Trump Attacks New York Judge Merchan's Daughter

[admin]

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.

[admin]

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.

[admin]

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.

[admin]

‘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

[admin]

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

[admin]

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

[admin]

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.

2 See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 6199012291 (Mar. 26, 2024, 11:36 AM).

3 See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 0782172121 (Mar. 27, 2024, 10:30 AM); https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 1310885618 (Mar. 27, 2024, 10:30 AM); https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 2432855508 (Mar. 27, 2024, 10:31 AM); https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 6080557091 (Mar. 28, 2024, 4:50 PM); https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 2872534408 80 (Mar. 28, 2024, 4:50 PM); https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 1871208019 60861 (Mar. 30, 2024, 7:00 PM); https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 1121910411 94965817 (Mar. 31, 2024, 11:37 AM).

4 Jesse McKinley & Ben Protess, Trump Spreads Apparent Hoax in Attacking Judge’s Daughter, N.Y. Times, Mar. 27, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/27/nyre ... ediaattack. html.

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.

10 Shania Shelton & Rashard Rose, Federal Judge Warns of Trump’s Attacks in Extraordinary Rebuke, CNN, Mar. 29, 2024, https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/29/politics ... naldtrump- rebuke/index.html.

11 Available at https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/j ... /23-54.htm.

[admin]

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

[admin]

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