The judge presiding over the hush money case involving former President Trump found him in contempt on Tuesday. Trump was held in contempt for violating a gag order a total of nine times.
Judge Juan Merchan has imposed a fine of $9,000 on Trump due to his recent posts on Truth Social and his campaign website. These posts involved attacking potential jurors and the expected star witnesses of the prosecutors. The judge has also issued a warning to the former president, stating that further violations could lead to imprisonment.
Related posts
In his ruling, Judge Merchan sternly warned the defendant that the Court will not tolerate any further intentional violations of its lawful orders. He made it clear that if deemed necessary and appropriate, the Court will impose a punitive measure that could result in incarceration. Consequently, Trump was ordered to promptly remove the objectionable posts from Truth Social and his campaign website.
During the hearing, tensions escalated between the judge and Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche, with Merchan expressing his concern that Blanche’s credibility was diminishing in the eyes of the court.
The ruling on Tuesday arrived right after the hearing last week, setting the stage for the start of the second week of trial testimony.
As the case moved towards trial, Trump found himself facing restrictions on his speech due to his tendency to passionately criticize his perceived adversaries in his legal battles. The judge overseeing the hush money case took action at the request of prosecutors, aiming to control Trump’s public statements.
Former President Trump is not allowed to publicly discuss witnesses’ involvement in the case or make any negative remarks about them. He is also prohibited from attacking court staff, line prosecutors, or their families, as well as the families of the judge and district attorney, in a way that could interfere with the case.
During last week’s hearing, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office (D) alleged that Trump violated the gag order multiple times in the days leading up to and during jury selection. The prosecution urged the judge to impose a fine of $1,000 for each violation and require Trump to remove the posts.
During last week’s hearing, Assistant District Attorney Chris Conroy expressed his concern by stating, “The defendant’s actions clearly demonstrate a complete disregard for the purpose of this order, which was specifically designed to prevent such incidents.”
The majority of the articles focused on Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer and personal attorney, who has since become an adversary of his former boss and is anticipated to be a key witness for the prosecution.
Trump kept sharing a New York Post op-ed written by Jonathan Turley, a well-known legal commentator who has been critical of prosecutors involved in the hush money case. The op-ed portrayed Cohen as a “serial perjurer.”
In two out of the 10 posts under scrutiny, Trump targeted Stormy Daniels, the porn actress who received a $130,000 hush payment that lies at the heart of the case. In one post, Trump referred to Daniels and Cohen as “two sleaze bags.”
The judge, in the subsequent post, concluded that the gag order had not been violated. He stated that the comment’s connection to two earlier posts was weak, causing him to hesitate.
In addition to the ruling on contempt, the judge also declared that Trump had violated the gag order by referencing a statement made by a Fox News host. The host had claimed that there were undercover Liberal Activists who were dishonestly trying to deceive the Judge in order to serve on the Trump Jury.
Trump has strongly opposed the gag order, arguing that it infringes upon his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. He asserts that he is simply defending himself against political attacks.
Despite his appeal, the gag order still stands for the time being.
The argument put forth by Trump’s lawyers claiming that the posts in question were just reposts of other individuals and not Trump’s own remarks was dismissed by the judge. However, it is worth noting that this is a unique issue that has not been extensively addressed before.
Merchan argued that it is illogical and absurd to interpret the Expanded Order as not prohibiting statements intentionally chosen and published by the defendant to gain maximum exposure.
According to the speaker, reposting does not necessarily imply that the reposter is making a personal statement. Context plays a crucial role in determining the intent behind a repost. However, in this specific case, considering the specific facts and circumstances, it is evident that the reposts are indeed statements made by the defendant.
Prosecutors have made separate allegations that Trump violated the gag order four more times. The judge has not yet made a ruling on this matter. If found guilty, Trump could face fines of up to $1,000 for each violation and potentially be sentenced to 30 days in jail. A hearing has been scheduled for Thursday to address these alleged violations.
In his other legal matters, Trump has been subjected to gag orders and has faced fines.
During his civil fraud trial in New York, Trump was subject to a gag order by the judge, preventing him from making any public comments about court staff. Trump violated this directive, resulting in fines amounting to $15,000. When he was called to testify and provide an explanation, the judge found his testimony to be insincere and false.
In Washington, D.C., Trump is currently under a gag order that prevents him from publicly criticizing important witnesses or prosecutors involved in his federal election interference case, with the exception of special counsel Jack Smith.
