WASHINGTON – The federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference trial warned Friday she would speed up court proceedings should the former president say anything that could be construed as intimidating witnesses or tainting the jury pool.

“The more a party makes inflammatory statements about this case … the greater the urgency will be to complete the trial to ensure a jury pool from which we can select an impartial jury,” US District Judge Tanya Chutkan said. “I caution all of you, therefore, to take special care in your public statements about this case. 

“I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings,” she added.

The warning came after Chutkan sided with the defense in finding that Trump may make public certain “non-sensitive” evidence in the case, but held that he may not release information about potential witnesses – including those who may be his opponents for the 2024 Republican nomination.

Prosecutors had flagged some of Trump’s recent public statements against prosecutors, Chutkan and others involved with the case. They also were concerned by recent comments he’s made disparaging former Vice President Mike Pence, who will likely be called to testify.

“The former president of the United States who is running in a presidential campaign [would be] talking about potential witnesses who may not have the kinds of protection that he has,” the judge said in explaining the possible risk.

The threat of accelerating the trial appeared to resonate with Trump’s legal team, who have expressed their intention to delay the proceedings as long as possible to allow time to best plot their defense. 

“I can assure you that my client will abide by the integrity of the process,” defense attorney John Lauro said.

Trump himself was excused from in-person attendance at the hearing, and spent the day at his golf club in Bedminster, NJ, taking in the LIV Golf event.

Chutkan further ruled that the 77-year-old could privately review unreleasable, sensitive grand jury testimony provided by prosecutors in a secure location without his attorneys present – but added that he could not take notes, copies or photos of the material.

Prosecutor Thomas Windom had tried to block the defense from sharing any evidence with the public, arguing the 45th president would use them not for court, but the campaign trail.

“The defendant’s proposal is specifically tailored to permit them to try this case in the media,” he said. “Here, the defendant is asking for the court’s blessing to be able to use criminal discovery for political purposes. 

“That is not a proper use of discovery,” he added.

Further, Windom told Chutkan that without the protective order, the defense – which he noted was strategizing to get the case moved out of the deep-blue District – could not be stopped from leaking key details about the case to intentionally taint the potential jury pool and “systematically and scientifically” create grounds for a change of venue.

For example, Windom said he feared Trump would run advertisements featuring court evidence and witness testimony on the city’s Metro train systems.

Chutkan initially seemed unsympathetic, stating that prosecutors had not yet proven how the release of non-sensitive information would thwart a fair trial.

However, she changed her tone when Lauro argued that his client should be able to use non-sensitive discovery on the campaign trail to defend himself against any possible allegations made by his White House rivals.

“Since prosecutors decided to bring this case in the middle of a campaign, President Trump has the [right] to respond fairly to political opponents,” Lauro asserted.

Chutkan shot back: “But defendant’s desire to conduct a campaign [and] respond to political opponents has to yield.”

“I hate to say that is his ‘day job’ – (but) I mean, this is a criminal case,” she said. “The need for this case to proceed and in the normal order and protect witnesses and the integrity of the process means that there are going to be limits on the defendant’s speech.”

Chutkan then chided Lauro for his argument, saying her job was to “protect the integrity” of the case – not to police political campaigns. 

“I intend to ensure that your client is afforded all the rights he’s entitled to,” Chutkan told Lauro. “I reiterate that the existence of a political campaign is not going to have any factor in my decision, other than [that I would give] any other lawyer coming before me saying that my client needs to be able to do his job.”

She added that she would consider Trump’s political activities no different than any other defendant’s employment.

Windom told Chutkan he found it “telling” that the defense’s argument did not “actually indicate any way in which the government’s proposed order hinders the defendant’s use of discovery material in defense of this case in the courtroom.”

By contrast, he argued that protecting the information would serve three legal purposes: to ensure the discovery is used “for the fair and efficient adjudication in the courtroom, as opposed to the public”; safeguard witnesses’ personal security; and prevent “prejudicial pre-trial publicity.” 

Chutkan then agreed with some of the arguments, again expressing concerns that Trump and the public could browbeat witnesses if the 45th president is allowed to disseminate witness statements, recordings, or identities.

She ultimately ruled that Trump may talk about “non-sensitive” discovery, but held that prosecutors must determine which evidence qualifies under the definition, which the defense can challenge in court. 

Windom said such material is likely to be a fraction of the 11.6 million pages of discovery and full hard drive the government plans to hand over.

With the protective order in place, Windom said he intended to begin sending the defense discovery the same day.

Windom then argued that Trump should be required to be supervised by one of his lawyers when reviewing the sensitive discovery so he does not receive “unfettered access to evidence to do with it what he wants.”

“[Trump] has shown a tendency to hold onto material that he shouldn’t,” the prosecutor said, an apparent reference to charges that the former president unlawfully hoarded national security material at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Lauro, however, argued that requiring the defense team to “babysit” Trump while he reviews discovery would unfairly bog down the attorneys.

Chutkan settled on the eyes-only plan as a “compromise,” noting that a secure facility would need to be set aside for the defendant.

“While I intend to ensure that Mr. Trump is afforded all the rights that any citizen would have,” she said, “I also take seriously what the Supreme Court [has called] a ‘carnival atmosphere of public publicity and trial by media.’”

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Aug. 28, at which Chutkan is expected to set a trial date. Prosecutors have asked for proceedings to begin Jan. 2, 2024, 13 days before the Iowa Republican caucuses.