This showdown has increasingly serious implications not only for Trump but also for the country with the judicial system to hold him to account.
Late Monday, a judge in Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial extended his gag order in the case to the families of the judge and district attorney. New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Marchand did so after Trump repeatedly attacked Marchand’s daughter.
Within hours Tuesday morning, President Trump responded by subtly gesturing the same attack.
In a post on Truth Social, President Trump mocked the expansion of the gag order, suggestively citing “conflicts happening in the courts.” President Trump claimed Marchan was “at risk” because his daughter works for a Democratic-backed digital marketing company.
Over the next hour, President Trump posted a Fox News video that more directly reenacted the attack. In his post, President Trump cited related comments from legal analyst allies, but the video itself shows Fox host Brian Kilmeade, the daughter of a judge whom Trump has taken issue with. It contained content pointing out the possibility of a similar conflict of interest.
“Also, in fact, the judge’s daughter[n] “I’m an activist who works for Kamala Harris,” Kilmeade said in a video posted by President Trump, adding, “If I were Donald Trump, that would obviously be a concern — to feel the same way about judges. “I have a daughter,” he added. ”
In a video promoted by Trump, Kilmeade posted a video of Marchand’s daughter’s social media account that a New York court has already moved to debunk. It also featured content that brought to light the claims that the images had been published.
Regardless of whether any of these cases qualify as gag order violations, they are a stark reminder of President Trump’s earlier violation of the order in a New York civil fraud case.
At the time, a judge ordered President Trump to stop attacking law clerks. As in the case of Marchand’s daughter, Trump attacked the clerk for suggesting bias on the part of the judge and cited social media content that was similarly debunked.
In addition to his campaign leaving posts attacking the clerk despite the gag order, Trump went on to single out “a very partisan person who was sitting next to” the judge. The clerk sat next to the judge. Faced with the judge, Trump insisted he was referring to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, not the clerk. But the judge found that account “unreliable,” noting that Trump regularly attacks Cohen by name. Trump was fined a total of $15,000 for the twin violations.
(At the same time, President Trump also posted attacks on former Attorney General William P. Barr, following the reinstatement of a gag order that prohibits attacks on potential witnesses, such as Barr, in federal election overturning cases.) Trump’s campaign said he had done similar things before, and although he knew the gag order had been re-imposed, the post remains active more than five months later. Trump has not been sanctioned for it.)
The financial penalty doesn’t seem to have deterred Trump. It appears that paying E. Jean Carroll the $86 million she owed him for defaming her did not deter Trump from continuing to attack her on the same terms.
Perhaps recognizing that, and also recognizing the fact that jailing a former president and current presidential candidate for violating the gag order would be drastic and unrealistic, Marchan tried a novel approach in the expanded gag order. . In addition to threatening Trump with fines or jail time if he violates the gag order, Marchan also threatened Trump’s defense team with not releasing the juror’s names.
“… Defendants are hereby advised that their statutory right to access juror names will be revoked if they engage in conduct that threatens the safety and integrity of jurors or the jury selection process,” Marchan said. wrote.
The idea seems to have been that this sanction, unlike a financial fine or an unexpected prison sentence, could be more persuasive to President Trump. That’s because it concerns President Trump’s ability to vet potential jurors and defend himself in the case. (It is not unheard of for judges to keep the identities of jurors secret from litigants, although Mr. Trump will surely argue that this jeopardizes their ability to receive a fair trial.)
The fact that Mr. Marchand felt compelled to make such an unusual threat is a sign of the extent to which Mr. Trump’s continued attacks on judges, prosecutors, and witnesses affect the legal system that will determine his criminal fate going forward. It is useful to consider the burden placed on
But even that potential sanctions still doesn’t seem to have convinced President Trump to act more cautiously. And now that the stakes are even higher than in Trump’s civil suit, with Trump’s Manhattan trial set to begin on April 15, we see this situation becoming tense soon. is not difficult.
