this drama. Can Trump play his usual game of attacking his enemies and get away with it?
Mr. Trump’s attacks continued on Monday ahead of his bond being set. In a post on Truth Social, he called Ms. Willis “crooked, incompetent, & highly partisan” and wrote that she “has allowed Murder and other Violent Crime to MASSIVELY ESCALATE.” In fact, homicides have fallen sharply in Atlanta in the first half of the year.
Being critical, even falsely critical, of those Trump either believes or wants his followers to believe are his enemies is protected First Amendment speech. Obstructing justice, on the other hand, is not. He cannot intimidate witnesses or suborn perjury. He cannot poison the jury pool. He cannot seek to intimidate the prosecution or the judge. Just because it emanates from his mouth (or fingers) does not mean he’s allowed to do so.
But that happens if he does?
If Trump persists in his incoherent rantings against his “enemies,” the judge is left with four options. The first is to do nothing, which will neither deter Trump from engaging in prohibited conduct nor reflect well on the judge. The second is to speak sternly to Trump, with an “or else” on the back in the hope that that time, if not this time, he will do as directed. The third is to increase his bail amount as a tangible reflection of the seriousness of the bail conditions.
And the fourth is to remand Trump to the custody of the Fulton County sheriff.
The first three options are tepid and pointless, as there is absolutely nothing in Trump’s rather flagrant history to suggest that complying with a court’s admonitions means anything to him. No one has ever suggested that Trump has respect for anything a judge has to say unless it happens to benefit him.
But can he be remanded, jailed, for disobeying the court’s prohibitions? Would any judge tell the court officers to “take charge” of the defendant? How would that even work with his Secret Service detail? And what would become of a judge who jailed a candidate for the Republican nomination for the presidency of the United States?
Then again, if the judge does not remand Trump for giving the court a big finger and proceeding with his usual child-like rants and attacks, it makes clear that Trump is, indeed, above the law and cannot be treated like the criminal defendant he is. It’s a conundrum.
*Tuesday Talk rules apply, within reason.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m not sure why anyone assumes or believes the Secret Service would suddenly go blue on blue and obstruct a peace officer carrying out a lawful order if and when it becomes necessary to take Trump into custody. They take an oath to the constitution, not the man. There’s no evidence to suggest that they would be anything but cooperative.
Jake,
Does the phrase, “Vee vurr chust follovink orduhs” resonate with you in any way?
Zero to Godwin in two comments. Our host must be so proud.
Not that a tepid allusion equals a cogent argument, of course.
It isn’t a question of obstruction; it’s how it would work as a practical matter. If the Secret Service are required to protect Trump, would they be obligated to accompany him into jail? If not, what measures would be taken to protect Trump? If so, would they be permitted to carry firearms? How would the competing directives and authorities of the Secret Service and corrections officers be resolved?
To me, it seems unlikely that Trump would be placed into pre-trial custody based solely on twits (or other social media posts) both due to the logistical challenges and the thorny 1A issues.
I don’t think any serious person has suggested Trump will be taken into custody and sent to the county lockup. I’m no expert on these matters but I suspect it would be a highly coordinate and choreographed operation with the Court Services division of the Sheriff’s office and Secret Service playing a role that would ultimately see Trump on some version of house arrest.
The question of whether Trump’s freedoms may one day be curtailed was already asked and answered. The system will do what it does from here on out.
Trump IS above the law. Would any other obnoxious 77 year old get the leeway he is getting? Would any other “Don” (say Vito, or John) get this freedom?
Seeing him behind bars would make me happy. However, it would turn him into martyr and add more fuel to fire of his crazy followers. I thought the DC judge saying she would just move the trial up after, the last thing he wants, was brilliant.
Maybe take his passport and lockdown his private plane and give him an ankle monitor would be the next thing after moving the trial way up.
Those are certainly interim measures short of remand, but I suspect the only thing that will accomplish is to set him off worse. After all, do you expect him to fly commercial?
By his own words he is so far ahead of everyone else that he doesn’t need to go to the debates. I guess he doesn’t go out on the campaign trail either.
First time, hold him until after his dinner time. Second time, hold him overnight. Third time…..
First make him an instant martyr, and then cut him loose again to do whatever it is he needs to do. I mean, you have a good idea, but it could also be a terrible idea.
Take the ketchup away.
I’m not so sure the Secret Service would allow one of their protectees to be GPS tracked by anyone other than them. It does raise valid concerns about their ability to keep him protected.
Noticeably absent is the usual call for protests from Trump, which may be indicative that he believes conditions will be enforced..
It’s Tuesday, so . . .
A farmer stopped by a hardware store and bought a bucket and a gallon of paint. Then he stopped by the feed store and picked up a couple of chickens and a goose.
However, struggling outside the store, he wondered how to carry all his purchases home.
While he was scratching his head, he was approached by a lady who told him she was lost.
She asked, ‘Can you tell me how to get to this address please?’
The farmer said, ‘Well, as a matter of fact, my farm is very close to that house. I would walk you there, but I can’t carry this lot.’
The lady suggested, ‘Why don’t you put the can of paint in the bucket, carry the bucket in one hand, put a chicken under each arm, and carry the goose in your other hand?’
‘Thats a good idea,’ he said, and proceeded to walk the lady home.
On the way, he said, ‘Let’s take my short cut and go down this alley. We’ll be there in no time.’
The lady looked him over cautiously and said, ‘I am a lonely widow without a husband to protect me. How do I know that when we get in the alley you won’t hold me up against the wall, pull up my skirt, and have your way with me?’
The farmer said, ‘Holy smokes, lady! I’m carrying a bucket, a gallon of paint, two chickens, and a goose. How in the world could I possibly hold you up against the wall and do that?’
The lady replied, ‘Set the goose down, cover him with the bucket, put the paint on top of the bucket, and I’ll hold the chickens.’
BTW, liked this and plan to use it.
Most likely w/o attribution.
“There are situations in life in which any action you take makes the outcome worse.”
Guitardave
There will be no meaningful enforcement of bail conditions. Why? Because Trump is a member of the club. He may be a brash, obnoxious member who blurts out things that more refined members only say quietly when the rubes aren’t around, but he is a member nonetheless. Any “punishment” that he endures will only attract more attention to his antics. Nothing will hamper his ability to amuse and entertain the audience, because after all he is the star of the show.
One of those military maxims that flows well onto the bench: Never give an order you know won’t be obeyed.
Right up there with, “Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake” and “Incoming fire has the right of way”.
I wonder if the “no talking to co-defendants” is a regional thing because it’s quite a common pretrial release condition in my jurisdiction in the PNW. Even if the court does not impose it, it’s advice I *absolutely* stress to my clients. A lot of co-defendant cases turn into a musical chairs round of J’Accuse! where everyone points the finger at someone else. This is a great strategy for almost any conspiracy (from selling drugs to burglarizing a house) where it’s always advantageous to claim someone else was masterminding the whole thing.
Some of the more “experienced” co-defendants get particularly wily and talk to others with the explicit goal of eliciting incriminating statements or information that they could feed to their lawyer for further investigation. So as practice, I always tell my clients to STFU with co-defendants, and that it’s part of my job to act as the middleman if they *really* need anything said or discussed with the others. I don’t trust them not to say the wrong thing that ends up fucking them over.
It’s certainly plausible for co-defendants to successfully organize into a stonewall of silence cartel, but as always all you need is one defector to bring the house down.