In a recent interview with ABC News, former defense attorney for Donald Trump, Robert Ray, shared his insights on Judge Juan Merchan’s ruling of contempt against the former president.
Judge Merchan has held Trump in contempt once again for violating a gag order. This marks the 10th time that Trump has been found in violation. Judge Merchan expressed dissatisfaction with the $1,000 fines that have been imposed for each violation, deeming them ineffective. Furthermore, the judge issued a warning, stating that Trump may face incarceration in the future due to his repeated disregard for the gag order.
According to Ray, there is a belief that the former president and his legal team are well aware of the fact that they have pushed the judge’s patience to its limits. Ray is of the opinion that the judge will take necessary action, irrespective of Trump’s position.
Ray suggests that in the event that Trump is held accountable, his legal team would probably file an appeal, resulting in a halt to the trial.
In an interview with ABC News on Monday, Ray provided insights into the potential consequences that Trump may encounter if he were to breach the gag order once more.
ABC NEWS LIVE: We now have the privilege of welcoming Robert Ray, who served as Trump’s defense lawyer in the first Senate impeachment trial. Robert, it’s a pleasure to have you with us.
The judge’s stern warning about contempt of court was actually the 10th instance. He emphasized that if it were to happen again, jail time could be a real possibility. Do you believe that there is a genuine chance of this occurring?
According to legal expert Robert Ray, the judge would need to issue a warning in order for it to become an option. Both the prosecution and defense are pushing the boundaries when it comes to contempt of court, to see if the threatened sanction would actually be imposed. So far, the prosecution has not requested it, but the judge has the discretion to do so if he believes that the former president’s conduct violates the gag order. It is important for the judge to provide clear warning and explain the potential repercussions for such behavior.
It seems that the judge has reached his limit and is unlikely to push any further before taking action. The former president and his lawyers are well aware of this. The judge himself has acknowledged that this is a situation that should be avoided. However, he has made it clear that he will take action, despite being fully aware of who he is acting against. The consequences of such action would be significant, as it could bring the trial to a halt. In response, the former president, through his lawyers, would likely file an appeal and seek relief from an appellate court.
And once again, nobody wants that outcome. It’s not what the public wants, and it’s not what the prosecution wants either. Even the judge doesn’t want to do that and delay the jury. However, it’s a possibility that we might be heading in that direction.
ABC NEWS LIVE: As someone who has represented Donald Trump in the past, I am curious to know if you believe that the threat of potential jail time is sufficient to deter him, considering the person you know and his character.
RAY: He prioritizes his role as a presidential candidate for the United States. If he faces a situation where he has to decide between potentially getting into trouble with a judge in a courtroom and following what he believes is his greater purpose in serving the electorate, he will choose his candidacy.
In this situation, it seems clear that there is a strategic approach being followed, which I believe is based on advice from his legal team. The former president is likely to be cautious and avoid the possibility of facing imprisonment for contempt.
During the live ABC News coverage, we were given insights into the potential impact of the evidence presented by the prosecution on the jury. The handwritten note, allegedly penned by Allen Weisselberg, and the revelation of twelve separate payments to former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen were key elements that stood out.
The jury will ultimately focus on three key factors that the government needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. When they receive the case, which is likely to happen later this month or in early June, these factors will be at the center of their deliberations. The first factor is whether the records are false, and there seems to be some uncertainty surrounding this point, as evident from the cross-examination today. The second factor is determining if the expenses claimed are truly business expenses or legal fees. It remains to be seen if these expenses serve another purpose.
There are three key elements that need to be demonstrated: first, whether there were attempts to hide information; second, whether there was a deliberate intention to influence the election; and third, whether Donald Trump had knowledge of these actions. However, the most crucial aspect is proving that Trump was aware of the situation. Even after today’s testimony, it is evident that the jury will heavily rely on Michael Cohen’s account of what Trump knew. The witnesses present today did not possess concrete knowledge regarding Trump’s awareness, only instructions they were given.
During the live coverage on ABC News, the prosecution confidently stated that by the conclusion of their case, the jurors would have a comprehensive understanding of Trump’s conduct and inevitably come to the verdict that Donald Trump is guilty. So, how do you assess the prosecution’s progress in achieving this goal?
The defense is trying to undermine that argument, and it will ultimately be up to the jury to determine whether or not the government has successfully proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt to all 12 jurors. As of now, it is unclear whether Donald Trump was aware of the situation. We are currently on Day 12 of the trial.
According to the prosecution’s estimates, there are approximately 10 trial days remaining in this case. It is anticipated that the trial will conclude around Memorial Day. Following the trial, there will likely be jury deliberations, closing arguments, and other proceedings in early June.
In your opinion, it is still too early to determine the outcome. The jury is still out, so to speak.
Ray believes that this particular case is no different from other criminal cases, as they all involve tough questions and require a thorough examination of intent. While he acknowledges that the pun may be present, he emphasizes that the underlying issues at hand are serious and complex.