“I’m willing to go to jail”: Trump attacks Judge Chutkan hours after she slapped him with gag order

Former President Donald Trump on Monday lashed out at U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan after she imposed a partial gag order in his election interference case.

Trump, who has repeatedly and baselessly accused Chutkan and special counsel Jack Smith of acting at the behest of President Joe Biden, claimed that the gag order was only imposed because “they’re getting beaten very badly by me in the polls.” (Most polls show a tight race between Trump and Biden).

“They think the only way they can catch me is to stop me from speaking. They want to take away my voice and a judge gave a gag order today,” Trump said during a rally in Clive, Iowa. “Did you hear that? On speech, which I believe is totally unconstitutional what she did. A judge gave a gag order, a judge doesn’t like me too much.”

The former president went on to claim that Chutkan’s “whole life is not liking me.”

“You know what a gag order is? You can’t speak badly about your opponent. But this is weaponry all being done because Joe Biden is losing the election and losing very, very badly to all of us in the polls. He’s losing badly,” Trump falsely claimed. Chutkan during the hearing explicitly said that criticizing Biden and his political opponents does not fall under the scope of the gag order.

“But what they don’t understand is that I am willing to go to jail if that’s what it takes for our country to win and become a democracy again,” Trump continued.

“Him going to jail if convicted of the crimes alleged would, in fact, be healthy for our democracy,” quipped national security attorney Bradley Moss.

Chutkan earlier in the day imposed a gag order barring Trump from “publicly targeting” special counsel Jack Smith, Smith’s staff, potential witnesses and “court personnel.” Chutkan did not include herself in the order.

“Mr. Trump is facing criminal charges,” the judge said Monday. “He does not get to respond to every criticism of him if his response would affect potential witnesses. That’s the bottom line here.”

Trump campaign spokesperson Jason Miller called the decision an “absolute abomination” and claimed that Biden “was granted the right to muzzle his political opponent.”

Trump on Truth Social cried “witch hunt” and vowed to “appeal” the gag order ruling.

Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal predicted that Trump’s appeal is “going nowhere.”

“No criminal defendant in their right mind would act the way Donald Trump did,” he told MSNBC. “I mean, the crazy part of this situation is not that a judge issued a gag order against the leading presidential candidate. The crazy part is that a leading presidential candidate has made a habit of threatening and attacking witnesses and prosecutors and court officials. That’s the story. And Donald Trump is incapable of doing anything else. That’s why I think it’s like a coin flip, whether Trump is gonna violate this gag order first, or whether the House is going to elect a new Speaker first.”

Katyal added that no other criminal defendant “can even get away with“ his repeated attacks.

“She’s allowing him to get away with that here,” he said. “And the gag order — it simply tells Trump to behave. But he has a modicum of decency, which is probably why it will be so hard to follow that.”

---

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

---

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance called Trump’s effort to conflate the court order with an action by the Biden administration is a “deliberate move on his part to misinform the public.”

“Trump proves every day, that he’s unfit for public office,” she tweeted. “But he continues to get away with it. The question is, when does it end? Not just an indictment here or a gag order there, although those are important milestones—when will Trump finally be held accountable?”

Vance noted that Trump could potentially face fines or even arrest if he violates the gag order and added that Chutkan previously mentioned potentially moving up the trial date as a sanction.

“She has a lot of options & an appeals court might back her on an out of the box sanction if she imposes one because of the need to consider 1st Amendment rights in this unique situation,” Vance wrote.