Federal Court Claims Trump’s Flight Risk Status; Where Can He Escape To Mars?

In an unexpected turn of events, a recent revelation surfaced involving a subpoena directed at Twitter by Special Counsel Jack Smith. This development raised eyebrows for a variety of reasons, one being the substantial fine of $350,000 imposed by U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell as a consequence of Twitter’s three-day delay in responding to the demand.

There are two particularly astonishing and troubling elements to this situation, which make it even more perplexing:

Firstly, the subpoena was shrouded in secrecy, baffling many observers. In addition, Judge Howell’s rationale for maintaining this veil of secrecy was partly predicated on the notion that former President Trump posed a flight risk. Two elements were surprising and concerning about the subpoena. Firstly, it was kept secret, and secondly, Howell justified it partly on the basis that Trump might flee. However, neither of these reasons seems appropriate in this case, even though the subpoena may have been necessary in other ways.

It should be noted that Special Counsel Jack Smith took the initiative to issue a subpoena, accompanied by a search warrant, pertaining to the Twitter account formerly associated with President Trump, hereafter referred to as “X.” However, an additional layer of complexity was introduced by Smith through the application of a non-disclosure order, effectively barring X from disclosing the existence or content of the search warrant to Trump or any other parties. This prompts an inquiry into the necessity of such non-disclosure, given that Trump was already aware of being under investigation, rendering the need for secrecy somewhat puzzling.

The court’s position on Trump’s potential for altering his behavior is worth considering, even though the likelihood of such a change appears dubious. In fact, Trump’s engagement with social media has exhibited remarkable consistency over time. Despite criticism for his online posts, he has shown an unwavering determination to continue his established practices.

In a notable declaration, the lower court expressed that there existed “reasonable grounds to believe” that revealing the warrant to former President Trump would pose a significant threat to the ongoing investigation. This apprehension stemmed from concerns that Trump might exploit the situation to tamper with evidence, modify his behavioral patterns, or notify accomplices. However, it remains unclear how Trump could effectively eliminate evidence held by X, particularly following the company’s awareness of its obligation to preserve and divulge metadata.

An additional layer of reasoning was tucked away within footnote 2 of the D.C. Circuit opinion, which contended that Trump might attempt to evade authorities and flee. Strikingly, Judge Howell concurred with this notion that the former President harbored a propensity to flee justice. Let this notion sink in for a moment: despite Trump’s constant security detail, the idea that he could somehow elude them and escape legal consequences was entertained. Notably, he remains one of the most instantly recognizable individuals on the global stage, making the notion of anonymity virtually impossible without resorting to extraordinary measures.

Upon contemplation, this proposition appears patently absurd. Trump’s legal history involves various lawsuits and criminal charges spanning different regions of the country. However, there has never been an instance of him attempting to evade the legal process. The question arises: where could he realistically escape to? The prospect of him seeking refuge in Cuba or any other location appears implausible.

The notion that Trump’s flight risk was considered undermines the credibility of the court’s decision. It’s crucial to emphasize that this is not an indictment of the court’s capability to compel the release of information. Nevertheless, the rationale behind maintaining secrecy appears far from self-evident. Rather, it seems that the primary outcome of this approach was to preclude any potential challenges that might have arisen from a more transparent approach.