Legal analyst Jonathan Turley, who made an appearance on Fox News Sunday, expressed his belief that the U.S. Supreme Court would scrutinize the recent gag order imposed on former President Donald Trump by Judge Juan Merchan in a critical manner.
When asked by host Shannon Bream about the possibility of Merchan’s order going to SCOTUS, Turley, who had previously expressed concerns about the order’s constitutionality, stated that it had “major constitutional problems.”
According to Jonathan Turley, an attorney and professor at the George Washington University Law School, he believes that the current order would not be well-received by the Supreme Court. He suggests that if the intention is to prosecute the leading presidential candidate shortly before the election, it is essential to acknowledge the significance of political speech in this matter. Turley argues that the judge overseeing the case failed to recognize this important element in the order.
The Context:
Former President Donald Trump is facing accusations of falsifying business records in connection with hush-money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels during his 2016 presidential campaign. The charges have been brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Trump, who is expected to be the Republican Party’s nominee for the 2024 presidential election, has entered a plea of not guilty and contends that the case is politically motivated. Stormy Daniels has claimed that she had a relationship with Trump in 2006, an allegation that he has denied.
Judge Merchan, who is presiding over the criminal trial, issued a gag order on Tuesday, which prevents Trump from publicly discussing the individuals involved in the case, with the exception of himself and Bragg. This order also extends protection to Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, who is scheduled to testify, and Daniels.
The families of Merchan and Bragg were not included in the gag order. Trump has taken advantage of this loophole multiple times on social media over the past week.
What We Know:
Bragg’s office sent Merchan a letter on Thursday, requesting him to provide clarification or confirmation regarding the individuals protected by the order. Additionally, Merchan was instructed to immediately cease any attacks on family members. This gag order was issued in response to Trump’s social media posts, where he targeted Merchan’s daughter, Loren. Trump repeated these attacks the following day.
“The People firmly believe that the March 26 Order should be interpreted as providing protection for the family members of the Court,” states the letter from Bragg’s office. “This Court should now provide clarification or confirmation that the Order indeed offers protection to family members of the Court, the District Attorney, and all other individuals mentioned in the Order. Such protection is well-deserved and necessary.”
In response to the request, Trump’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, issued a letter on Friday expressing opposition and arguing that the court lacks the authority to instruct Trump not to criticize Bragg, Merchan, or their family members. Blanche contends that the gag order does not encompass any such limitations.
Views:
Turley, who believes that gag orders frequently infringe on free speech, criticized Merchan’s order. He specifically pointed out that the order allows Cohen to publicly express his opinions about the former president, but restricts Trump’s ability to criticize his former fixer and attorney.
According to Turley, the situation creates a sense of perversity. He points out that while people like Michael Cohen are freely appearing on the news to criticize Trump and argue against his election, Trump himself is not allowed to criticize Cohen, Stormy Daniels, or the lead prosecutor. Turley believes that this election will largely be influenced by the weaponization of the legal system, and in that narrative, Trump is winning. Turley argues that these judges are essentially silencing a presidential candidate on one of the main issues of the election.
During an interview with MSNBC’s Joy Reid on Friday night, Cohen revealed that when the former president criticizes judges involved in his legal cases, he does so with a specific intention in mind.
During an interview on “The ReidOut,” Reid asked Cohen about Trump’s motivations for attacking judges. Cohen’s response shed light on the former president’s intentions, stating that Trump’s goal is to rally his supporters and incite them to take action, similar to the events that unfolded on January 6th.
Cohen went on to explain that the objective of the person in question is to incite attacks against those who criticize him, both online and offline. Whether it’s through social media, phone calls, or face-to-face encounters, the goal remains the same: to intimidate and harass witnesses.
According to Steven Cheung, the communications director for the Trump campaign, he stated in an email to Newsweek on Saturday morning that Michael Cohen should not be trusted due to his history of perjury and dishonesty. Cheung emphasized that anything Cohen says should be regarded as nothing more than fiction.
A federal judge recently denied a request to decrease his supervised release sentence because he persists in deceiving and manipulating the system. This includes providing false information during the NYAG case and submitting an artificially generated legal brief. It is clear that Cohen’s dishonesty calls into question the reliability of his testimony, making it unusable for any ethical prosecutor or judge.
Michael Cohen, after admitting guilt to eight criminal charges, which included campaign finance violations linked to the purported hush money arrangement with Daniels, was sentenced to serve time in prison.
What’s Next?
The hush money case, which is considered by many experts as the least consequential and damning of Trump’s criminal cases, is now scheduled to go to trial on Monday, April 15.
Read More:
- 150 people arrested for allegedly using drones to deliver drugs and phones into jails
- Beekeeper accused of participating in pesticide smuggling conspiracy across multiple states, according to the US Attorney’s Office
