Donald Trump found himself in a precarious situation during his New York hush-money trial due to his controversial social media posts. Unfortunately, his lawyers’ attempts to explain his underlying motives for these posts did not alleviate the situation.
New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan conducted a hearing on Tuesday morning to determine whether to hold Trump in contempt of court for violating a gag order. The violation occurred when he made posts criticizing potential witnesses and commenting on prospective jurors. Prosecutors argued that the former president’s online attacks on anticipated witnesses Michael Cohen and adult film actress Stormy Daniels, who are central to the Manhattan district attorney’s case regarding a hush-money payment before the 2016 election, were “willful beyond a reasonable doubt” and “pose a very real threat” to the ongoing proceedings.
Defense attorney Todd Blanche argued against the posts being used as evidence, claiming that they were protected speech and had a political nature. The judge became increasingly frustrated with Blanche’s repeated assertions, as he continued to defend his position.
During the trial, Merchan continuously questioned Blanche, urging her to present concrete instances of the supposed attacks from witnesses. He criticized the defense’s struggling efforts to argue that sharing others’ attacks does not breach the gag order.
Merchan expressed his frustration, stating, “I hate to keep revisiting this, but you haven’t provided any evidence to back up your argument.” He further emphasized the consequences, saying, “By failing to provide supporting facts, you are diminishing your credibility in the eyes of the court.”
According to Salon, Merchan’s responses to the defense’s arguments indicate that the judge is holding Trump accountable. Professor Laurie Levenson from Loyola Law School stated that she never found the argument of “just reposting” to be persuasive. She commented, “It really seems like the judge is not letting Trump off the hook.”
“It appears that this argument holds little merit for a couple of reasons. Firstly, these are not mere reposts. President Trump is actively altering the quotes or injecting his own interpretation into them. Secondly, these actions seem to directly contradict the intentions of the judge who issued the gag order,” she explained.
Prosecutors focused their attention on a recent post by Trump, in which he attributed the claim of “undercover liberal activists” “lying” to the judge in order to be selected for the Trump jury, to Fox News host Jesse Watters. According to Assistant District Attorney Christopher Conroy, Watters had stated on his show that these alleged activists were lying to the judge. Trump’s post went further by suggesting that their motive was to serve on his jury.
Merchan’s response to the revelation was not favorable. He expressed his dissatisfaction, stating, “Your client manipulated what was said and put it in quotes.” Blanche, however, acknowledged that the post was not a repost. Nevertheless, she emphasized that it remains uncertain whether it violated the gag order.
According to Levenson, Trump’s manipulation of the post not only revealed his intention to use it for his own purposes but also demonstrated his active involvement in the matter.
According to David Schultz, a professor of political science and legal studies at Hamline University, the former president has a strong desire to leverage the trial for his political agenda and personal gain. Schultz suggests that Tuesday’s hearing highlights Trump’s frustration, as his strategies for litigation and campaigning clash with the court’s expectations.
According to Schultz, Trump’s approach has always been to aggressively go after his opponents. However, he is now realizing that in a legal proceeding, courts do not tolerate such behavior. Schultz highlights the strain on the court as they try to treat Trump like any other defendant, while still giving him more leeway than others in a similar situation.
“Typically, these types of attacks against the court and violations of a gag order would not be observed,” he pointed out.
According to NBC News, Merchan acknowledged on Tuesday morning that Trump’s gag order is not as broad as preventing him from speaking publicly about any witness or juror for any reason. Instead, the order specifically prohibits him from making statements about witnesses in relation to their potential involvement in the investigation or criminal proceeding, as well as statements about jurors or prospective jurors in the criminal proceeding.
During the court hearing on Tuesday, prosecutors informed the judge that the former president has been consistently violating the court order. In fact, as recent as Monday, he referred to Cohen as a liar in his remarks at the courthouse. The prosecutors urged the judge to take action by instructing Trump to remove the ten inflammatory posts. Furthermore, they suggested that he should be fined $1,000 for each violation and be reminded of the potential consequences, including the possibility of being held in contempt of court, which could result in jail time of up to 30 days, as permitted by New York law.
“We are not currently looking for a prison sentence,” but according to NBC News, Conroy stated on Tuesday morning that the “defendant appears to be pushing for one.”
Judge Merchan did not make a ruling on Tuesday morning regarding the potential contempt of court charges against Trump. It remains unclear when he will make a decision on this matter.
Levenson praised the decision, stating that it demonstrates a high level of intelligence on the judge’s part. The fact that he is taking his time to carefully consider the case and ensure that his ruling will withstand scrutiny from an appellate court shows his commitment to making a well-informed and solid decision.
According to Schultz, Trump’s behavior is undeniably contemptuous. As a result, the focus now shifts to the potential sanctions he may receive. While Schultz does not believe that Merchan would imprison the former president for contempt, there is a possibility that the judge could require Trump to relinquish his cell phone and refrain from using his social media accounts. Additionally, a substantial fine could also be imposed.
Looking for a convenient way to stay updated on all the latest news and commentary from Salon? Look no further than our morning newsletter, Crash Course. Subscribe now to receive a daily wrap-up of everything Salon has to offer.
According to legal ethics expert Schultz, Trump’s attorneys may potentially be subject to sanctions for their conduct. This is because it is their duty to manage their clients, and if they fail to do so, it can impede their ability to effectively present their case.
The judge on Tuesday expressed his hope that the case can proceed smoothly and allow the Trump defense team another opportunity to control their client’s actions. However, legal expert Schultz suggests that Judge Merchan is also giving the defense an implicit warning. He indicates that they may face sanctions from his court, a New York disciplinary body, or potential future rulings that work against their interests due to their lack of credibility. This loss of credibility was mentioned by the judge during his conversation with Blanche.
Schultz questioned whether the judge would consider the possibility that if they are unable to control their client’s behavior, it could be seen as an endorsement of disrespect towards the court and the judicial process. In such a scenario, the attorney would be deemed as failing to fulfill their duty as an officer of the court and could face sanctions.
During the hearing, it is unclear how the judge will rule. It is quite possible that he will determine some of the posts that prosecutors flagged as violating the gag order, while others may not be considered as such. Levenson made it abundantly clear to Trump during the hearing.
According to the speaker, the purpose of this hearing was for the court to send a strong message and regain control over the proceedings. She believes that the court wanted to convey the message of “Stop it. Just stop it,” emphasizing the need for a halt in certain actions or behaviors related to the case.
Levenson emphasized the importance of integrity in the process, stating, “It’s really about the integrity. This is not an ego trip by the judge. This is a judge diligently working to ensure a challenging trial stays on track.”