A former federal prosecutor, Neama Rahmani, has criticized U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan by sending her a dire warning. Neama urged her to enforce penalties against former President Donald Trump for violating a gag order.
As reported by the Conservative Brief on Monday, December 11, 2023, Rahmani, now president of the West Coast Trial Lawyers law firm, emphasized the need for Chutkan to take significant action, suggesting either imprisonment or contempt charges for Trump’s repeated breaches of the order
Speaking to Newsweek, Rahmani highlighted that the recent federal appeals court decision upheld the gag order but notably narrowed its scope.
While permitting Trump to criticize Special Counsel Jack Smith, the court ruled against any commentary targeting Smith’s family, court officials, and staff due to alleged threats from Trump’s supporters.
Rahmani stressed the importance of Chutkan’s commitment to enforcing the gag order, stating, “All of this is meaningless unless Judge Chutkan is actually going to enforce the gag order and revoke Trump’s bond or hold him in contempt.” He expressed dissatisfaction with previous judicial responses, describing them as “minor, meaningless fines.
Revoking Trump’s bond, Rahmani noted, would result in Trump spending the time between the revocation and his March trial behind bars.
Trump faces four counts related to attempting to overturn the 2020 election, leading to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Despite pleading not guilty and characterizing the charges as part of a political witch hunt, Trump campaigns as the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.
..
Rahmani, drawing on his experience in significant federal cases, acknowledged the First Amendment challenges involved in restraining a presidential candidate’s speech. However, he argued that Trump had pushed the limits of free expression, and gag orders had been routinely upheld by appellate courts
Regarding the appeals court’s decision to reinstate the gag order, Rahmani expressed surprise at the exclusion of Special Counsel Jack Smith. He speculated that the court may have reasoned that Smith, as a party to the case, understood the implications when charging Trump.
In response to the appellate ruling, the Trump campaign claimed the court had lifted a “huge part of Judge Chutkan’s extraordinarily overbroad gag order.”
The three-judge panel, in its ruling, acknowledged the need to balance Trump’s First Amendment rights with the administration of justice.
The court specifically cited Trump’s previous attacks on government officials involved in the criminal proceeding, emphasizing the importance of maintaining fair and orderly administration of justice. The decision narrowed Chutkan’s gag order, allowing Trump to criticize Smith and case witnesses within certain boundaries.
The legal battle surrounding the gag order continues to unfold, with Rahmani urging Judge Chutkan to take decisive action against Trump’s violations. The delicate balance between First Amendment rights and the administration of justice remains a central theme in this ongoing legal saga.
