By
Donald Trump picking fights with prominent figures he used to support is not new. The former president’s offensive against retired Gen. Mark Milley, however, is not just another tiresome dispute.
To briefly recap, the four-star Army general, who ended a lengthy and decorated military career late last week, recently spoke at some length with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg about his tenure as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Milley’s perspective included some important criticisms of Trump — the president who appointed him to serve as the nation’s chief military officer.
The Republican had already taken a variety of ugly rhetorical shots at Milley — calling the general a “dumbass” and an “idiot” — but 10 days ago, he took matters to new extremes, falsely accusing Milley of having committed a “treasonous act” in the wake of Trump’s 2020 defeat. “[I]n times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!” Trump wrote on his social media platform.
This led to a variety of related exchanges, with Milley defending himself on “60 Minutes,” and Trump publishing additional nonsense about the retired general. As Milley exited the stage on Friday, he reminded servicemen and women at his retirement ceremony that they owe their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, not to a “wannabe dictator.”
This ordinarily wouldn’t have been an especially notable or controversial comment, except for the fact that much of the political world assumed that he was referring to the former president. (The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal was especially critical of Milley for saying something that was obviously true.)
Taking a step back, it appeared one of the principal concerns surrounding Trump’s offensive was how some of his more radical followers might perceive them. Indeed, Milley told “60 Minutes” that in the aftermath of the Republican’s toxic tirade, he’s taken “appropriate measures“ to ensure his and his family’s safety.
But as it turns out, there’s another dimension to this that might not have been immediately obvious. NBC News reported:
Special counsel Jack Smith’s team argued in a court filing Friday that recent comments made by Donald Trump about now-former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley and other public officials reinforced its argument that the former president should be restricted in his remarks about the federal election interference case.
Trump has waged “a sustained campaign of prejudicial public statements regarding witnesses, the Court, the District, and prosecutors” they wrote in a 22-page filing.
For those who might’ve missed the story a few weeks ago, it was in early September when the special counsel’s office asked a federal judge for a narrowly tailored gag order intended to restrict the Republican from making certain extrajudicial statements. As part of the request, Smith cited threats against individuals whom Trump has targeted.
“The defendant has an established practice of issuing inflammatory public statements targeted at individuals or institutions that present an obstacle or challenge to him,” the special counsel’s office wrote at the time, pointing to Trump’s “near-daily” social media outbursts.
And that was before the GOP candidate suggested the chairman of the Joint Chiefs deserved to be executed.
“The need for the proposed order is further evidenced by a review of the defendant’s prejudicial statements in the weeks since the Government initially filed its motion on September 5,” Smith’s office wrote in its new filing.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, has scheduled an Oct. 16 hearing to discuss a potential gag order. Watch this space.