Donald Trump Wakes Up at 1 AM to Rage Against 'RADICAL LEFT JUDGE' After Gag Order is Reinstated
Oct. 31 2023, Published 11:18 a.m. ET
Donald Trump was up all night ranting about “crooked” Joe Biden and the “radical left judge” who recently reinstated a gag order against him, RadarOnline.com has learned.
At around 1 AM, the ex-president took to his social media platform Truth Social to unload his feelings. He wrote to his followers, “RADICAL LEFT JUDGE TAKING AWAY MY RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IN ORDER TO HELP CROOKED JOE BIDEN & HIS THIRD WORLD ELECTION INTERFERENCE SCAM. AS GOOD AS THIS SOUNDS, IT WON’T WORK!”
He added, “REMEMBER, CROOKED JOE BIDEN AND HIS RADICAL LEFT THUGS WAITED THREE YEARS TO BRING THESE INDICTMENTS & LAWSUITS AGAINST ME, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF MY CAMPAIGN!”
A couple of hours later, at 4:42 AM, Trump reappeared to write, “ELECTION INTERFERENCE!!!” before signing off for the morning.
The attack comes hours after US District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied a request brought by Trump and his team to issue a “long-term stay of the gag order. If a “stay” was granted, Trump would not have to follow the rules of the gag order.
Chutkan presides over Trump’s criminal case in DC. The ex-president faces four charges for his alleged role in the January 6. Insurrection and efforts to interfere with the election.
Earlier this month, Chutkan issued the gag order, but Trump appealed the ruling. The gag order was put on pause while Trump fought to dismiss it.
On Sunday, Chutkan submitted a nine-page opinion that revived her gag order. In it, she said had the gag order not been pause due to Trump’s appeal, his recent comments about his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, would “almost certainly violate the order.”
Trump publicly attacked Meadows after ABC released a report claiming Meadows had agreed to testify for Jack Smith in exchange for immunity.
“As the court has explained, the First Amendment rights of participants in criminal proceedings must yield, when necessary, to the orderly administration of justice—a principle reflected in Supreme Court precedent, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Local Criminal Rules,” the judge wrote in her opinion. “And contrary to Defendant’s argument, the right to a fair trial is not his alone, but belongs also to the government and the public.”
“The statement singles out a foreseeable witness for purposes of characterizing his potentially unfavorable testimony as a “lie” “mad(e) up” to secure immunity, and it attacks him as a “weakling and coward” if he provides that unfavorable testimony—an attack that could readily be interpreted as an attempt to influence or prevent the witness’s participation in this case,” Chutkan added.