In this episode of "Who Knew?"...

Think about it. The ACLU — the American Civil Liberties Union, of all organizations — siding with former President Donald J. Trump — on anything. "Mind-blowing" is an understatement.

Nevertheless, such was the case on Wednesday when the ACLU called on the judge presiding over Trump's federal 2020 election criminal case to reevaluate her gag order, arguing that it's both unconstitutional and overly broad and vague.

The ACLU wrote in its court filings:

Former President, and now Defendant, Donald Trump has said many things. Much that he has said has been patently false and has caused great harm to countless individuals, as well as to the Republic itself. Some of his words and actions have led him to this criminal indictment, which alleges grave wrongdoing in contempt of the peaceful transition of power.

While I'm not qualified to litigate or relitigate what Trump has wrongly said about the 2020 presidential election results,  I am — as is the case with all freedom-loving Americans — afforded the right to speak out when I believe justice has been ill-served. And, lo and behold, I believe that Donald Trump is being ill-served as we speak.

The ACLU's brief continued:

But Trump retains a First Amendment right to speak, and the rest of us retain a right to hear what he has to say.

Can I get a "Bingo!"? 

The ACLU further pointed out:

The entire order hinges on the meaning of the word ‘target.' But that meaning is ambiguous and fails to provide the fair warning that the Constitution demands, especially when, as here, it concerns a prior restraint on speech.

Yes, hell just froze over. And, lo and behold, the ACLU further contends that gagging Trump could stop him from commenting on critical issues throughout the 2024 presidential campaign.

This case is already one of the most talked-about trials of all time. There may never have been a better-known criminal case in American history, or a better-known defendant. 

With that in mind, to the extent that the Court’s order seeks to prevent future statements from affecting the impartiality of the potential jury pool, the order seems unlikely to make much of a difference.

That's kind of profound stuff, right there, regardless of one's opinion(s) of the indictments against Trump, the 2024 presidential election, the well-being of the country, or the Constitution of the United States.

Incidentally, in related news, as we reported, Trump was recently fined $10,000 for violating a gag order in the New York civil case.

The Bottom Line

Arguably, Donald Trump has been subject to more public humiliation than any other president in the history of the country. Perhaps the question is, or should be, whether or not he has deserved it — and if so, to what extent? And, if not, why so, or why not?

I'll go with the "above my pay grade" excuse as a reason to leave others to debate the answer.

But, the ACLU? Who knew?