Donald Trump was found in contempt of court for violating the trial’s silence order and fined $9,000.
Judge Juan Merchan also warned the former president that he faced prison if he reoffended, in a stark warning to enter the third week of the case, and called some of his own arguments for defend their attacks online.
And in a clear warning in his ruling, the judge noted the difficulty of relying on financial sanctions against a defendant who can “easily afford” to pay the fine. In the case of billionaire Trump, he raised the possibility “that in some cases, prison may be a necessary punishment.”
There was good news for the 77-year-old, as Judge Merchan ruled that he could attend Barron’s high school graduation next month.
Trump was fined $1,000 each for a series of social media posts targeting witness Michael Cohen and questioning jury bias.
Donald Trump was found in contempt of court for violating the trial’s silence order and fined $9,000.
The judge also asked Trump to delete the offending posts, including calling potential witnesses Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels “sleazy balls.”
The ruling follows a contentious hearing in which Trump’s lawyer argued that none of the messages or statements violated the silence order and cited arguments based on the First Amendment.
The judge acknowledged these sensitivities, saying he was “very aware and protective of the defendant’s First Amendment rights, particularly given his candidacy for President of the United States.”
He said those rights should not be curtailed, that he be able to “fully campaign for the office he is seeking and be able to respond and defend himself against political attacks.” But he called the silence order “closely tailored to risk prevention.”
The 77-year-old former president puffs out his cheeks as he returns to the courtroom after a short break.
Trump aide Margo Martin leaves Trump Tower with the president to head to court
Martin was absent from court last week as testimony began and David Pecker took the stand.
Eric Trump was also among his father’s group of supporters today for the start of the third week of the trial.
Natalie Harp, another Trump aide, and his senior adviser Dan Scavino make their way through the motorcade.
Harp, who was a key part of Trump’s side during the trial, prepares to ride in the motorcade
Eric walks alongside his father as they enter the court complex in downtown Manhattan.
Harp follows Trumps in preparation for second week of testimony
Sweetener: Even though Judge Mercan found Trump in contempt, he ruled that he could attend his son Barron’s graduation in May
Judge Merchan held Trump in contempt and fined him $9,000 for violating a “gag” order he imposed.
Trump faces not only fines, but also possible prison time if he finds new violations.
The judge did not accept Trump’s argument that he was merely republishing the opinions of others who attacked potential witnesses.
And he threatened to impose “jail time” if Trump continued.
It’s the latest development in Stormy Daniels’ “silent” financial trial that has brought a series of revelations, including about the celebrities, power brokers and golf professionals whose numbers were recorded by the long-time assistant Trump date.
Trump again directed criticism at the judge as he appeared in court – again complaining about his failure to recuse himself from the case.
This was a veiled reference to Judge Merchan’s daughter, whose work for a digital defense firm with prominent Democratic clients is the basis of some of Trump’s attacks.
Judge Mercan updated his silence order to prohibit attacks on family members.
“It’s called an abuse of recusal,” Trump said Tuesday in Manhattan Criminal Court. “The judge should close the case because they have no case,” he said.
Judge Merchan blasted Trump lawyer Todd Blanche during a hearing in which prosecutors claimed gag violations, one by one.
Blanche tried to generate arguments in front of her client, but the judge was sometimes not convinced.
“Mr. Blanche, you are losing all credibility, I have to tell you right now,” Merchan said. “You lose all credibility with the court. Is there any other argument you would like to make? he said at one point.
In his ruling, the judge was not persuaded by Trump’s arguments that his violations were not “willful” or that he had republished materials by others.
“This Court’s expanded order is lawful and unambiguous. Defendant violated the order by making social media posts about known witnesses regarding their participation in this criminal proceeding and making public statements about jurors in this criminal proceeding,” he wrote.
The judge ruled that Trump “curated” the messages and posted them to maximize their reach. He used some of Trump’s boasts against him.
“When I release a statement, it spreads everywhere, fast and furious. EVERYONE SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I HAVE TO SAY, AND FAST… If it didn’t work, or if it didn’t worked properly, or if it didn’t work properly, I wouldn’t use it – But it works, and works very well,” Trump said.
“It is counterintuitive and even absurd to read the order expanded to not prohibit statements that defendant intentionally selected and published to maximize visibility,” he wrote.
He also criticized Trump for how he altered a quote from Fox News anchor Jesse Watters and said liberal activists were “lying” to get on the jury.
“This is not a replay but rather the defendant’s own words. Mr Watters made a statement which the defendant edited, placed in quotation marks, attributed to Mr Watters and published. The goal is to call into question the legitimacy of the jury selection process in this case. This constitutes a clear violation of the expanded order and requires no further analysis.
The order prevents Trump from “making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses regarding their potential participation in the investigation or this criminal proceeding, and “public statements about any potential juror or all sworn.”
The judge warned that financial sanctions might not have the desired effect on a wealthy defendant, bringing him or her back to the threat of prison.
“While $1,000 may be sufficient in most cases to protect the dignity of the justice system, to compel compliance with its mandates, and to punish the offender for disobeying a court order, it will unfortunately not achieve the result desired in cases where the offender can easily pay such a fine. In these circumstances it would be preferable if the Court could impose a fine more proportional to the wealth of the contempt. In some cases this could amount to a fine of 2,500. $, in other cases, a fine of $150,000. Because this Court is not endowed with such discretion, it must therefore consider whether, in certain cases, prison may be a necessary punishment.
dailymail us
