Left: Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. (Lev Radin/Sipa USA/Sipa via AP Images); Right: Former President Donald Trump (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)
Widely anticipated fallout from the limited gag order placed on former president Donald Trump in his New York City hush money case rained down quickly in a series of court filings on Friday.
On March 26, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan M. Merchan imposed a gag order on the 45th president that bars him from attacking witnesses, line prosecutors and staff, and jurors in the case.
The very next day, Trump used a Truth Social media post to criticize the judge, his daughter, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Another such post, using similar language, came the day after that.
“Judge Juan Merchan is totally compromised, and should be removed from this TRUMP Non-Case immediately,” the second post reads. “His Daughter, Loren, is a Rabid Trump Hater, who has admitted to having conversations with her father about me, and yet he gagged me.”
By Friday afternoon, Bragg’s office filed a pre-motion letter arguing that Trump had violated the terms of the court’s order.
More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Did the right thing’: Federal judge defends Trump’s hush-money trial gag order, warns of ‘greater number of threats’ since Jan. 6 and says America on road to ‘tyranny’
Earlier this month, Merchan decided he had seen enough pre-trial motions and issued an order requiring all parties to seek leave from the court, by way of a one-page letter, before filing additional motions.
Before issuing the gag order, the judge angrily reminded the defense of his those prior instructions to file a “one page pre motion letter” before attempting to file another motion in the case – warning Trump’s attorneys that failure to abide by the court’s rules could result in criminal contempt charges.
“The People believe that the March 26 Order is properly read to protect family members of the Court,” the state’s two-page letter reads. “But to avoid any doubt, this Court should now clarify or confirm that the Order protects family members of the Court, the District Attorney, and all other individuals mentioned in the Order.”
Bragg’s office cites Trump’s two posts criticizing Merchan and his daughter in footnotes and refers to them in the body as “social media posts targeting a family member of this Court.”
The letter penned by Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass clarifies why the judge issued the order in the first place by arguing that “potential trial witnesses and prospective jurors who are not currently the subject of defendant’s invective will likely fear having themselves and their family members be subject to similar attacks.”
Several such individuals, the district attorney’s office claims, have spoken to prosecutors and expressed fears for themselves and their families in the event they are called to testify against Trump.
“[T]his Court should make abundantly clear that the March 26 Order protects family members of the Court, the District Attorney, and all other individuals mentioned in the Order,” the state’s letter continues. “Furthermore, the Court should warn defendant that his recent conduct is contumacious and direct him to immediately desist. If defendant continues to disregard such orders, he should face sanctions.”
The district attorney’s office recommends sanctions under Empire State law that call for a $1,000 fine and/or up to 30 days in jail.
“The express terms of the gag order do not apply in the manner claimed by the People, which they seem to acknowledge by suggesting the need to ‘avoid any doubt,”” the defense letter reads. “That the gag order has been publicly interpreted in the way that President Trump reads it further supports the defense position on the order’s meaning. As a result, there was nothing ‘contumacious’ about the social media posts cited.”
The defense insists the court “cannot” direct Trump “to do something” beyond what the gag order requires.
“To ‘clarify or confirm’ the meaning of the gag order in the way the People suggest would be to expand it,” the defense letter continues. “No expansion is appropriate.”
Trump’s reply also requests “a complete opportunity for full adversarial briefing” to delve into “the constitutional problems attendant with any additional improper restrictions on protected campaign speech,” among other things.
