The most obvious reason this is true is that if he is re-elected president, the ongoing federal investigation into his actions would be It means that he will immediately fall to his knees. It’s also true that his initial indictment by a Manhattan grand jury a year ago boosted his standing in the Republican primary field and paved the way for his renomination in the first place.
He and his lawyers are also using the campaign to broadly cover his rhetoric attacking law officials and their families. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg last week extended an existing gag order restricting Trump’s comments about the Manhattan trial to family members of those involved in the case, including the daughter of New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Marchand. We requested that the number be expanded. The Trump team’s rebuttal, like its original opposition to the gag order, centered on the idea that it was inappropriate to restrict speech by presidential candidates.
In response to Bragg’s request to expand the ban, Trump’s lawyers said the original order was an “already unlawful order that would unreasonably restrict campaign advocacy by Republican candidates and leading candidates in the 2024 presidential election.” “Pre-restrictions,” he wrote. They wrote a little later that “President Trump must be allowed to speak on these issues in a manner consistent with his position and defense as a viable presidential candidate. It was not intended to disrupt or harm anyone.” ”
The last point is important. The order states that “any person who intends to materially interfere with the work of attorneys or employees in this criminal case, or to cause material interference in any other person, or with the knowledge that such interference is likely to occur; “Comments made in the Internet” are prohibited. ” Trump’s team argues that Trump’s comments were simply political rhetoric offered in opposition to the trial and that the judge’s daughter, in particular, is engaged in political advocacy.
Neither Bragg nor the judge accepted it.
“Several potential witnesses have already expressed serious concerns about their safety and the safety of their families if they appear as witnesses against the defendants,” Bragg wrote in his original motion. (The district attorney noted in a recent filing that some of Marchand’s attacks on her daughter were false. “The facts are beside the point for this defendant,” he wrote.)
“Family members of trial participants must be strictly prohibited from entering,” Bragg’s filing asserts. “The defendant’s claims to the contrary demonstrate a dangerous sense of entitlement that incites fear and even physical harm to the loved ones of those he meets in court.”
Mr Marchand accepted that argument.
“The threat is very real,” he said in the ruling extending the gag order. “A warning is not enough, and relying on restraint is not enough. The average observer, having heard of the defendants’ recent attacks, believes that if they engage in these proceedings, even tangentially, they will Not just about yourself; But also for their loved ones”
The judge emphasized. He also called the Trump campaign’s defense of comments and social media posts targeting her daughter a “travesty.”
But all these conspiracies exist within the broader context of President Trump’s political struggles. Despite his lawyer’s claims, it is inconceivable that he does not understand that his attacks could chill witnesses and the court. But while this legal battle would be a central issue for most defendants, it is only an ancillary issue for Mr. Trump. In fact, the dispute with the judge serves his political achievements, reinforcing his rhetoric that he is being unfairly targeted by his political opponents.
“Another corrupt judge in New York state, Juan Marchan, gagged me so I could talk about the corruption going on in his courtroom about a case that everyone, including the DA’s office, felt we should never talk about. “I have just been informed that I cannot speak about the conflict,” he wrote on social media shortly after the gag order was extended. “They can speak for me but I can’t speak for them??? Isn’t that fair? This judge should be removed and the case thrown out. Yes. There is virtually no judge more contradictory than this judge. This is election interference at its worst!”
(The “They can talk about me” line probably highlights his defense team’s long-term effort to cast an interview the judge gave to the Associated Press as publicly discussing the case.) (In his ruling, Marchand described Trump’s defense team’s arguments as “dishonest and unreasonable.”)
However, you can see how this works. President Trump’s focus on Marchand’s daughter perhaps suggests Marchand is more of a political actor than to intimidate her father or other witnesses, and his failure to recant is an insult to Trump. This would allow them to claim that they are showing bias. (The Commission on Judicial Ethics upheld Mr. Marchand’s efforts in this case last year.) These are central arguments aimed at political gain, not legal arguments.
This was announced by Trump’s lawyer. They framed his commentary as central if not inherently political, claiming his audience had a “right to hear President Trump’s campaign speech,” and citing a 1987 incident. did. US vs. Fordwhich allowed candidates to attack political opponents to argue that the current gag order violates President Trump’s rights “in a way that suggests concerns about federalism.”
These lawyers sit at the intersection of President Trump’s two overlapping fights, one against the justice system and one against President Biden. Their clients are much more focused on positioning themselves to win political battles because they potentially see that as a way to win in legal battles. Their defense of his actions epitomizes that, seeking to use his political position as a defense for targeting the judge’s daughter.
But despite Trump’s self-serving claims, Marchan is not involved in the political fight. His ruling focused on the impact of the trial, while acknowledging that Trump “has a constitutional right to speak freely with the American electorate and to defend himself publicly.” . But he writes: ford The case, in which a candidate was at war with the government, did not apply to Mr. Trump.
“However, the circumstances of the issue at hand are different,” the judgment states. “The traditional ‘David vs. Goliath’ role is no longer functional, as evidenced by the extraordinary power that the defendant’s words have on countless others.”
In other words, Trump’s political power is why his words pose such a real threat.
