This past Monday, I listened to two hours of the even longer oral arguments in United States v. Trump, regarding Judge Chutkan’s order limiting Trump’s attacks on Jack Smith, court staff and prospective witnesses in the criminal case against him. Several aspects of the argument stood out.

One was Trump’s lawyer’s desperate attempts to avoid conceding any limitation on what Trump can say, probably fearing that any concession of even the smallest point would swallow the entirety of his argument. His basic position was that Trump cannot be prevented from saying whatever he wants about anyone and everyone because of the First Amendment, and because he’s running for office, and because he’s Trump.

The court’s questioning, especially from Judge Millet, was detailed, incisive and brought back memories of law school classes in which the intellectual noose was tightened and then tightened some more as you tried to escape the traps laid by the professor. Trump’s lawyer kept trying to add facts to the hypothetical questions the judge asked, and she was not having it. It was somewhat embarrassing to witness and likely did not serve Trump well.

When counsel for the government addressed the court, however, the same questioning twisted itself into knots trying to determine whether there was any speech by Trump that could be prevented by the District Court order under review. The government was arguing that the First Amendment freedom of speech could be limited by the need to protect the integrity of the judicial process.

The judges struggled to find the limitations on that principle with questions like this: suppose Trump is in a debate during his campaign while the trial is underway, and his opponent raises testimony given in the trial. Can Trump say: that witness is a liar? A scoundrel?  A politically motivated anti-Trumper? Counsel for the government tried to argue, yes, that can be barred by court order to protect the integrity of the trial process but conceded that general statements about prejudice were acceptable. The court was not having it. Or so it seemed.

One thing you learn early in law school is that predicting how a court is going to rule by listening to questioning during oral argument is a fraught business. The media loves to predict outcomes but is often wrong — very wrong. Politico, to my surprise, published a reasonably balanced discussion of the oral arguments. https://tinyurl.com/2uy2v5e6

The key question comes down to how can “protection of the integrity of the judicial process” be accomplished without unconstitutionally restricting the speech of a defendant? It’s a difficult analysis.

In my view, the First Amendment privilege of the defendant must yield to the integrity of the judicial process. If the defendant is allowed to publicly attack witnesses and/or undermine the credibility of the prosecutors, the integrity of the process will be damaged, which is precisely why someone like Trump would and does almost daily engage in such attacks. Drawing the line between acceptable criticism, such as “the prosecution is politically motivated,” and impermissible attacks such as “the prosecutor is a thug, the witness is dishonest and prejudiced” is difficult.

But the court process has ways for these types of challenges to be brought before the court and decided, based on EVIDENCE, rather than permitting the defendant to undermine the entire process by intimidating lawyers and witnesses. Trump’s attorney made much of the challenges lawyers face in advising defendants regarding statements made about pending cases, some of which points seemed to resonate with the judges. One solution to that conundrum is to tell the client to stop talking about the case. If attacked, refer to any recorded testimony that arguably says otherwise. In short, stay factual and pass on the invective and threats.

But, of course, that’s not Trump’s style. Bullying and threatening are his standard repertoire. He’s not going to give it up unless the courts make it clear that the consequences for violating court orders designed to protect the judicial process will be met with severe consequences, including jail time. Meanwhile, since the gag order is on hold pending appellate court review, Trump will continue to be treated as a special class of one who is above the law that applies to everyone else.