Trump asks judge in criminal case to step aside due to his daughter's Democratic ties: Judge Juan Merchan is presiding over the criminal case in New York City. by Aaron Katersky and Katherine Faulders abc news June 2, 2023, 1:50 PM
Former President Donald Trump on Friday asked the judge overseeing his criminal prosecution in New York City to step aside, citing the judge's daughter's ties to a Democratic organization.
Judge Juan Merchan is presiding over the case, in which Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in connection to a hush payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 election. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Merchan himself will decide whether he is impartial.
The defense said he can't be, because his daughter is an executive at Authentic Campaigns, a Democratic consulting firm that worked on President Joe Biden's 2020 campaign.
There is a "need to assure the public that the judge who presides over this historic case is actually impartial," Trump's attorneys said in their motion for recusal. "This role cannot be fulfilled by Your Honor."
"Authentic is a company which has both publicly taken positions against President Trump and has reported raising over $74 million in campaign contributions for clients since 2018 (mostly in 2020 and 2022) to Democrats," the motion said.
Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and Susan Necheles also cited Merchan's oversight of a prior criminal case involving the Trump Organization, which was convicted of tax fraud. They said Merchan encouraged then-chief financial adviser Allen Weisselberg to plead guilty and cooperate against the company.
"At a June 17th meeting in the Court's Chambers, the Court informed Mr. Weisselberg's attorneys that unless Mr. Weisselberg cooperated with the People against Donald Trump and his interests, the Court would only offer Mr. Weisselberg a state prison sentence of at least one to three years imprisonment, even if Mr. Weisselberg pleaded guilty," the defense motion said.
The Manhattan district attorney's office has not formally responded, but was expected to oppose Trump's effort to replace the judge. A spokesperson for the DA's office declined to comment.
The motion for recusal is the second attempt by Trump to move his criminal case out of Merchan's courtroom. He is also seeking to remove the case to federal court, a move that's opposed by the district attorney's office.
Trump Tests New Gag Order With Attack on Judge's Daughter: Trump's latest attack tests the boundaries of his new gag order by J.D. Wolf MeidasTouch March 27, 2024 https://www.meidastouch.com/news/trump- ... s-daughter
Yesterday, Trump attacked Judge Merchan's daughter for working at a firm that has links to Democratic groups. Judge Merchan is overseeing Trump's criminal case involving hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. District Attorney Alvin Bragg hopes to prove that Trump violated the law by the way he used funds to cover up his affair with Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.
In court, Judge Merchan, perhaps in response to Tuesday's post, issued a gag order. This one specifically bars Trump from attacking the family of court staff and district attorney staff.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 59
THE PEOPLE OF THE. STATE OF NEW YORK - against - DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant
DECISION and ORDER
People's Motion for an Order Restricting Extrajudicial Statements
Indictment No. 71543-23
BACKGROUND
Defendant is charged with 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree in violation of Penal Law § 175.10. The charges arise from allegations that Defendant attempted to conceal an illegal scheme to influence the 2016 presidential election. Specifically, the People claim that Defendant directed an attorney who worked for his company to pay S130,000 to an adult film actress shortly before the election to prevent her from publicizing an alleged sexual encounter with Defendant. It is further alleged that Defendant thereafter reimbursed the attorney for the payments through a series of checks and caused business records associated with the repayments to be falsified to conceal his criminal conduct. Trial on this matter is scheduled to commence on April 15, 2024.
On February 22, 2024, the People filed the instant motion for an order restricting extrajudicial statements by Defendant for the duration of the trial. The restrictions sought are consistent, in part, with those upheld in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in United States v. Trump, 88 F4.th 990 [2023]. On March 4, 2024, Defendant filed a response in opposition, arguing that his speech may only be restricted by the application of a more strenuous standard than applied by the D.C. Circuit and that the People have failed to meet that standard in this case.
DISCUSSION
The freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment and the State's interest in the fair administration of justice are implicated by the relief sought. The balancing of these interests must come with the highest scrutiny. "Properly applied, the test requires a court to make its own inquiry into the imminence and magnitude of the danger said to flow from the particular utterance and then to balance the character of the evil, as well as the likelihood, against the need for free and unfettered expression." Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 US. 829, 842-843 [1978]. The Court has an obligation to prevent outside influences, including extrajudicial speech, from disturbing the integrity of a trial. Id. at 350-351; see also Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 US 333 [1966]
With the standard set forth in Landmark, this Court has reviewed the record of prior extrajudicial statements attributed to Defendant as documented in Exhibits 1-16 of the People's Motion for an Order Restricting Extrajudicial Statements. Notably, Defendant does not deny the Utterance of any of those extrajudicial Statements, or the reported effect those statements had on the targeted parties. Rather, Defendant argues that, as the "presumptive Republican nominee and leading candidate in the 2024 election'' he must have unfettered access to the voting public to respond to attacks from political opponents and to "criticize these public figures." See Defendant's Opposition to Motion at pgs. 8-9. Yet these extrajudicial statements went far beyond defending himself against "attacks" by "public figures". Indeed, his statements were threatening, inflammatory, denigrating, and the targets of his statements ranged from local and federal officials, court and court staff, prosecutors and staff assigned to the cases, and private individuals including grand jurors performing their civic duty. See People's Exhibits 1-16). The consequences of those statements included not only fear on the part of the individual targeted, but also the assignment of increased security resources to investigate threats and protect the individuals and family members thereof. See People's Exhibits 1-16; Trump, at 996-998. Such inflammatory extrajudicial statements undoubtedly risk impeding the orderly administration of this Court.
Defendant contends that continued compliance with the existing orders, referencing both this Court's admonition at the start of the proceedings (see court transcript dated April 4, 2023) and the recent Protective Order Issued on March 7, 2024, with respect to juror anonymity, is an effective, less restrictive alternative. He supports this position by noting that he has generally refrained from making extrajudicial statements about individuals associated with the instant case in marked contrast from the significant volume of social media posts and other statements targeting individuals involved in every other court proceeding reflected in the People's submission.
This Court is unpersuaded. Although this Court did not issue an order restricting Defendant's speech at the inception of this case, choosing instead to issue an admonition, given the nature and impact of the statements made against this Court and a family member thereof, the District Attorney and an Assistant District Attorney, the witnesses in this case, as well as the nature and impact of the extrajudicial statements made by Defendant in the D.C. Circuit case (which resulted in the D.C. Circuit issuing an order restricting his speech), and given that the eve of trial is upon us, it is without question that the imminency of the risk of harm is now paramount. The Supreme Court in both Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 US 539 [19761 and Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 US 333, 363 [1966] holds that the court has the obligation to prevent actual harm to the integrity of the proceedings. When the fairness of the trial is threatened, "reversals are but palliatives; the cure lies in those remedial measures that will prevent the prejudice as its inception." Sheppard, at 363. On the record submitted, and in keeping with its mandate, this Court need not wait for the realization of further proscribed speech targeted at the participants of this trial. 1
The People propose an additional restriction on speech with respect to prospective and sworn jurors. The restrictions sought are an extension of the previously issued protective order regarding juror anonymity. While the D.C. Circuit decision addressed only the risks of influencing witnesses and intimidating or harassing other trial participants in accordance with the lower court's ruling, it nevertheless opined that "one of the most powerful interests supporting broad prohibitions on trial participants' speech is to avoid contamination of the jury pool, to protect the impartiality of the jury once selected, to confine the evidentiary record before the jury to the courtroom, and to prevent intrusion on the jury's deliberations." Trump, 88 F4th at 1020, citing In Re Russell, 726 F2d 1007, 1009,1010 14th Cir 1984]. While the protective order related to juror anonymity prevents the dissemination of certain personal information, it is not sufficient to prevent extrajudicial speech targeting jurors and exposing them to an atmosphere of intimidation. The proposed restrictions relating to jurors are narrowly tailored to obtain that result.
The uncontested record reflecting the Defendant's prior extrajudicial statements establishes a sufficient risk to the administration of justice consistent with the standard set forth in Landmark, and there exists no less restrictive means to prevent such risk.
Defendant argues that references to speech targeted at individual prosecutors in the instant case do not substantiate their claims, adding that the People only cite posts which occurred in March and June 2023. See Defendant's Motion pg. l4. Notably, within hours of the court appearance on March 25, 2024, setting the trial date for April 15, 2024, the Defendant targeted an individual prosecutor assigned to this case, referring to him as a "radical left from DOJ put into [ ... ] the District Attorney's Office to run the trial against Trump and that was done by Biden and his thugs" in a press conference. C-SPAN, press conference video dated March 25, 2024, at minute 2:34.
THEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the People's motion for a restriction on extrajudicial statements by the Defendant is GRANTED to the extent that Defendant is directed to refrain from the following:
a. Making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding;
b. Making or directing others to make public statements about (1) counsel in the case other than the District Attorney, (2) members of the court's staff and the District Attorney's staff, or (3) the family members of any counsel or staff member, if those statements are made with the intent to materially interfere with, or to cause others to materially interfere with, counsel's or staff's work in this criminal case, or with the knowledge that such interference is likely to result; and
c. Making or directing others to make public statements about any prospective juror or any juror in this criminal proceeding.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
Dated: March 26, 2024
New York, New York
________________ Juan M. Merchan Judge of the Court Claims Acting Justice of the Supreme Court
On Truth Social Wednesday, Trump continued his attack on Judge Merchan's daughter as representing "radical liberals." Trump even mentions the gag order in place, a move that takes away any claim that he is unaware of it. Trump claims the gag order "is wrongfully attempting to deprive me of my first amendment right to speak to against the weaponization of law enforcement."
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Judge Juan Merchan, who is suffering from an acute case of Trump Derangement Syndrome (whose daughter represents Crooked Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, and other Radical Liberals, has just posted a picture of me behind bars, her obvious goal, and makes it completely impossible for me to get a fair trial) has now issued another illegal, un-American, unConstitutional “order,” as he continues to try and take away my Rights. This Judge, by issuing a vicious “Gag Order,” is wrongfully attempting to deprive me of my First Amendment Right to speak out against the Weaponization of Law Enforcement, including the fact that Crooked Joe Biden, Merrick Garland, and their Hacks and Thugs are tracking and following me all across the Country, obsessively trying to persecute me, while everyone knows I have done nothing wrong!
Mar 27, 2024, 8:31 AM
Trump also claimed "hacks and thugs" from Joe Biden and Merrick Garland "are tracking and following me all across the country, obsessively trying to persecute me." Is this why Trump hasn't been holding events for some time? Trump continued his rant on a "page 2" again, because he doesn't know how or doesn't like using the threads feature.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Page 2: So, let me get this straight, the Judge’s daughter is allowed to post pictures of her “dream” of putting me in jail, the Manhattan D.A. is able to say whatever lies about me he wants, the Judge can violate our Laws and Constitution at every turn, but I am not allowed to talk about the attacks against me, and the Lunatics trying to destroy my life, and prevent me from winning the 2024 Presidential Election, which I am dominating? Maybe the Judge is such a hater because his daughter makes money by working to “Get Trump,” and when he rules against me over and over again, he is making her company, and her, richer and richer. How can this be allowed?
Mar 27, 2024, 8:31 AM
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Page 3: The Judge has to recuse himself immediately, and right the wrong committed by not doing so last year. If the Biased and Conflicted Judge is allowed to stay on this Sham “Case,” it will be another sad example of our Country becoming a Banana Republic, not the America we used to know and love. These are Election Interfering Witch Hunts. We will crush each one of these Hoaxes, and Make America Great Again!
Mar 27, 2024, 8:31 AM
Trump then claimed Judge Merchan hates him because it financially benefits his daughter. Trump claims Judge Merchan is ruling against him to make his daughter's company and herself "richer and richer."
Questioning the integrity of a judge is a pretty serious accusation. By continuing his attack on Judge Merchan's daughter while citing the gag order, Trump is testing his new limits and Merchan's tolerance. Does Judge Merchan consider himself "court staff" as the gag order cites? If so this could be a potential violation. It will be up to Judge Merchan to decide.
Trump Targets Daughter of Judge in NY Criminal Trial in Truth Social Post: Will Trump's latest attack be met with another gag order? by J.D. Wolf MeidasTouch Mar 26, 2024 https://www.meidastouch.com/news/trump- ... ocial-post
Trump is up to his same antics, attempting to attack those who are associated with judges in his cases to win in the court of public opinion even if his lawyers can't secure any wins for him in court. In one of his latest Truth Social posts, Trump attacked Judge Juan Merchan, who is over his criminal trial regarding Trump's hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.
Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social @TrumpDailyPosts
Judge Juan Merchan, a very distinguished looking man, is nevertheless a true and certified Trump Hater who suffers from a very serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. In other words, he hates me! His daughter is a senior executive at a Super Liberal Democrat firm that works for Adam “Shifty” Schiff, the Democrat National Committee, (Dem)Senate Majority PAC, and even Crooked Joe Biden. He was recently the judge on an unrelated trial of a long term employee, elderly and not in good health. This judge treated him viciously, telling him either you cooperate or I’m putting you in jail for 15 years. He pled, and went to jail for very minor offenses, highly unusual, served 4 months in Rikers, and now they are after him again, this time for allegedly lying (doesn’t look like a lie to me!), and they threatened him again with 15 years if he doesn’t say something bad about “TRUMP.” He is devastated and scared! These COUNTRY DESTROYING SCOUNDRELS & THUGS HAVE NO CASE AGAINST ME. WITCH HUNT!
Donald Trump Truth Social 09:42 AM EST 3/26/24 9:40 AM · Mar 26, 2024
Trump called Judge Merchan, "a true and certified Trump Hater who suffers from a very serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome." Trump said Merchan "hates him" and then targeted his daughter.
Trump said Merchan's daughter works for a firm that has links to Democrats. Trump had previously requested the Judge Merchan recuse himself because of his daughter's work.
NBC News reported that Merchan and his family have received threats for simply being assigned to the case. The DA's office has already removed bios of their staff from their webpage due to the increasing threats.
Trump will likely continue to pull at this thread as it signals to his supporters to also go after the judge and his family. We can expect these attacks to continue unless Trump is given a gag order.
‘He is a bully and a thug’: Breaking down the latest attacks Donald Trump on the daughter of judge MSNBC Mar 29, 2024 #DonaldTrump #GagOrder #StormyDaniels
Lisa Rubin, MSNBC Legal Correspondent, Mara Gay, New York Times Editorial Board Member, and Rev. Al Sharpton join Nicolle Wallace on Deadline White House with reaction to the latest filings in the NY hush money case with Donald Trump claiming it is appropriate to attack the daughter of a judge because of what she does for work.
Transcript
>>> SO WE HAVE BREAKING NEWS ON THE STORY WE BROUGHT YOU AT THE TOP OF THIS HOUR. THE MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS ASKING JOHN MERSHAWN WHETHER THE GAG ORDER IMPOLESED ON TRUMP DOES APPLY TO THE JUDGE AND THE ROSKURT. ALL THIS WITH TRUMP'S REPEATED ATTACKS AGAINST THE JUDGE AND THE JUDGE'S DAUGHTER. >> NICOLLE, THIS IS ONE OF THE SITUATIONS WHERE THE FILING CONVENTIONS IN THIS CASE REALLY COMPLICATE OUR JOBS AS NEWS PEOPLE BECAUSE WE HEARD FIRST FROM THE TRUMP SIDE BUT IN REALITY THIS REQUEST WAS INITIALLY MADE BY THE D.A.'S TEAM. I UNDERSTAND IT WAS MADE YESTERDAY MORNING. AND THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT WAS BEFORE THE MOST RECENT OF TRUMP'S POSTS ABOUT JUAN MER SHAWN, THE JUDGE OVERSEEING THE HUSH MONEY CASE AND HIS DAUGHTER. WHAT THEY ARE ASKING THE JUDGE TO DO IS CLARIFY OR CONFIRM HIS GAG ORDER ISSUED ON TUESDAY OF THIS WEEK NOT ONLY EXTENDS TO HIS FAMILY BUT ALSO EXTENDS TO FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HIMSELF. THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT'S LARGELY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND THE JUDGE ARE THEMSELVES NOT COVERED BY HIS GAG ORDER. SO IN THIS REQUEST MADE, AGAIN, YESTERDAY MORNING, THE D.A.'S OFFICE IS NOT ASKING FOR AN EXPANSION OF THE GAG ORDER OR A NEW ORDER BUT INSTEAD ASKING THE JUDGE TO CLARIFY OR CONFIRM HIS DAUGHTER AND THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY THEMSELVES ARE COVERED. WE EARLIER ISTHIN HOUSE COVERED THAT THEN. FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYERS HAVE RESPONDED TODAY SAYING THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE, THAT OTHER OUTLETS HAVE REPORTED THEY AREN'T COVERED. AND THEY DROPPED A FOOTNOTE REFERENCING BEING COVERED BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS AND REUTERS. BUT THEY SAID IN THE EVENT THE JUDGE IS CONSIDERING MAKING HIS DAUGHTER SUBJECT TO THIS GAG ORDER, FULL BRIEFING IS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. AND THEN THEY TAKE A SWIPE AT JUDGE MER HP SHAWN'S DAUGHTER WHO IS AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WELL INTO HER 30s, A LEADER OF A DIGITAL STRATEGIES FIRM EMPLOYED BOTH BY POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS AND NONPROFITS. AND THEY SAY BECAUSE SHE IS ENGAGED AND PROVIDING SUPPORT TO THE ENEMIES OF FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP, IT IS TOTALLY APPROPRIATE FOR HIM TO TALK ABOUT HER. CERTAINLY WE ARE WAITING FOR THE JUDGE TO HAVE SOME WORD HERE, BUT THIS IS ALREADY HOTLY CONTESTED BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES. I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE THING ABOUT THE JUDGE'S DAUGHTER BECAUSE, NICOLLE, LIKE YOU I TOO AM A PARENT, AND I'M OUTRAGED THAT A DEFENDANT OF ANY KIND WOULD GO AFTER A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY'S FAMILY MEMBER, BUT IT'S PARTICULARLY PERNICIOUS WHEREAS HERE THE FAMILY MEMBER IS A GROWN PERSON IN HER OWN RIGHT. WHATEVER YOU MIGHT THINK ABOUT JUDGE MERSHAWN'S DAUGHTER HER FATHER IS NO MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER CAREER CHOICES AND HER CLIENTS THAN MY FATHER WHO'S A RETIRED SCHOOL PRINCIPAL AND ADMINISTRATOR IS FOR MINE. AND I PARTICULARLY FIND IT OFFENSIVE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A GROWN WOMAN WHO SHOULD HAVE AGENCY TO LIVE HER LIFE ON HER OWN TERMS BUT INSTEAD IS BEING SUBJECTED TO ATTACKS BY THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES USING THE LARGEST MEGAPHONE IN THE LAND SECOND ONLY TO THE INCUMBENT PRESIDENT, PERHAPS. >> IS THIS WHO YOU WANT, SOMEONE WHO'S GOING TO THREATEN THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE DAUGHTER, ADULT DAUGHTER OF SOMEONE WHO HE'S -- >> WELL, HE'S A THUG. I MEAN HE'S A BULLY AND A THUG, AND YOU HAVE TO STAND UP TO A BULLY. I MEAN I AM SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVES THAT THE VOTERS ARE GOING TO HAVE THE MOST POWERFUL SAY HERE IN NOVEMBER. I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO ISSUE A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE, NO INTEREST IN TRUMP AND TRUMPISM. AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S THIS BEHAVIOR THAT IS THE EXACT REASON WHY I THINK IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO HOLD DONALD TRUMP ACCOUNTABLE. I MEAN THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE SAID THIS CASE IN MANHATTAN IS MAYBE NOT AS SERIOUS AS SOME OTHERS, AND THAT IN SOME WAYS THAT MIGHT BE TRUE, AND IN OTHER WAYS HE'S OPERATING THE SAME KIND OF IMPUNITY WE'VE SEEN ALL ALONG, AND YOU CANNOT BE ABOVE THE LAW, CANNOT HAVE A PRESIDENCY ABOVE THE OVAL OFFICE WHO'S ABOVE THE LAW, SO HE SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. >> I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FACT THAT THE ABIRDTY SOMEONE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR 30-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER AND THAT THEIR DAUGHTER WOULD EVEN BE MENTIONED -- I HAVE TWO DAUGHTERS IN THEIR 30s. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I DO IN TERMS OF A DECISION. THEY BOTH ARE ACTIVISTS, BUT I MEAN IT'S JUST ABSURD. IT SHOWS HOW CALLUS AND LOW THIS MAN WILL GO. THERE'S NOTHING OFF-LIMITS TO HIM. NOT ONLY IS HE A THUG, HE IS A THUG THAT HAS NO BOUNDARIES. I MEAN -- >> WITH A GUILTY CONSCIENCE. HE MUST THINK HE'S REALLY SCREWED IN THIS CASE IF HE'S ACTING SO CRAZY. >> THE ONE WHO'S NOT CONVINCED IT'S AN INSIGNIFICANT CASE IS DONALD TRUMP BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT BE THROWING ALL THESE ACCUSATIONS OUT IF HE WAS NOT CONVINCED THAT THIS COULD BE SERIOUS. AND THEY CAN SAY ALL THEY WANT IT DOESN'T MATTER, THEY SAY ALL YOU NEED IS ONE JURY TO HANG IT, ALL YOU NEED IS ONE CONVICTION TO MAKE HIM A FELON. AND HE UNDERSTANDS ONE FELONY PUTS HIM OUT OF BUSINESS NOT ONLY THE WHITE HOUSE BUT IMPACTS THE BUSINESS HE HOPES TO REBUILD AFTER HE FINISHES GETTING RID OF ALL THE CIVIL CASES HE HAS. HE K
Prosecutors File EMERGENCY MOTION after Trump THREATS MeidasTouch Mar 30, 2024
MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on the emergency letter motion filed by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office reporting what they allege is Donald Trump’s violation of the gag order imposed on him in the case.
Transcript
the Manhattan District Attorney's office has gone straight to Justice Juan Maran to report what they call a violation of the gag order imposed by Justice Juan Maran after Donald Trump spent the past 72 hours attacking Justice Juan maran's daughter now Injustice maran's gag order against Donald Trump in the criminal case set for trial on April 15th it specifically states that family member members of Court staff are to be included in the groups of people Donald Trump can't attack however to not specifically say in the gag order that that included the family members of The Manhattan District Attorney's office or family members of Justice Juan M although I think implied or I would even say expressly in the order itself is that you don't attack family members of any of the protected parties period yet Donald Trump continued to do that with Justice Juan mwn so the Manhattan District Attorney's Office sent a letter to judge Maran saying we believe this to be a violation of the gag order by Donald Trump do something and hold him accountable or at the very least make it clear that family members both your family members Justice ban family members of those in this office are also included under the gag order I'll show you that letter in a moment so you can see it for yourself then Donald Trump responded through his Council and said no we have a First Amendment right to do this there's nothing wrong attacking Justice maran's daughter or the family members of The Manhattan District Attorney's office this is something that Donald Trump wants to do and he should be permitted to attack family members this is Justified is what Donald Trump's lawyers do lawyers said at the same time they wrote this Donald Trump been posting videos on his social media platform which one of our writers at midest touch.com uncovered where in the uh vehicles that are in this video that Donald Trump's posting which he is trying to show our um uh videos of trump supporters uh driving in Long Island um there is a vehicle that has this image of uh President Biden being bound on the graphic of a pickup truck this is something that Donald Trump has posted as well and as judge ludig the renowned conservative uh appellant judge who's been on the midest touch Network before a friend of mine as well as he said the nation is witnessing the determined Deliz of both the federal and state judiciaries and the systematic dismantling of its systems of justice and rule of law by a single man and the former president of the United States first let me show you the Manhattan district attorney letter next let me show you Donald Trump's letter here's what the Manhattan district attorney wrote your honor we respectfully submit this premotion letter requesting that the court clarify or confirm that its March 26 2024 order restricting extrajudicial statements protects family members of the Court the district attorney and all other individuals mentioned in the order and two direct that defendant immediately desist from attacks on family members and then it quotes uh the rules of the Court judicial warning of possible contempt can prevent further offensive conduct in other words requesting the court warn uh Trump and Trump's lawyers that they could be held in contempt if they do not deist if the court grants leave we respectfully request that this premotion letter be accepted accepted as our application the Court's March 26th order directed defendant to refrain from inalia making public statements inalia just means among other things making public statements about the family members of any Council or Court staff member if those statements are made with the intent to materially interfere with or cause others to materially interfere with counsel or staff's work in the criminal case or with with the knowledge that such interference is likely to result just one day later defendant made two social media post targeting a family member of this court then it goes on to show the posts which are still up which you can see here the Court's March 26th order directed sorry the people believe that the March 26th order is properly read to protect family members of the court but to avoid any doubt and then it goes into to say other things right there um it requests that the uh Court basically acknowledge that this refers to the family members of the Court as well as the District Attorney's Office the uh a family member that goes and the DC circuit specifically refer to trial participants objective reasonable concerns about their safety and that of their family members in opposing similar restrictions on criminal defendant Donald Trump moreover the undertoe generated by such statements does not stop with the named individual it is also highly likely to influence other Witnesses and other trial participants as a result this court should make it abundantly clear that the March 26th order protects family members of the Court the district attorney and all other individuals mentioned in the order furthermore the court should warn defendant that his recent conduct in its continuation and direct to immediately uh desist and then you got the response from Donald Trump's lawyer Todd blanch who says we write in response to the people's premotion letter relating to the Court's gag order the express terms of the gag order do not apply in the matter claimed by the people which they seem to acknowledge by suggesting the need to avoid any doubt that the gag order has been publicly interpreted in the way that Donald Trump reads it further supports the defense position on the ORD meeting as a result there was nothing um wrong about the social media posts cited in a footnote in one of the people's premotion letters and no warning would be appropriate in other words judge you shouldn't even warn Donald Trump not to threaten your daughter you shouldn't even warn Donald Trump not to threaten the family members of the District Attorney's team and then the letter goes on to say by Trump's lawyer that is particularly true in light of the fact that the defense objected to the vagueness of the proposed gag order and opposition to the people's motion contrary to the people's suggestion the court cannot direct Donald Trump to do something that the gag order does not require to clarify or confirm the meaning of the gag order in the way the people suggest would be to expand it no expansion is appropriate on the basis of a one-page letter citing only two cases and where Donald Trump's response has been restricted to a single page required to be submitted the following day while Trump and defense Council are preparing for trial given the sensitivities associated with prior restraints if the court wishes to consider such an expansion a complete opportunity for full adversarial briefing is necessary such briefing would address the Constitutional problems attendant with any additional improper restrictions on protected campaign speech so what the trumpers are saying here what Trump's lawyer saying is this this would be a restriction on his campaign speech to preclude him from attacking your order judge but the implicit threat as well is not just the threat that Trump wants to attack your daughter and the family members of the District Attorney's office but that if you consider Justice Maran what the District Attorney's office is saying we want there to be a delay in the trial they don't use that specific language there but that's what they mean by that that we think Trump's constitutional rights to attack your daughter and to attack the family members of the district attorney would be violated that's the type of campaign speech that Donald Trump wants to engage in and then we would require a full briefing hint hint hint that may delay the date of the trial and we will try to go to the appeals we may go to the Supreme Court we're going to do anything we can to try to delay this um from happen happening cuz we believe it's an unconstitutional prior restraint I mean pull back for a second I mean the conduct here by Donald Trump in saying that he should have the right to attack the judge's daughter same way in the New York attorney general civil fraud case Donald Trump attacked Justice and goran's wife attacked Justice and goran's Son attacked Justice and Goron's law Clerk and then you go back to what judge ludig retired federal judge ludig said um who's a as conservative right-wing judge as you get and you know and he said that this is the attempted dismantling of our judicial system I mean this conduct is abhorent this conduct is absolutely vile and Despicable and you see Donald Trump's lawyer basically playing the role of a troll and saying ha look what I can look what we going to do oh you want to we'll do some let's do some briefing under the First Amendment prior restraint doctrines about whether or not we can attack your daughter judge and that may take some time that's what we're dealing with folks right here and I don't care what political party you're affiliated with we should all agree this is disgusting when I showed you that photo of what Donald Trump the video Trump was posting of President Biden gagged in the back of a pickup I mean this is some disturbing stuff that any political party should be against but the Republican part's Maga now that's what you got I'm Ben melis this is the mightest of show kid subscribe let's get to three million subscribers together and check out our new film on Apple TV and Amazon it's called against all enemies check it out
Prosecutor FILES EMERGENCY MOTION on Trump’s Conduct by Ben Meiselas MeidasTouch Apr 1, 2024
MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on the urgent motion filed by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg regarding Donald Trump’s threats in advance of the April 15 trial.
Transcript
the Manhattan District Attorney's office has just filed a supplemental memorandum with Justice Juan Maran that starts like this defendant Donald Trump's dangerous violent and reprehensible rhetoric fundamentally threatens the Integrity of these proceedings and is intended to intimidate Witnesses and trial participants alike including this court the Manhattan district attorney points out that Donald Trump has consistently since Justice Juan Maran entered a gag order on March 26 2024 Trump has consistently made post threatening Justice Juan Maran and also threatening and attacking Justice Juan maran's daughter and under false pretext as well and the message from the Manhattan District Attorney's office is Judge if you don't take action right now the message this sends to Donald Trump and his violent followers is that if he's permitted to attack your own daughter Justice Maran that they are free to attack and threaten and harass other Witnesses one of the posts that is referenced in this supplemental memorandum filed by the Manhattan District Attorney's office on the eve of the April 15 2024 trial is this recent post by Donald Trump where he refers to my co-host on political Beatdown and a host on the mest touch Network on the Maya culpa show Donald Trump refers to Cohen using the word death and the Manhattan District Attorney's Office says Donald Trump has basically threatened death and destruction on Witnesses Donald Trump has made post stating that if you go after me I'm coming after you and the Manhattan da said Justice Maran you need to make it very clear that your March 26 2024 gag order includes this conduct and you need to issue what would be just a final warning to Donald Trump that if he engages in any further conduct like this he should be incarcerated immediately and there needs to be immediate repercussions for his attempt to just completely threaten intimidate Witnesses and try to derail this April 15 trial with his despicable and violent rhetoric as you go through this filing by the Manhattan district attorney they explain that there is a factual record that the people have diligently put together and documented since defendants arraignment one year ago a record by the way that Donald Trump and his lawyers never contested that this court judicially implemented a series of steps a stepbystep approach with measures to protect the administrative Justice while providing the maximum allowance for defendant Donald Trump's speech but after a series of statements from defendant Donald Trump that included threatening death and destruction if he was indicted and then posting a photo of himself wielding a baseball bat at the back of the District Attorney's head statements which required an extensive Public Safety response by multiple law enforcement agencies this court admonished defendant to refrain from statements likely to incite violence or civil unrest or which jeopardize the rule of law defendant refused to refrain from his disruptive and terrifying speech then in response to the the people's motion for narrow limits on extrajudicial speech defense counsel swore to this court Trump's lawyer told you justice Muran that defendant would self-regulate and you had nothing to worry about him making more violent statements like the ones he was engaged in but defendant Donald Trump has has proved himself totally incapable of self-regulating going so far as to refer to one potential trial witness last week as death with the start of trial imminent and all other less restrictive measures having failed this court entered a tailored order on March 26 2024 restricting certain kinds of extrajudicial speech aimed at Witnesses prospective jurors Court staff prosecutors and others so what did defendant Donald Trump do well defendant Donald Trump responded by launching a barrage of attacks not only on this court but also on a member of this Court's Family immediately after the March 26 2024 order including posting a photo of your honor of Justice maran's family member's daughter these attacks were based on transparent falsehoods such as the claim that the family member had made a post on social media in fact the social media account cited by defendant was a fraudulent impersonation but those facts are beside the point for the defendant indeed defendant has instead insisted that he is constitutionally entitled to engage in what he considers protected campaign speech against this Court's Family based on yet another false claim that the family member is actively supporting adversarial campaign speech by defendants political opponents which is not true at all there is no constitutional right for a criminal defendant to Target a family member of this court full stop it doesn't exist exist let alone on the blanked falsehoods that have served as the flimsiest pretext for defendants attacks defendant knows what he's doing Trump knows what he is doing and everyone else does too and we all know exactly what defendant intends because he has said for decades that it is part of his life philosophy to go after his perceived opponents as viciously and as violently as he can he has said for decades that he attacks his perceived opponents viciously and violently both because it is a good feeling for him and because other people will see you doing it and he promised very recently that quote if you go after me I'm coming after you he is carrying out that promise right now defendant's conduct since the court issued the March 26th order is all the record that is necessary to just ify a further order making clear that the Court's Family is off limit defendant is awaiting trial on felony charges and has been offered many opportunities to conform his behavior to a minimum standard necessary to allow this trial to proceed without disruption defendants continued harassing and disruptive conduct thus demands clarification or expansion of this Court's March 26th order restricting extrajudicial speech to protect the Court's ability to administer this case to protect the Court's Family and this court from harm and to show all Witnesses prospective jurors and other trial participants that the judicial system stands ready to protect them to and to preserve the rule of law in the face of defendants extreme and deliberate provocation defend 's claim of a constitutional right to Levy personal attacks on the family members is disturbing as it is wrong this court has already held that even assuming the highest scrutiny under the First Amendment narrow restrictions on defendant statements are permissible since his inflammatory extrajudicial statements undoubtedly risk impeding the orderly administration of justice there is absolutely no reason to reach a different conclusion as to inflammatory attacks on this Court's Family or for that matter attacks on the family members of any other individuals covered by this order and the harm to the orderly administration of this proceeding is magnet is magnified by the high likelihood that potential Witnesses prospective jurors and other trial participants will observe defendants attack and understand that if the courts family is fair game then so are theirs and I think that's the most important point to make which is Justice Maran you may feel that you and your family have all of this protection maybe you don't but maybe you feel that you know that the police will be able to protect your family which is great judge however the message this sends to other Witnesses like my co-host Michael Cohen who gets regular death threat because of Trump's conduct they don't have that security and the message is sent that if Trump can get away with this going after your do your daughter judge then they he can go after other Witnesses and there'll be no ramifications or repercussions and it also invites potentially um Trump's violent supporters to say okay we can do this to all of these Witnesses and let me just say firsthand that I know as a co-host of Michael Cohen and a good friend of Michael Cohen and Michael Cohen has a show I know the death threats that he gets I know the I know how this actually impacts people's lives and shatters their own security and causes them to live in fear I speak to Cohen about that on a regular basis that's why this is so important for the Manhattan district attorney to bring this to the attention of the Court we'll see what Justice Juan mishan does but I wanted to share this with you here I'm Ben myellis this is the midest touch Network
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 59
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK -against- DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant.
PEOPLE'S SUPPLEMENTAL FILING REGARDING THE COURT'S MARCH 26, 2024 ORDER RESTRICTING EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS
Ind. No. 71543-23
Defendant's dangerous, violent, and reprehensible rhetoric fundamentally threatens the integrity of these proceedings and is intended to intimidate witnesses and trial participants alike— including this Court. The People accordingly submit this memorandum in further support of our March 28 request that the Court (1) clarify or confirm that its March 26, 2024 Order Restricting Extrajudicial Statements protects family members of the Court, the District Attorney, and all other individuals mentioned in the Order; and (2) warn defendant that his recent conduct is contumacious and direct that defendant immediately desist from attacks on family members. To the extent that the original March 26 Order did not already prohibit this behavior, this Court can and should clarify or extend the Order to protect family members of the Court on the record described below, and should warn defendant that any future disregard of the Order will result in sanctions under Judiciary Law §§ 750(A)(3) and 751.
Based on a factual record that the People have assiduously documented since defendant's arraignment one year ago—a record that defendant has never contested—this Court judiciously implemented a series of step-by-step measures to protect the administration of justice while providing maximum allowance for defendant's speech. After a series of statements from defendant that included threatening "death and destruction" if he was indicted and posting a photo of himself wielding a baseball bat at the back of the District Attorney's head—statements which required an extensive public safety response by multiple law enforcement agencies—this Court admonished defendant to refrain from statements likely to incite violence or civil unrest or which jeopardized the rule of law.1 Defendant refused to refrain from his disruptive and terrifying speech. Then, in response to the People’s motion for narrow limits on extrajudicial speech, defense counsel swore to this Court that defendant could and would self-regulate. Defendant proved himself totally incapable of self-regulating, going so far as to refer to one potential trial witness last week as “death.”2 With the start of trial imminent and all other less restrictive measures having failed, this Court entered a tailored order on March 26, 2024, restricting certain kinds of extrajudicial speech aimed at witnesses, prospective jurors, court staff, prosecutors, and others.
Defendant immediately responded by launching a barrage of attacks not only on this Court but also on a member of the Court’s family—including by posting a photo of the family member.3 These attacks were based on transparent falsehoods, such as the claim that the family member had made a post on social media; in fact, the social media account cited by defendant was a fraudulent impersonation.4 But the facts are beside the point for this defendant. Indeed, defendant has instead insisted that he is constitutionally entitled to engage in “protected campaign speech” against this Court’s family based on yet another false claim: that the family member is “actively supporting adversarial campaign speech by [defendant’s] political opponents.” Def.’s Mar. 29 Ltr. at 1.
There is no constitutional right to target the family of this Court, let alone on the blatant falsehoods that have served as the flimsiest pretexts for defendant’s attacks. Defendant knows what he is doing, and everyone else does too. And we all know exactly what defendant intends because he has said for decades that it is part of his life philosophy to go after his perceived opponents “as viciously and as violently” as he can.5 He has said for decades that he attacks his perceived opponents “viciously” and “violently” both “because it is a good feeling and because other people will see you doing it.”6 And he promised very recently that “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”7 He is carrying out that promise right now.
Defendant’s conduct since this Court issued the March 26 Order is all the record that is necessary to justify a further order making clear that the Court’s family is off-limits.8 Defendant is awaiting trial on felony charges and has been offered many opportunities to conform his behavior to the minimum standard necessary to allow this trial to proceed without disruption. Defendant’s continued harassing and disruptive conduct thus demands clarification or expansion of this Court’s March 26 Order Restricting Extrajudicial Speech to protect the Court’s ability to administer this case; to protect this Court and the Court’s family from harm; and to show all witnesses, prospective jurors, and other trial participants that the judicial system stands ready to protect them too and to preserve the rule of law in the face of defendant’s extreme and deliberate provocations.
Defendant’s claim of a constitutional right to levy personal attacks on family members is as disturbing as it is wrong. This Court has already held that, even assuming “the highest scrutiny” under the First Amendment, narrow restrictions on defendant’s statements are permissible since his “inflammatory extrajudicial statements undoubtedly risk impeding the orderly administration of this Court.” Mar. 26 Order at 1-2. There is absolutely no reason to reach a different conclusion as to inflammatory attacks on this Court’s family (or, for that matter, attacks on family members of any other individuals covered by the Order). And the harm to the orderly administration of this proceeding is magnified by the high likelihood that potential witnesses, prospective jurors, and other trial participants will observe defendant’s attacks and understand that, if this Court’s family is fair game, then so are theirs. See United States v. Trump, 88 F.4th 990, 1013 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (“The undertow generated by such statements does not stop with the named individual. It is also highly likely to influence other witnesses.”).
Defendant’s vague reference to “the constitutional problems attendant with any additional improper restrictions on protected campaign speech” (Mar. 29 Ltr. at 1) suggests that he believes he may have a higher entitlement to attack family members than trial participants. But there is no doctrine of constitutional law that provides heightened First Amendment protections for criminal defendants to target family members of the presiding judge. Unlike trial participants—who at least are involved in the proceeding involving defendant—family members have nothing whatsoever to do with this criminal trial except by dint of their personal relationships. As the district court in defendant’s D.C. criminal prosecution observed before ordering similar restrictions on his extrajudicial statements, there is simply no First Amendment value to allowing attacks on family members who have “nothing to do with [the] case.” Tr. 47, United States v. Trump, No. 23-00257, Dkt. No. 103 (D.D.C. Oct. 16, 2023) (“In what world is it permissible, Mr. Lauro? In what world, in what case would it be allowable for a criminal defendant to attack a prosecutor’s family?”).
The only fig leaf of a justification that defendant references is his claim that the Court’s family member “is actively supporting adversarial campaign speech by [defendant’s] political opponents.” Mar. 29 Ltr. at 1. But the suggestion that defendant is merely engaging in political counter-speech is an obvious fiction that this Court should emphatically reject. See Dep’t of Com. v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2575 (2019) (judges “are not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free” (quotation marks omitted)). None of defendant’s attacks in the past week consist of campaign advocacy. Instead, defendant has viciously and falsely smeared the Court and the family member for no reason other than the Court’s presiding over this criminal trial. The only possible purpose for such personal attacks can be to impede the orderly administration of this trial.9 That is the very harm that led this Court to impose the March 26 Order in the first place. As U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton recently observed in decrying defendant’s remarks, “the rule of law can only function effectively when we have judges who are prepared to carry out their duties without the threat of potential physical harm” to themselves and their families.10
The claim about the Court’s family member is also a blatant falsehood that this Court rejected last year in denying defendant’s May 31, 2023, motion seeking this Court’s recusal. See Decision on Def.’s Mot. for Recusal 2-3 (Aug. 11, 2023). As the People explained in our response on June 14, 2023, there is no factual support at all for defendant’s assertion, and the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics agreed when presented with the same question. See Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, Op. 23-54 (May 4, 2023).11 This Court already admonished defense counsel at the March 25, 2024 hearing and in a subsequent written order to adhere to the facts in making any representations to the Court. See Mar. 25 Hearing Tr. at 53; Decision & Order on Def.’s Mot. to Vacate the Court’s Order on the Filing of Motions at 4 (Mar. 26, 2024). Defense counsel has immediately disregarded those admonitions and knowingly repeated a baseless claim about the Court’s family member.
This issue is not complicated. Family members of trial participants must be strictly off-limits. Defendant’s insistence to the contrary bespeaks a dangerous sense of entitlement to instigate fear and even physical harm to the loved ones of those he sees in the courtroom. This Court should immediately make clear that defendant is prohibited from making or directing others to make public statements about family members of the Court, the District Attorney, and all other individuals mentioned in the Order.
Finally, the People note that in our Motion for a Protective Order Regulating Disclosure of Juror Addresses and Names, the People asked this Court to put defendant on notice that he will forfeit any statutory right he may have to access juror names if he engages in any conduct that threatens the safety and integrity of the jury or the jury-selection process. See Mot. for a Protective Order 1, 17-20 (Feb. 22, 2024). The Court granted the People’s motion to restrict disclosure of juror addresses and names, and further held that “a decision on the People’s motion for this Court to explicitly provide notice to Defendant that any harassing or disruptive conduct that threatens the safety or integrity of the jury may result in forfeiture of Defendant’s access to juror names is reserved pending this Court’s decision on the People’s motion for an order restricting extrajudicial statements.” Mar. 7, 2024 Order at 6-7. The People respectfully request that any order this Court enters clarifying or confirming the scope of its March 26 Order should also include the relief the People requested in our February 22 Motion for a Protective Order; namely, that defendant be expressly warned that any statutory right he may have to access juror names will be forfeited by continued harassing or disruptive conduct.
DATED: April 1, 2024
Respectfully submitted,
ALVIN L. BRAGG, JR. District Attorney, New York County By: /s/ Matthew Colangelo Matthew Colangelo Christopher Conroy Katherine Ellis Susan Hoffinger Becky Mangold Joshua Steinglass Assistant District Attorneys New York County District Attorney’s Office 1 Hogan Place New York, NY 10013 212-335-9000
_______________
Notes:
1 Tr. of Arraignment 5-8, 12-13 (Apr. 4, 2023). The People filed these and other statements with the Court at defendant’s arraignment, including statements directly addressing the grand jury; calling the District Attorney an “animal,” a “degenerate psychopath,” and “HUMAN SCUM”; referring to multiple potential witnesses in pejorative and violent terms; and threatening “years of hatred, chaos, and turmoil” if he was indicted.
5 Ex. 11 to People’s Mot. for an Order Restricting Extrajudicial Statements (Feb. 22, 2024).
6 Exs. 11 & 12 to People’s Mot. for an Order Restricting Extrajudicial Statements.
7 Ex. 1 to People’s Mot. for an Order Restricting Extrajudicial Statements.
8 To the extent more is needed—which it is not—the People expressly incorporate by reference and the Court may rely on the exhibits, factual averments, and argument already presented to the Court in the People’s many prior filings (which were already subject to “a complete opportunity for full adversarial briefing,” Def.’s Mar. 29 Ltr. at 1), which comprehensively document defendant’s extensive history of threats and dangerous rhetoric against participants in legal proceedings against him, including this one. See People’s Mot. for an Order Restricting Extrajudicial Statements (Feb. 22, 2024); People’s Mot. for a Protective Order Regulating Disclosure of Juror Addresses and Names (Feb. 22, 2024); People’s Mot. to Quash Def.’s Subpoena and for a Protective Order (Nov. 9, 2023); People’s Mot. for a Protective Order (Apr. 24, 2023); Tr. of Arraignment 5-8, 12-13 (Apr. 4, 2023).
9 Defendant accelerated his attacks on the Court and the Court’s family on Thursday afternoon, March 28, several hours after the People filed our request on Thursday morning that the Court clarify or confirm the scope of the Order. Defendant did so again through the weekend after defense counsel made a Friday afternoon request—which the Court granted—for the opportunity to submit a second response today to the People’s letter. Defense counsel’s claim to need more time to brief the straightforward question of whether a member of the Court’s family should be singled out for online harassment has allowed defendant to exploit the intervening period by continuing to target and harass the Court and the Court’s family.
Trump’s Attacks on Judges and Prosecutors Are Dangerous. Gag Him Completely by Shan Wu Updated Apr. 01, 2024 11:24AM EDT / Published Apr. 01, 2024 11:10AM EDT
IMPUNITY
There is harm—grave harm—in allowing Trump to attack judges and prosecutors, as well as their families, through his words. He needs to be forced to stop.
Judges and prosecutors seem so afraid of violating Donald Trump’s First Amendment rights that they are undermining the integrity of the criminal justice system by seeking and issuing fundamentally flawed gag orders that fail to prohibit attacks on the presiding judges and main prosecutors.
For example, in the election interference case brought against Trump by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Judge Juan Merchan issued a gag order preventing Trump from making statements—or directing others to make statements—about witnesses, prosecutors, court staff and their relatives if he intends to interfere with their work on the case as well as any comments about jurors.
The order failed to prohibit any comments about D.A. Bragg or Judge Merchan, and Trump immediately exploited this loophole by naming and criticizing Merchan’s adult daughter on Trump’s social media platform Truth Social. Bragg’s office has now sent a letter to the judge asking him to either clarify that his order does encompass his own family and D.A. Bragg’s family, or expand it to cover their families.
Merchan’s order is not unique in exempting judges and main prosecutors, as it closely tracked Judge Tanya Chutkan’s order in the case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith—as well as Judge Arthur Engoron’s order in the civil fraud trial brought by New York State Attorney General Letitia James after Trump made various false public claims about the judge’s law clerk.
There is no reason gag orders should engender such fear. As Professor Tonja Jacobi has written: “A gag order (or non-dissemination order) may seem like a core interference with the First Amendment right to free speech, and an especially worrisome one because the First Amendment is most protective against “prior restraint”—banning speech in advance rather than punishing it subsequently. But every right in the Constitution must be balanced against others.
Gag orders are often justified by the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial process, which includes the right to be judged by an impartial jury. A fair trial could be undermined by revelation of information, especially in high-profile cases such as the four criminal indictments and multiple civil suits against the ex-president.”
Admittedly, the courts and prosecutors are in unfamiliar territory with Trump, since gag orders usually are imposed to protect a defendant against excessive pre-trial publicity which might prejudice the right to a fair trial by tainting the jury pool. Trump, however, wants as much pre-trial publicity as possible as he is using the criminal trials to fundraise as well as to support his Presidential campaign.
Most defendants don’t insult and smear prosecutors and judges since there is little to gain by pissing off the people bringing charges against you and the person who may sentence you. Trump is not worried about that though, because he is using the criminal charges to buttress his presidential campaign.
One can query whether this is a truly a novel political strategy, or one just born out of necessity since no presidential candidate has ever had to campaign while facing 91 felony charges brought by both federal and state prosecutors. So, rather than the usual tight-lipped response of “we look forward to our day in court” while the loyal spouse stands by his side, Trump rants and raves alone without the presence of a spouse by his side (perhaps his standing sans Melania Trump is a choice also borne out of necessity).
Gag orders also are not typically used to ensure the safety of trial participants much less that of judges and prosecutors. Defendants do not explicitly publicly threaten witnesses, jurors, judges, prosecutors because that would lead to them being prosecuted with new charges.
Trump also does not make explicit threats of harm. Rather, the dangerousness of his remarks arise from the proven track record of his remarks inciting violence: January 6, the Walmart mass shooter whose manifesto invoked Trump, the threats received by all the judges in his cases, the swatting of Special Counsel Jack Smith on Christmas, the white powder mailed to Bragg—the list goes on. These incidents reflect deeper problems than just Trump mouthing off, but in the context of court cases gag orders are a tool to lessen danger if only judges will apply it without hesitation or favor.
The courts get the obvious safety problem posed by Trump’s remarks for those lacking personal security details. That’s why they imposed orders banning Trump from talking about court staff like Judge Engoron’s law clerk, witnesses and their families, jurors and their families. But there is harm—grave harm—in allowing Trump to attack judges and prosecutors, as well as their families, through his speech. These obviously pose safety issues for the families, and D.A. Bragg’s office is trying to address this by asking Merchan to clarify or expand his order.
Trump’s lawyers counter with the argument that any gag order on Trump violates the First Amendment, arguing that basically anything Trump says falls into the class of political speech since he is running for office.
That’s too much deference to the First Amendment. It’s not absolute. Threatening to kill someone is not protected speech. Nor is handing a note to a bank teller that says “give me the money.” Moreover, even if a gag order turns out to have violated the First Amendment there is zero effect upon the integrity of a criminal case.
“There is a no-brainer difference between criticism of a public official, and Trump criticizing the officials tasked with prosecuting, judging, and potentially sentencing him.”
This isn’t like a Fourth Amendment violation where illegally seized evidence will be suppressed, a Fifth Amendment violation where a coerced confession will be thrown out, or a Sixth Amendment violation of the right to counsel that could result in a conviction being overturned. The remedy for a gag order violating the First Amendment would simply be to limit the scope of the order—as the D.C. Circuit did with Judge Chutkan’s original order—or simply dissolve it altogether with no effect on the outcome of the criminal case.
Judges themselves and the main prosecutors should not be free game for Trump. Sure, they have security and may justifiably feel that as public officials it’s part of the job to be criticized. But there is a no-brainer difference between criticism of a public official, and Trump criticizing the officials tasked with prosecuting, judging, and potentially sentencing him. That undermines the cases—it taints jury pools and intimidates witnesses, who justifiably might fear that that if Trump is free to target judges and prosecutors then they as ordinary citizens will be at grave risk of being threatened as election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss experienced after being falsely accused by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani of election fraud.
This machismo of letting Trump attack them serves no good purpose. It doesn’t protect the First Amendment. It doesn’t protect the trials. It doesn’t protect our country. Judges and prosecutors might have security details to protect them, but the only protection the rest of us have—and the only protection our democracy has—is the courage of public officials to do their jobs. And that means gagging Donald Trump. Completely.
Shan Wu is a former federal prosecutor who served as counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno
Alvin Bragg urges Judge Merchan to amend Trump gag order to include family members of court by Nicolle Wallace MSNBC Apr 1, 2024 #Trump #AlvinBragg #January6
Claire McCaskill, former Senator from Missouri, Tim Heaphy former lead investigator for the January 6th Select Committee, and Andrew Weissmann, former top prosecutor at the Justice Department join Nicolle Wallace on Deadline White House with reaction to the former President spending his holiday weekend attacking members of Juan Marchan’s family and the breaking news of DA Alvin Bragg urging the judge to amend the gag order to include family members of the court.
Transcript
THE PLEAS TO TAKE TRUMP SERIOUSLY AS HE RATCHETING UP AND UP THE RHETORIC, COMING FROM FAR AND WIDE, FROM THE STATEMENT WE READ FROM THE BIDEN CAMPAIGN TO PROSECUTORS IN NEW YORK, AS THEY PREPARE TO PUT TRUMP ON HIS FIRST CRIMINAL TRIAL TWO WEEKS FROM NOW. THE EX-PRESIDENT HAS CONTINUED HIS ATTACKS ON THE DAUGHTER OF JUDGE MERSHON, SHARING IMAGES OF THE JUDGE'S DAUGHTER, RANDING ON TRUTH SOCIAL ON SATURDAY EVENING, FORMER PRESIDENT SHARING A LINK ABOUT THE LAUREN MERSHON WHO WORKS WITH A -- AND LOREN'S SPLIT WALL WORK WAS PART OF HER FATHER BEING COMPROMISED. OUR DEMOCRACY GRAPPLING IN REAL TIME WITH DONALD TRUMP'S DANGEROUS RHETORIC IS WHERE WE BEGIN TODAY WITH SOME OF OUR MOST FAVORITE EXPERTS AND FRIENDS. CLAIRE McCASKILL IS HERE, AND TIMOTHY HEAPHY IS BACK, AND MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST ANDREW WEISSMAN IS BACK WITH US.
[TIMOTHY HEAPHY] >> THERE'S A CALL AND RESPONSE BETWEEN THE FORMER PRESIDENT'S RHETORIC AND REAL-LIFE CONSEQUENCE ON THE GROUND. IT GOES BACK A LONG TIME, BUT WE TALKED TO A LOT OF PROUD BOYS THAT THE TAPPED BY AND STAND BACK COMMENT, AS A REASON TO JOIN THE ORGANIZE AND ORGANIZE ON JANUARY 6th. THEY GOD DEATH THREATS, PEOPLE OUTSIDE THEIR HOUSE, SO THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THE COMMITTEE'S WORK ESTABLISHED THIS IS NOT SIMPLY RHETORICAL, NOT SIMPLY ADECK DOTAL, HYPOTHETICAL RHETORIC.
[NICOLLE WALLACE]>> LET'S AGAIN PUT THIS BACK INTO THE WORDS OF HIS OWN FOLLOWERS. WE HAVE SOME OF THAT EVIDENCE THAT YOU DEVELOPED. LET ME ASK YOU, ANDREW WEISSMAN. SOME ANN, TO PUT THIS INTO SOME CONTEXT OF YOUR CAREER. IT SEEMS TO ME, AND I CONCLUDED ON FRIDAY THAT AT SOME POINT IT STOPS BEING ABOUT TRUMP. EVEN MOB DEFENDANTS HAVE A DESIRE TO NOT BE IN PRISON WHILE AWAITING TRIAL, AND THEIR SHENANIGANS SEEM TO HAVE SOME RESPONSIVENESS TO NOT BE IN BEHAVIOR. HIS BEHAVIOR SEEMS TO BE OUTSIDE ALL THE LEVERS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. PUT THIS IN REAL TIME IN RELATION OR IN CONTEXT TO WHAT ELSE YOU HAVE SEEN IN YOUR CAREER?
[ANDREW WEISSMAN]>> YOU KNOW, WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, IT'S NOT A REFLECTION OF DONALD TRUMP. WE KNOW WHAT HE IS. HE HAS ENGAGED IN THIS BEHAVIOR. IT WILL INCREASINGLY BE OVER THE TOP AS HE GETS CLOSER AND CLOSER. THIS IS ABOUT OUR INSTITUTIONS ABOUT HOW THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF HANDLING THIS SITUATION. IN NORMAL CASES, WHEN I HAVE HANDLED ORGANIZED CRIME CASES, VIOLENT CRIMINALS, THERE'S A PROCESS WHERE THEY ARE HELD TO STANDARDS. AND IF THEY WERE TO ENGAGE IN THIS KIND OF CONDUCT, YES, THEY'RE USUALLY GIVEN ONE BITE AT THE APPLE, THEY ARE GIVEN ONE WARNING, AND THEN THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES, WHICH CAN INCLUDE AND OFTEN DOES INCLUDE JAIL. JUST THINK ABOUT NOT THAT LONG AGO, PAUL MANAFORT, HE COMMITTED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY COACHING TWO WITNESSES TO LIE, AND HE WAS REMANDED BY THE FEDERAL JUDGE WHO OVERSAW HIS CASE. SO, I REALLY THINK THIS IS A SITUATION WITH SO MANY PEOPLE BENDING OVER BACKWARDS, GIVING THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND I THINK THAT'S THE ROAD TO HELL BY NOT HAVING SORT OF HELD THESE TRIALS ALREADY, BY NOT HAVING INVESTIGATED IN A TIMELY WAY, BY NOT HOLDING HIM TO THE EXACT SAME STANDARD THAT WE WOULD HOLD ANYONE ELSE TO. WE'RE BOTH VIOLATING OUR OATHS OF OFFICE, WE'RE VIOLATING WHAT IT MEANS TO HAVE A JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT HOLDS EVERYONE TO THE SAME STANDARD. AND I KNOW A LOT OF TIMES IT'S BORN OUT OF TRYING TO BE ULTRA-FAIR, BUT IT'S LEADING TO REALLY, BEYOND TWO SYSTEMS OF JUSTICE, IT'S A UNIQUE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE FOR DONALD TRUMP, WHICH IS NOT CONSTANT WITH WHAT IT MEANS TO HAVE A DEMOCRACY. AND WE MAY FIND OURSELVES WITHOUT A DEMOCRACY IF WE DON'T SORT OF WISE UP AND HOLD HIM TO THE SAME STANDARD THAT WE DO EVERYONE ELSE THAT HAS EVER BEEN TREATED IN ALL OF THE CRIMINAL CASES I'VE EVER DONE IN MY ENTIRE LIFE.
>> THIS IS THE FARTHEST I HAVE HEARD YOU GO, ANDREW, AND HE NOW EXISTS IN A STATUS ONLY AVAILABLE TO HIM. IT WASN'T AVAILABLE TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN OR MOB BOSSES? IT EXISTS ONLY FOR HIM. I WONDER IF WE STOP AT SOME POINT SAYING HE WAS TOO MUCH FOR THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM -- I HAVE SOME BREAKING NEWS ON THAT FRONT. I'LL BRING IT TO YOU IN A SECOND. I WONDER IF IT'S A CHARADE AT THIS POINT, SAYING TO VOTERS, LISTEN, IT'S UP TO YOU, BUT MORE THAN EVER, YOU ARE VOTERS, JURORS, HERE ARE THE FACTS AS I SEE THEM. IS THAT WHERE WE ARE? >> I DO THIS WE ARE AT A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF AT A TIME WHEN YOU SEE A SITTING FEDERAL JUDGE HAVING TO GO ON AIR TO DEFEND THE RULE OF LAW, BUT YOU DON'T SEE THAT BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CONDEMNING VIVIOLENCE. YOU DON'T SEE THAT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNDERSTANDING THE WAY WE ARE IN, SPEAKING OUT IN THE WAY, FOR INSTANCES THAT ARCHIBALD COX SPOKE OUT. YOU HAVE THREE FORMER PROSECUTORS HERE WITH OUR EXPERIENCE, AND IF YOU HAD ASKED ANY OF US, IF WE EVER HAD A DEFENDANT LIKE THIS AND THEIR NAME WAS FOR THE DONALD TRUMP, WOULD ANY OF US SAY THE JUDGE WOULDN'T HAVE HAULED THAT PERSON IN AND AT THE VERY LEAST READ THEM THE RIOT ACT WHAT THEY CAN OR CANNOT DO, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AT THE MOMENT THE POST WAS MADE WITH RESPECT TO THE CURRENT PRESIDENT. THIS IS SIMPLY A CRIME TO THREATEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. IT'S ALSO SOMETHING IN A CAN -- THAT CAN LEAD TO A MUCH STRICT ARE GAG ORDER. ALL OF THAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED BY NOW. THE IDEA HE CAN SAY HE'S BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY IS SO LAUGHABLE, BECAUSE I THINK ANYBODY ON THIS PANEL WOULD SAY HE'S BEEN TREATED WITH KID GLOVES BY THE SYSTEM. >> AGAIN, I OBVIOUS SAY WE NEED A PSYCHOLOGIST OR SOCIOLOGYIST HERE. ALL OF THE -- YOU USE THE WORD ULTRA-FAIRNESS, EVERYWHERE THAT HE ENCOUNTERED THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, IT DID WHAT YOU DESCRIBED, TO OVERCOMPENSATION FOR WHAT HE CONSTANTLY PROTECTED ON THE PROCESSES. >>> THIS IS AN UPDATE WE CAME IN AT THIS HOUR ON FRIDAY, WHAT IS NOW A LEGAL PROCESS AROUND A GAG ORDER. THERE'S BREAKING NEWS ON THAT FRONT. THE MANHATTAN D.A.'S OFFICE HAS ISSUED A NEW FILING DELINEATING A LOT OF THE WEEKEND'S ATTACKS. WHAT IS IN HERE? >> REALLY, REALLY STRONG LANGUAGE, NICOLLE, AND A SORT OF CONCESSION FROM THE D.A.'S OFFICE, THAT THE GAG ORDER MAYBE DOESN'T COVER FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE COURT OR OF THE D.A.'S OFFICE, BUT IF IT DOESN'T, THEY ARE SAYING NOW IS THE TIME TO EXPAND IT AND ALSO, AS THEY ASKED FRIDAY, TO WARNING DONALD TRUMP THAT ONE MORE VIOLATION AND THE CONSEQUENCES WILL INCLUDE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT UNDER NEW YORK LAW. THE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT STATUTES THESE CITE ALLOW FOR THE IMPRISONMENT OF A PERSON WHO VIOLATES WILLFULLY A COURT ORDER UP TO 30 DAYS. WE HAVE HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS IS A LAW SUFFICIENT IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS. THE D.A.'S OFFICE SAYS IT IS, IF YOU ONLY HAVE THE WILL TO IMPOSE THAT. >> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> THEY'RE BASICALLY SAYING TO THE JUDGE, THE CHOICE IS YOUR. EVERY JUDGE WITH THIS MAN BEFORE HIM, HAS DEALT WITH, TANNIAN CHUTKAN HAS, JUDGE GOR GOREN IS SAYING WE HAVE SEEN THIS HAPPEN. EVERYTHING THAT HE'S DONE, AND I'M QUOTING NOW FROM THIS FILING, EVERYTHING THAT HE'S DONE SINCE YOUR HONOR'S ORDER ADJUSTS EXPANDING THE ORDER. THEY CALL HIS SPEECH DISRUPTIVE AND TERRIFYING. THEY NOTE HE REFERRED TO MICHAEL COHEN AS DEATH, AND WHAT HE HAS DONE TO THE JUDGE'S DAUGHTER IS OFF-LIMITS. IT'S BASED ON FALSEHOODS ABOUT HER SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS. THEY DESCRIBE HOW THAT'S AN IMPERSONATION OF AN ACCOUNT SHE WON HELD AND BASED ON WHAT KIND OF INCOME SHE'S GARNERING FROM THE PROFESSION SHE HAS NOW, BUT EVEN IF TRUE, IT DOESN'T JUSTIFY THE ATTACKS. EVEN IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF OR IT'S ARGUE AGENT HE COULD HAVE, THEY REMINDED HIM, YOU ASKED A ADVISORY PANEL LAST YEAR, YOU ASKED THEM, WHAT SHOULD I DO? THEY TOLD
LAWLESS Trump Supporters Cause SECURITY EMERGENCY by Michael Popok MeidasTouch Jun 2, 2024 Legal AF Podcast
Judge Merchan is under fresh violent attacks fomented by Trump and his followers including right wing media telling his rabid supporters that Merchan told the jury in his instructions that they could in effect just pick any crime out of a hat and convict Trump, , leading to the Department of Public Safety charged with protecting Judge Merchan going into overdrive to prevent an attack. Michael Popok who practices in NY explains that the actual jury instructions were perfect under NY law, and will not be reversed on appeal.
Transcript
this is Michael popok legal AF in the
aftermath of Donald Trump's 34C count
felony conviction we have him using
along with his proxies false information
which is being used to attack judge
Maran and now there are increased
violent
threats against judge Maran as a result
what am I talking about I'm talking
about the four four four fraudulent
theory that Donald Trump and his proxies
including those on Fox News have used
against judge ran who who basically have
claimed that judge mwn violated New York
law and the way that he instructed the
jury about how they should find
unanimity about the criminal uh counts
against Donald Trump claiming falsely
wrongly that the judge instructed the
jury that they could um convict Donald
Trump of any crime they could think of
and that four of them could think of one
crime and four could think of another
crime and the third convict him of
another crime and that would be enough
to convict him of a books and records of
a fraud case wrong and it it wouldn't be
it would just be laughable that Donald
Trump is using that just for the grift
of raising fundraising dollars if it
wasn't leading to the real world
consequences of a of a state court judge
being violently attacked so much so that
there's been an uptick in uh messaging
hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of
messages being sent through to judge
Maran threatening harm to him and his
family as a result of this it's not a
game it is to the Trump side it's not a
game any longer now as Donald Trump
always knows his rhetoric has
consequences every judge that's ever
dealt with him has told him that the
call and response between Donald Trump
and his followers to do violence is
strong and when Donald Trump and his
followers say and and lie about the jury
instructions in order to try to
undermine the validity of the hard work
of 12 manhattanites who convicted Donald
Trump not just of one but of all 34
counts against them for business record
fraud in furtherance of a second crime
and they and they falsely declare they
try to undermine the judge that he he
wrongly and improperly and illegally
instructed the jury what did they think
was going to happen exactly what's
happening death threats to judge rashan
let me explain how this works and we've
done it on legal AF but I want to do it
right here on this hotti because I want
to explain it so you have it as a a sort
of a pal card when you're talking to
people in the street about this
particular issue the instruction that
was given by judge Bashan was
appropriate what it says is that the
jury had to reach unanimity about
whether there was a business record
fraud case here that Donald Trump caused
the business records of the Trump
organization to contain fraudulent
information in furtherance of a second
crime what we call a predicate crime
what the judge said is you must reach
unanimity 120 on the violation of the
uh
17510 of the penal law of New York which
is the uh fraudulent business record
statute which is normally a misdemeanor
unless
that um uh false entry false false
series of entries we had at least 12 of
them on the books and Records that's 12
of the 34 counts is in furtherance of a
second crime a cover up of a second
crime if you will and there the judge
said you just have to find if there was
an intent to commit a second crime but
you don't have to reach agreement on
what that second crime is why because
New York law does not require that the
second crime or the predicate crime in
that the original crime is in
furtherance furtherance of be
charged it's not an indict it's not it's
an uncharged crime so it didn't have to
be proven at trial that wasn't a burden
of the prosecution beyond the Reasonable
Doubt to prove two crimes only one the
second crime under long standing New
York law all the way up to its court of
appeals is that then after the jury
makes that initial determination
unanimously as to whether there is a
coverup of a second crime they don't
have to have unanimity about what the
second crime is just that there was an
attempt to commit a second crime and the
jury was given three options for the
second
crime Right One Federal Election law
violation that would be that Donald
Trump's company
in in in indirectly through Michael
Cohen making
$134,000 payment to stormmy Daniels was
really a a contribution in favor of The
Campaign which is an in-kind or a
contribution straw man contribution to
The Campaign which is illegal that's
part of what Michael Cohen went to jail
for on the federal side two a New York
state analog to that a New York state
election law violation crime and three a
tax fraud crime because by listing it as
a legal expense remember Donald Trump
kept telling people it was a legal
expense we list it as a legal expense
why is that a crime because it's a crime
when it's not a legal expense and when
you take the deductions related to it
and on your records you show loss
against income right on your income
statement for the company you're now
listing it as an expense to lower your
income to pay less taxes etc etc for
something that should have just been a
payment that's not deductible and not
listed as illegal expense because that
showed up on The Ledger as a legal
expense payment to Michael Cohen for
Legal Services
$440,000 the jury was allowed to find
and not have to reach agreement and
waste their time finding consensus to
say I think it was this crime but I
think it was this crime but I think it
was that crime because these are all
unindicted charges it just have to be a
general if intent to commit a crime and
they gave them a choice of one of the
three crimes and I don't know which
juror went with which of the three but
they all went with there was a second
crime that was committed Donald Trump
interpreted that intentionally
fraudulently and gave it off to Fox News
and others as
444 and that and that led to an uproar
and his followers picking up pitchforks
promoted and fanned by the fuel of of
Fox News you would think they would have
learned better after the smartmatic and
Dominion voting systems about lying and
defaming people and now you have a judge
who's under attack
I'm going to say this straight
and you can say it to your followers and
listeners as well the people that you
talk to judge michon's jury instructions
were correct they were they are not
going to be a proper subject of an
appeal there was no reversible error in
the jury instructions I've looked at the
jury instructions I've written jury
instructions in New York I've given jury
instructions in New York they were
airtight waterproof okay every one of
them including his charge which is from
partially from the model instructions in
New York and other and others were
crafted together from prevailing case
law was appropriate Donald Trump is
going to claim at his appeal that there
was a jury instruction problem there was
not this is how criminal law is charged
in New York and how you take a MISD
meanor which is the
17510 penal law violation of books and
records and how you ratchet it up to an
eClass felony lowest level felony in New
York but a felony
nonetheless and that and that issue of
the second crime the predicate crime as
we call it in New York that the jury
does not have to reach unanimity on just
that there was some second crime among
the three choices that's different than
444 so when you hear 444
Now understand that that's being used to
bash judge Bashan which goes beyond
social media and into threats against
him violent threats against him that
have to be help that have to be resolved
by the department of um of court
security right that department now of
Public Safety has to now put guards
around michan and his family because of
this attack that is inappropriate and
wrong under New York law and I look
Donald Trump's lead lawyers are not New
York Lawyers Todd blanch God love him
was a federal lawyer a federal
prosecutor for most of his career he
never practiced the New York state court
system I don't think he tried a case in
New York uh not at the trial level and
it showed by the way Susan necklace his
other lawyer was a New York lawyer does
know her way around the New York
courthouse but she was sidelined early
on either by her own choice or by Donald
Trump it was no longer really the
co-lead first chair when you think back
on the trial it was Todd blanch and Emil
B his his
associate um but they're not Adept at um
New York State practice or New York
state law and that's what we're watching
there and I want to bringing it to your
attention because the very people who uh
selflessly and thanklessly commit
themselves to our criminal justice
system and Civic service and civic duty
like the jury the 12 jurors you think
they all wanted to be there they were
all strangers they didn't want to they
got a summons to appear for jury duty
you think they wanted to be lashed
together and be the jury to convict the
first ex-president in US history no I
assure you and they were made Anonymous
for a reason for their own protection
judge ran can't be anonymous you know we
we don't do star Chambers in this
country and he's just doing his duty he
was a little Known Zero known trial
judge in New York unless you practiced
in New York like I do uh forever with an
impeccable record with an unsalable
record
of just the kind of Judge you'd want to
be before if something like this
happened to you or you were the victim
of a crime sober
even-handed well-tempered
professional ethical that's what you
want and that's what you have in judge
rashan with with a track record of
working first as a prosecutor and then
ending up as a uh as a as a New York
state supreme court justice which is a
trial level Court in New York until of
course Donald Trump showed up so you get
you know and you got the prosecutors
just doing their job Alvin brag didn't
run on a campaign as a prosecutor that
he's going to put Donald Trump away uh
Leticia James the New York attorney
general it's different story but Alvin
Bragg and I followed that race closely
and I supported somebody that ran
against Alvin brag who's now the
Inspector General of the state of New
York so I followed that race very
closely and that's not what Alvin brag
did and he's been on the mest TCH
Network and he never campaigned on I'm
gonna get Donald Trump he's just doing
his Civic Duty as the Manhattan Da Law
and Order and the investigators and the
prosecutor's office and the people in
the prosecutor's office and they have a
right to do their job without being
violently attacked with vitriol and
rhetoric by Donald Trump and then sicked
on them uh his followers and judge
Bashan too we're going to bring it to
you right here on the mest touch Network
on legal AF we do our show on Wednesdays
and Saturdays 8:00 p.m. eastern Time
Podcast YouTube you can watch it right
here free subscribe get the 3 million
for the for uh midest touch and then on
audio podcast platforms of your choice
shows called Legal AF for a reason you
probably figured it out by now uh we
curate the top four or five stories at
the intersection of law politics we
bring it to you right here on this
network so until my next hot take till
my next legal AF this is Michael popac
reporting
****************************
Trump supporters call for riots and violent retribution after verdict by Joseph Tanfani, Ned Parker and Peter Eisler Reuters May 31, 20244:25 PM MDT Updated 2 days ago
Supporters of former President Donald Trump, enraged by his conviction on 34 felony counts by a New York jury, flooded pro-Trump websites with calls for riots, revolution and violent retribution.
After Trump became the first U.S. president to be convicted of a crime, his supporters responded with dozens of violent online posts, according to a Reuters review of comments on three Trump-aligned websites: the former president's own Truth Social platform, Patriots.Win and the Gateway Pundit.
Some called for attacks on jurors, the execution of the judge, Justice Juan Merchan, or outright civil war and armed insurrection.
“Someone in NY with nothing to lose needs to take care of Merchan,” wrote one commentator on Patriots.Win. “Hopefully he gets met with illegals with a machete,” the post said in reference to illegal immigrants.
On Gateway Pundit, one poster suggested shooting liberals after the verdict. “Time to start capping some leftys,” said the post. “This cannot be fixed by voting."
Threats of violence and intimidating rhetoric soared after Trump lost the 2020 election and falsely claimed the vote was stolen. As he campaigns for a second White House term, Trump has baselessly cast the judges and prosecutors in his trials as corrupt tools of the Biden administration, intent on sabotaging his White House bid. His loyalists have responded with a campaign of threats and intimidation targeting judges and court officials.
“This was a disgrace, this was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who was corrupt,” Trump told reporters afterwards, echoing comments he often made during the trial.
A 12-member jury found Trump guilty on Thursday of falsifying documents to cover up a payment to silence a porn star’s account of a sexual encounter ahead of the 2016 election. Sentencing is set for July 11, days before the Republican Party is scheduled to formally nominate Trump for president ahead of the Nov. 5 election. Trump has denied wrongdoing and is expected to appeal.
Trump continued his attacks online after the verdict.
On Truth Social, he called Merchan “HIGHLY CONFLICTED” and criticized his jury instructions as unfair. One commentator responded by posting a picture of a hangman's platform and a noose with the caption: “TREASONOUS MOBSTER OF THE JUSTICES SYSTEM!!”
Jacob Ware, a co-author of the book “God, Guns, and Sedition: Far-Right Terrorism in America”, said the violent language used by Trump’s followers was testament to the former president’s “ironclad ability to mobilize more extreme supporters to action, both at the ballot box and through violence.”
“Until and unless he accepts the process, the extremist reaction to his legal troubles will be militant,” said Ware, a research fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
A spokesperson for Truth Social said, “It’s hard to believe that Reuters, once a respected news service, has fallen so low as to publish such a manipulative, false, defamatory and transparently stupid article as this one purely out of political spite.”
All three sites have policies against violent language, and some of the posts were later removed. Representatives of Patriots.Win and Gateway Pundit did not immediately return requests for comment. A Trump spokesperson also did not respond to an email seeking comment.
“HANG EVERYONE”
After Thursday's verdict, many of his supporters also said that his conviction was proof that the American political system was broken and that only violent action could save the country.
“1,000,000 men (armed) need to go to Washington and hang everyone. That's the only solution,” said one poster on Patriots.win. Another added: “Trump should already know he has an army willing to fight and die for him if he says the words...I’ll take up arms if he asks.”
Other posts specifically urged targeting Democrats, in some cases suggesting they be shot. “AMERICA FULLY DESTROYED BY DEMOCRATS. LOCK AND LOAD,” wrote a commentator on Gateway Pundit.
While the posts identified by Reuters all called for violence or insurrection, most fell short of the legal standard for a prosecutable threat, which typically requires evidence that the comment reflects a clear intent to act or instill fear, rather than simply suggesting a frightening outcome.
Still, one researcher who studies extremist militias said the guilty verdict could inspire violence by reinforcing a conviction among some of Trump's supporters that he's a victim of a conspiracy orchestrated by his enemies.
“I do think a lot of these folks have been looking for an excuse to maybe mobilize for a while,” said Amy Cooter of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies’ Center on Terrorism, Extremism and Counterterrorism. “I hope I’m wrong. I’ve said for a long time, though, that I would not be shocked to see violence result from a guilty verdict, either directed toward the jurors” or others connected to the case.