Trump's 'weaklings and cowards' attack may have violated pretrial release terms: Analyst

A rambling social media screed in which Donald Trump dubbed court witnesses "weaklings and cowards" could be seen as an “implicit threat," a Washington Post opinion piece said Wednesday.

The former U.S. president took to Truth Social Tuesday night, soon after reports surfaced that Mark Meadows, his co-defendant and former chief of staff, had been granted immunity to deliver key testimony in the federal trial involving attempts to overturn the 2020 election result.

“Some people would make that deal, but they are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future [of] our Failing Nation,” Trump wrote.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

“You can keep your family and your wealth, and, perhaps, if you can make up some really horrible ‘STUFF’ [about] him, we may very well erect a statue of you in the middle of our decaying and now very violent Capital.”

Washington Post analyst Aaron Blake called Trump’s Tuesday night post one of his “most brazen,” and suggested it may have violated conditions of his pretrial release, which include a pledge not to intimidate a witness.

“Trump is clearly intent upon testing what Chutkan will permit,” Blake wrote. “It’s difficult to see how that implicit threat of public opprobrium wouldn’t weigh on these witnesses and others who might cut their own deals.”

The comments could also run afoul of Chutkan’s limited gag order, which was suspended Friday as the judge considers how best a challenge to it from Trump’s attorneys.

Trump has already been fined twice for violating another gag order in his New York civil case, whose judge has threatened to throw the 2024 presidential candidate in prison.

Blake believes Trump will only continue to get more brazen, raising serious questions about whether the lead conservative candidate in the 2024 presidential election should be in any way silenced.

“Trump isn’t going to stop doing this and will probably just keep upping the ante,” Blake wrote.

“The big question is when a judge might decide that, whatever the drawbacks of severely sanctioning a presidential candidate and leader of a major political party, the alternative could be even worse.”