Former President Donald Trump uses social media to make his voice heard more than any other current political figure. He communicates plainly and to the point on a near-daily basis, using his own words rather than the language typically employed in press releases.

Regarding the numerous legal assaults against him, Trump has stated repeatedly that his actions are lawful. This week’s indictment by Special Council Jack Smith in Washington, D.C., and Trump’s judicial appearance in Washington, D.C., prompted the former president to post a threat: “If you go after me, I’m coming after you”.

It began when news emerged Friday evening that Smith had filed a request for a protective order in response to the Trump Truth social post, arguing that Trump posts could have a chilling effect on witnesses, as reported by Mediate.

In the motion, Smith wrote:

All the proposed order seeks to prevent is the improper dissemination or use of discovery materials, including to the public. Such a restriction is particularly important in this case because the defendant has previously issued public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him. And in recent days, regarding this case, the defendant has issued multiple posts—either specifically or by implication—including the following, which the defendant posted just hours ago:

If the defendant were to issue public posts containing discovery-obtained information, such as grand jury transcripts, it could have a chilling effect on witnesses and impair the administration of justice in this case.

If this reminds you of January 6, when Trump encouraged his supporters to “go peacefully and make their voices heard,” the answer is yes. Every day, thousands of social media posts are made with personal opinions and statements, but Smith singles out Trump for being excessive when viewers interpret the statement as Trump removing his gloves after repeated assaults.

Although the Trump campaign subsequently defended the post and denied that it was intended as a threat, claiming that the message was directed at “the RINO, China-loving, dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs, like those funded by the Koch brothers and the Club for No Growth,” Smith went even further.

According to Mediate, Smith’s legal team submitted a proposed order for Federal District Judge Tanya Chutkan to sign, which reads in part:

The defendant and defense counsel shall not disclose the Materials or their contents directly or indirectly to any person or entity other than persons employed to assist in the defense, persons who are interviewed as potential witnesses, counsel for potential witnesses, and other persons to whom the Court may authorize disclosure (collectively, “Authorized Persons”). Potential witnesses and their counsel may be shown copies of the Materials as necessary to prepare the defense, but they may not retain copies without prior permission of the Court.

Saturday, Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered Trump’s legal team to submit a response and their own proposed order. The judge wrote:

MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: It is hereby ORDERED that by 5:00 PM on August 7, 2023, Defendant shall file a response to the government’s 10 Motion for Protective Order, stating Defendant’s position on the Motion. If Defendant disagrees with any portion of the government’s proposed Protective Order, ECF No. 10-1, his response shall include a revised version of that Protective Order with any modifications in redline. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/05/2023

Who is this judge who orders a defendant to defend a social media post containing neither obscenity nor specific language indicating a “threat” rather than a promise? Obama appointed Judge Chutkan, who was nominated “at random” to preside over the case. However, Judge Chutkin is anything but impartial.

Chutkan has presided over a large number of criminal cases involving alleged January 6 demonstrators. CNN reported that she has been vociferous about the riot during multiple sentencing hearings, labeling the violence an assault on American democracy and warning of the future threat of political violence, and has repeatedly exceeded what prosecutors have requested for the prison sentences of convicted rioters.

CNN reported:

Chutkan has tacitly referenced Trump during criminal sentencings, saying to one rioter that he “did not go to the United States Capitol out of any love for our country. … He went for one man.”

During a sentencing hearing on October 4, 2021, Chutkan rejected comparisons between the actions at the Capitol and the previous violent protests around the country. “To compare the actions of people around the country protesting, mostly peacefully, for civil rights to a violent mob seeking to overthrow the lawfully elected government is a false equivalency,” she said.

Trump is preparing for battle.