Trump Blasts ‘Unique’ Gag Order
President Trump exited the courtroom and told reporters his gag order was “unconstitutional.”
“This gag order is not only unique, it’s totally unconstitutional,” he said. “I’m the Republican candidate for president of the United States, I received this honor in record time … and I’m sitting in a courthouse all day long listening to this stuff that everybody knows … everybody says this trial is nonsense that should have never been brought. Yet the judge is totally conflicted … rushing this case through.”
“There’s no crime, no anything here,” President Trump said.
He claimed the district attorney and other federal agencies did not want to bring the case either, referencing details presented in former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz’s book.
Prosecutors have warned President Trump over similar remarks made on social media, some of which resulted in a $9,000 gag order violation fine from the judge earlier this morning.
“This judge is terrible and Kaplan is terrible, gave a person, I have no idea who she is, $91 million dollars. This is a corrupt system we’re in,” he added, referencing writer E. Jean Carroll’s defamation case, in which President Trump posted a more than $91 million bond as he appeals.
“If you look at the polls, people of the country are understanding it,” he said.
One reporter asked President Trump if he would continue to post about Michael Cohen, and he did not respond.
Davidson: Cohen a ‘Pants-on-Fire Kind of Guy’
Mr. Davidson said he sent four or five emails with wiring instructions and Mr. Cohen repeatedly asserted he didn’t have them.
When Mr. Cohen called him on Oct. 26, 2016, to tell him “we’ve got everything we need and we’re sending you the money.”
“Ans so, I told him that I didn’t believe him and he forwarded this email to me,” Mr. Davidson said.
The email was from Elizabeth Rappaport to Gary Farro stating that funds had been deposited into his checking account.
“It meant nothing to me,” Mr. Davidson said. “Because he had my wiring instructions, all he had to do was wire funds. But he didn’t wire the funds, he just forwarded an email to me saying he had the money.”
“He has highly excitable, sort of pants-on-fire kind of guy, he had a lot of things going on,” Mr. Davidson said.
Court adjourned for the day.
Davidson Says AMI Tried to ‘Resurrect’ Deal
Mr. Davidson read an Oct. 25, 2016, email from Mr. Howard in which he said “we have to coordinate something on the matter he’s calling you about or could look awfully bad for everyone.”
Mr. Davidson said he wasn’t trying to reach Mr. Cohen himself at this point. Mr. Howrad emailed him saying that he and Mr. Pecker had told Mr. Cohen he had to “pay the 150.”
“There was an attempt to resurrect this deal that had once fallen apart. AMI had divested themselves from the deal, but they were encouraging Cohen to deal directly with me, and that I should try to get as much as I could up to $150,000,” Mr. Davidson said.
Mr. Davidson had sent a text to Mr. Howard, “he says you are paying,” referring to Mr. Cohen.
“It was very frustrating, the entire matter was very frustrating, that it was on again and off again, that there were delays in funding and cancellations, disengaging from clients, reengaging with clients,” Mr. Davidson said.
He said that Mr. Howard had brought him “back into the fold” and told him he had reached out to Mr. Pecker and “everything was teed up.” But then when Mr. Davidson called Mr. Cohen as instructed, Mr. Cohen told him “I’m not paying for anything, AMI’s paying.”
Prosecutors Try to Get at Trump Involvement
Prosecutors tried several times to ask an admissible question that could tie President Trump to the deal Mr. Cohen agreed to, but they were struck from the record. Mr. Davidson never dealt with Mr. Trump and had no personal knowledge of his involvement.
Then prosecutors showed texts between Mr. Howard and Mr. Davidson joking about Mr. Trump’s frugality or lack of cash.
“I reckon a Trump impersonator has more cash,” Mr. Howard wrote.
Davidson Says Cohen Did Not Seek Authority to Finish Deal
Mr. Davidson said he let Mr. Cohen know “the level of dissatisfaction was quite high,” and Mr. Cohen, cursing, said “I’ll just do it myself.”
He said he believed that Mr. Cohen “would not seek authority to consummate the deal, fund the deal.
Mr. Davidson said that to add to his frustration, Ms. Clifford and Ms. Rodriguez wanted frequent updates.
When push came to shove, he told the parties, “I’m out, go in peace.”
“I recall having conversations with Dylan where I would express I believed Cohen was not being truthful,” Mr. Davidson said. “About his excuses for failure to fund. I thought he was trying to kick the can down the road until after the election.”
The court took a break.
Davidson Says Cohen Delayed Payment After Deal
In emails on Oct. 11, Oct. 14, and Oct. 17, 2016, Mr. Davidson and Mr. Cohen followed up about payment.
Mr. Davidson said he began to see that Mr. Cohen was making excuses for failure to fund the agreement, and he re-forwarded the wiring instructions. Mr. Cohen had missed the first settlement payment deadline on Oct. 14, 2016.
“My client informs me that she intends to cancel the settlement contract if no funds are received by 5PM PST today,” the Oct. 17 email reads.
Mr. Cohen sought to blame faulty “computer systems” in an email reply.
“You can’t believe what we’re going through, the Secret Service is in here,” Mr. Cohen stated.
Mr. Davidson then called Mr. Cohen and told him “this is a very bad situation” and “I don’t believe, really, a word that you said.”
Mr. Cohen said “my guy” was in three or four or five states today, referring to Mr. Trump.
Mr. Davidson said that Mr. Cohen “just didn’t have the authority to spent the money.”
Davidson Says He Believed It Was a Trump Deal
“Did you know when you were dealing with Cohen that you were dealing with Donald Trump?” Mr. Steinglass asked.
“I never thought otherwise,” Mr. Davidson said.
He read from the agreement, which was supposed to be paid by Resolution Consultants Incorporate. Ms. Clifford was referred to by the pseudonym Peggy Peterson and Mr. Trump as David Dennison.
“It just adds further confidentiality,” he said.
Davidson: Stormy Deal Atypical
“Was it unusual for Dylan Howard to connect you to someone outside AMI to purchase a story?” Mr. Steinglass asked.
“This is the only time it ever happened,” Mr. Davidson said.
Mr. Davidson said this was a different situation than the 2011 leak. “It was fairly conciliatory,” he said.
He said a deal had “already been cut at $120,000 and then we needed to pay the deal.” It was bumped up to $130,000 because he was added to the deal and Ms. Clifford and Ms. Rodriguez weren’t going to take a discount, he said. The party changed from AMI to Mr. Cohen, but with the same terms.
“They were going to require the IP rights in this story, exclusive rights,” he said.
Davidson: ‘No One Wanted to Talk to Cohen’
Mr. Howard connected Mr. Davidson and Mr. Cohen on Oct. 10, 2016, regarding a “business opportunity,” according to a text.
Mr. Davidson said Mr. Howard and AMI had backed out of the deal with Ms. Rodriguez, and so Mr. Howard had asked Ms. Rodriguez to call Mr. Cohen and finish the deal with him.
“Gina refused so she asked me to call Michael Cohen, and I refused and then Dylan called me to convince me to call Cohen,” Mr. Davidson said. “The moral of the story is, no one wanted to talk to Cohen.”
“Dylan was washing his hands of the deal,” Mr. Davidson elaborated. He said he believed Mr. Cohen was personal attorney or general counsel to Mr. Trump and his interest in the story was because it involved his client.
Davidson Discusses ‘Stormy’ Deal
On June 30, 2016, Mr. Howard texted Mr. Davidson that Ms. Rodriguez was trying to sell him a story involving “Stormy.”
“I think I previously stated that Gina was trying to bring this story back to market,” Mr. Davidson said. He said after he had it taken down from the blog, years went by with little interest in the story.
“I was not involved, but through the summer into the fall where there was still very little interest despite the fact that Mr. Trump’s notoriety was gaining,” Mr. Davidson said.
Mr. Davidson said that as far as he was aware, the Access Hollywood recording of Mr. Trump on a hot mic “had tremendous influence.”
He said he thought before the tape, there was little interest in the story Ms. Rodriguez was shopping around, but after the tape was published “that interest sort of reached a crescendo.”
Texts between Mr. Davidson and Mr. Howard on Oct. 9, 2016, joked about how it was “over” for Mr. Trump after the tape was published.
Mr. Davidson wrote that “the story is already out there,” and Mr. Howard replied that Ms. Clifford “talking” would be “the final nail in the coffin.”
The blog post had been a third party account, and Ms. Clifford had not yet told her story.
Mr. Davidson said after the Access Hollywood tape, Ms. Rodriguez negotiated a deal directly with Mr. Howard, and Mr. Davidson “had nothing to do with that deal.”
Davidson Says Cohen Insulted Him
Mr. Davidson said Gina Rodriguez, a talent agent, referred Ms. Clifford to him.
He had sent a cease and desist letter to a blog that posted that Ms. Clifford and Mr. Trump “had some sort of a physical or romantic interaction.”
Mr. Davidson said that after the blog post went up, Ms. Rodriguez had received a call from Mr. Cohen, which was left as a voice mail and initially answered by Ms. Rodriguez’s ex-husband.
“Gina called me up and told me that some jerk had called up her, and very, very aggressive, and threatened to sue me and Gina would like you to call that jerk back,” Mr. Davidson said he was informed, adding that “that jerk” referred to Mr. Cohen.
“I called and before I could barely get my name out, I was just met with a barrage of insults and insinuations and allegations that went on for a while,” he said. “I don’t think th was accusing us of anything, he was just screaming.”
Mr. Davidson said that when Mr. Cohen was finished screaming he explained that his client did not want the story published either and Mr. Davidson was just calling to see if he had done anything to get the story taken down on his end. After Mr. Davidson sent the cease-and-desist letter, he said he was successful in having the story taken down.
Davidson Says AMI’s Choice to Run Story or Not
Mr. Davidson read from the contract and explained that AMI had the option to run Ms. McDougal’s “story of her relationship with a married man or not.”
Mr. Steinglass asked if Mr. Davidson had an understanding of “why AMI was purchasing a story that they didn’t intend to print?”
“Our explanation was that they were trying to build Karen into a brand and didn’t want to diminish her reputation,” Mr. Davidson said.
“And the second was that there was an unwritten understanding that there was a close relationship between David Pecker and Donald Trump, and AMI would not run this story or any story related to Karen and Donald Trump, as it would tend to hurt Donald Trump,” Mr. Davidson said.
Mr. Steinglass asked if he meant “hurt Donald Trump’s campaign,” as prosecutors have argued the defendant did not try to quash stories to keep them from his family.
“Yes,” Mr. Davidson said.
He explained that, according to the contract, if Ms. McDougal took her story elsewhere it required disgorgement of the $150,000, even if she was doing other media work for AMI.
Mr. Davidson then texted Mr. Howard on Aug. 8, 2016, saying, “I am going to let ABC know that Karen has decided to keep her story quiet. I’m going to let them know that the family has begged and pleaded with her not to come out and that she has promised her family she wouldn’t. I will have Karen ignore all of their calls. Any objections?”
Mr. Howard responded, “Yep that’s fine.”
Davidson-Howard Texts Reveal Negotiation
After a lunch break, Mr. Davidson’s testimony continued with the witness reading texts between himself and Mr. Howard into the record.
On Aug. 2, 2016, they continued negotiations. “I can’t believe they are asking me to go back to you for another 25, but they are. The is accepted at $150 can you do that?” Mr. Davidson wrote to Mr. Howard, who said he would ask.
Then on Aug. 5, 2016, another message from Mr. Davidson to Mr. Howard, saying “Cameron’s agreement wasn’t really even close to what we were expecting. Please review the red-line I just sent. Need to handle this quickly.”
Mr. Davidson said that after he and Mr. Howard negotiated terms, Mr. Howard handed things off to his legal department, who then worked the points into a long form agreement. But this new document “didn’t jibe” with what Mr. Davidson said they had agreed on. “On my side there was growing frustration with the process.”
Mr. Howard sent a text reply that he asked Cameron Stracker, legal counsel, to call Mr. Davidson. Later, Mr. Davidson sent a reply: “He wants me to call Cohen. U think that’s ok? I’ve been trying like hell to avoid that.”
Mr. Davidson said he and Mr. Stracker were not on the same page when hey had a call. He could not recall why Mr. Stracker wanted him to call Mr. Cohen and testified, “I thought it was odd, certainly.”
Mr. Davidson said that his first interaction with Mr. Cohen in 2011 was “not pleasant or instructive.”
“I didn’t particularly like dealing with him, and that’s why I was trying like hell to avoid talking to him,” he said.
Later on Aug. 5, 2016, they exchanged messages confirming the deal was done.
“I seem to recall that after the deal closed with AMI, I called Michael Cohen and I can’t recall specifically whether Dylan asked me to, but I called him and let him know, as a professional courtesy, that the deal involving his client had closed,” Mr. Davidson said.
Mr. Steinglass asked how much of the $150,000 contract went to Mr. Davidson.
“Somewhere between 40 and 45 percent,” he said.
Text Reveal Howard Helped Davidson Sell McDougal Deal
On July 21, 2016, Mr. Howard sent Mr. Davidson a text: “Let’s talk DT/Ross tomorrow. I think this is the entree for me to go back to them.”
Mr. Davidson said his understanding was that “DT” was Donald Trump and “Ross” was a man named Brian Ross, a news broadcaster and head of investigative reporting for ABC News.
Mr. Davidson sent a reply text: “Better be quick.”
“At the time, as is often the case with negotiations, I was trying to play two entities off each other. To create a sense of urgency, if you will,” Mr. Davidson said.
Mr. Davidson sent another response the next day: “Don’t forget about Cohen. Time is of the essence. The girl is being cornered by the estrogen mafia.”
He said that at the time, Ms. McDougal “was sort of teetering, she was about to enter into a deal with ABC.” He said there were several women leaning on Ms. McDougal to sign the ABC deal, and one of Ms. McDougal’s associates had termed them the “estrogen mafia” at an earlier meeting.”
Mr. Howard replied that he “plugged a call in. We’ll have news by Monday.”
“Get me a price on McDougal. All in. Consulting gig perhaps as a fitness expert thrown into the mix.”
Mr. Davidson said that he believed Mr. Howard was trying to persuade Ms. McDougal that AMI was the “right avenue for her.” Ms. McDougal had wanted to rejuvenate her career and avoid telling her story and “becoming the scarlet letter, the other woman.”
“She did not want to tell her story,” Mr. Davidson said.
Davidson Details McDougal Deal
Mr. Davidson said that Mr. Howard had a meeting with Ms. McDougal and Mr. Davidson. Texts showed it would have bee n on June 20, 2016.
Ms. McDougal told her story to Mr. Howard under agreement that nothing was to be published so that Mr. Howard could gauge interest in the story.
“Dylan wanted to return to New York, run it up the flagpole, and stated that he would get back to me,” Mr. Davidson said. “It was my understanding that the only one higher than Dylan at AMI was David Pecker.”
“Dylan stated that AMI was not interested at this time because Karen McDougal lacked documentary evidence of the interaction,” Mr. Davidson said. “I think we just said we would keep in touch.”
Then on June 27, Mr. Davidson sent a message to Dylan Howard that read, “It’s a story that should be told.”
Mr. Howard replied, “I agree.”
Davidson Testifies About Karen McDougal
Mr. Davidson said he had met Karen McDougal about 25 years ago when she was dating a friend of his.
He represented Ms. McDougal the summer of 2016 “in order to provide advice and counsel as to to what her rights and obligations would be with regard to a personal interaction she had.”
“With who?” prosecuting attorney Joshua Steinglass asked.
“Donald Trump,” Mr. Davidson said.
He said that Ms. McDougal’s former brother-in-law was a client of his, and made the re-introduction.
“At that time, in the mid 2000-teens or so, media outlets both traditional and tabloid would often times enter into exclusive arrangements where someone would provide an exclusive content to that media outlet in exchange for money,” Mr. Davidson said. He said he would not disclose what he discussed with Ms. McDougal but could confirm he reached out to Mr. Howard.
He told Mr. Howard he had a “blockbuster Trump story.”
Mr. Davidson said he was aware that Mr. Howard’s boss was David Pecker, who was longtime friends with Donald Trump.
“Mr. Pecker published Trump [Style] magazine and at the time AMI had announced explicitly that they had endorsed Mr. Trump’s candidacy,” Mr. Davidson said.
Keith Davidson Testifies
Prosecutors next called Keith Davidson, an attorney who was named as a source for Dylan Howard.
Mr. Davidson owns the law firm Davidson & Associates in LA, and works civil litigation, injury cases, and media cases. He said he frequently worked on non-disclosure agreements.
Mr. Davidson confirmed that he was testifying pursuant to a subpoena, and had received immunity.
“Dyland Howard was the former content editor, or chief content officer, at American Media Incorporated. I knew him in my professional dealings,” Mr. Davidson said. “Well over 10 years.”
“We were professional acquaintances and friends,” he said. “On occasion my clients would end up in tabloid media, and they would call me for comment.”
He said he first knew of Michael Cohen around 2011, after an article was published that involved Mr. Trump and his client. Mr. Davidson said he spoke with Mr. Cohen, then personal attorney to Mr. Trump, about the article.
Mr. Davidson later represented Stephanie Clifford, otherwise known as Stormy Daniels.
Prosecutors Call Next Witness
Prosecutors next called to the witness stand Philip Thompson, a regional director for Esquire Deposition Solutions.
He discusses the process by which testimonies are transcribed, and review for error.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office had subpoenaed Esquire for a transcription of the defamation lawsuit trial writer E. Jean Carroll brought against President Trump.
C-SPAN Archives Director Testifies
Prosecutors called Robert Browning, executive director for archives at C-SPAN [Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network], as the next witness.
The network was subpoenaed for videos by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. Clips were entered into evidence, including one of President Trump making a statement about the allegations of a “hush money” payment.
“As you have seen, right now I am being viciously attacked with lies,” he said in one clip. “They’re all flase, they’re totally invented, they’re all 100 percent, completely fabricated. …It’s a total setup.”
Prosecutors Will Question Trump About Gag Order Violations If He Takes Stand
Prosecutors gave the the defense notice that if President Trump decides to testify, they will ask about the nine gag order violations.
Prosecutors also argued that the defense made, in their opening statements, claims that Mr. Cohen’s livelihood depends on attacking President Trump. They asked to be able to introduce evidence to counter claims that Mr. Cohen and Stephanie Clifford have a vested interest in advancing claims against President Trump.
The judge affirmed the defense had opened that door and they could advance that line of questioning.
Prosecutors disclosed they will ask the two witnesses to explain why they have denied certain facts previously and now acknowledge those facts.
Bank Closed Cohen Account After Negative Press
Mr. Farro said later he was taken off the assignment.
“When we saw negative press,” he said. He said the bank could not close out of a mortgage, so they maintained those accounts but closed out Mr. Cohen’s bank accounts.
“Once we find out a client has not been honest with us, we choose not to do business with that client going forward,” he said.
Mr. Farro left the witness stand and the court took a break.
Farro Says Cohen Wasn’t Considered ‘Politically Exposed
Mr. Farro explained that PEP, or Politically Exposed Person, was someone who has held office, is in office, or has a very close personal relationship with someone in office. He told Mr. Blanche that Mr. Cohen, as a personal attorney to President Trump in 2017, was not considered PEP, which would have garnered a second layer of vetting.
He said that moving money quickly itself was not unusual. “A yacht, an aircraft. There’s many reasons why client came to us, our ability to execute transactions quickly,” he said.
In Mr. Cohen’s case, the money was being transferred to a law firm account, and would not have been something that required a second look. “It happens a thousand times a day,” Mr. Farro said.
Defense Questions Farro
Prosecutors ended direct examination of Mr. Farro.
Mr. Farro told defense attorneys that Mr. Cohen’s rush to open an LLC itself was not a red flag.
Mr. Blanche showed the forms required as filled out by Mr. Cohen, wherein he answered “no” in response to whether he is acting as an agent for someone else.
Mr. Farro affirmed he did not think he was opening up a shell company.
“I don’t open up shell corporations. I opened LLCs. Shell corporations that have no business behind them would give me pause, frankly. I would want to know what the purpose was of opening a business that had no business,” Mr. Farro said. He believed Mr. Cohen did real estate and consulting work separately from his work at The Trump Organization.
Farro Says Bank Would Not Have Opened Account for Hush Money Payment to Porn Actress
Mr. Farro affirmed that he did not know the purpose of the account was to use it to pay a porn actress, confirming that this would have delayed the opening because that was an industry the bank would not want to work with.
“It is an industry that we would not work with. We would make a determination whether we wanted to proceed at all. It would certainly delay it,” Mr. Farro said.
He was also asked whether the paperwork indicated the account would be used to buy a media story, and said no.
An email from the bank to Mr. Cohen showed a request for confirmation to transfer $130,000 from Mr. Cohen’s home equity account to his new account.
“Home equity line of credit is a revolving mortgage that’s put on your home,” Mr. Farro explained. “You can draw down on it at any time, and repay it, and draw down on it again. It could be considered a credit card with your home as collateral.”
It was a second mortgage in Mr. Cohen’s case, Mr. Farro confirmed.
Mr. Farro also said there would have been additional due diligence if they knew the transaction involved a political candidate.
Banker Returns to Witness Stand
Gary Farro, who was assigned Michael Cohen as a client when he was at First Republic Bank, returned to the witness stand, confirming documents created in the opening of an account for Mr. Cohen’s shell company.
Essential Consultants LLC was opened in Delaware on Oct. 17, 2016.
Correspondence showed five to six hours between Mr. Cohen calling Mr. Farro, and the opening of the account.
“Everything was urgent with Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen’s not our only client. Moving and opwning an account in a single day is considered very rare,” Mr. Farro said.
Justice Merchan Fines Trump $9,000 for Gag Order Violation
Justice Merchan said prosecutors “met their burden of proof and demonstrated contempt” and President Trump has been fined $1,000 per gag order violation. Prosecutors had brought 10 violations before the judge in the first two weeks, and he ruled nine of them violated the gag order, bringing the fine to $9,000.
The judge still has four alleged gag order violations to rule on, related to interviews and press conferences President Trump gave.
Judge Says Trump Can Attend Trump’s High School Graduation
Justice Merchan approved the defense’s request to adjourn on May 17 so President Trump can attend his son Barron’s high school graduation.
Defense attorney Todd Blanche had also requested June 3 to attend a graduation, and the judge said he would leave it up to counsel, and jury may still be deliberating at that time.
Trump Compares Columbia University Riot to Jan. 6
President Trump blasted the case as a “disgrace” before entering the courtroom, and commented on the riot at Columbia University, comparing the situation to the Capitol breach on Jan. 6, 2021.
“The Biden protests that are going on are horrible. It’s all caused by him because he doesn’t know how to speak. He can’t put your senses together. He’s got to get out and make a statement because the colleges are being overrun in this country. The anti-Semitism, all of the problems going on, they’re being overrun. I’ve never seen anything like it,” he said.
“And Charlottesville is peanuts compared to what you’re looking at now with this whole country is up in arms, breaking into colleges, knocking the hell out of Columbia University. I mean, they took over, I know the building very well. They took over a building, that is a big deal. And I wonder if what’s going to happen to them will be anything comparable to what happened to J6, because they’re doing a lot of destruction, a lot of damages, a lot of people getting hurt very badly.”
Trump Supporters Rally Outside
In contrast to past days of President Trump’s criminal trial, a small MAGA rally is taking place outside the court building. Earlier this morning, a van with Trump banners drove by honking.
Besides the usual press and curious citizens, a few members of mock debate teams from a local high school were present outside.
What to Know
The trial against former President Donald Trump for 34 counts of falsifying business records—which the Manhattan District Attorney alleges was done to cover up a scheme to influence the 2016 elections, resulting in a felony—is entering into its third week.
Thus far, prosecutors have called former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, President Trump’s longtime assistant Rhona Graff, and banker Gary Farro to testify, establishing the context and big-picture narrative of the alleged scheme.
Prosecutors have kept their witness list close to the vest, arguing they hope to prevent further potential gag order violations with public statements about the witnesses.
Judge to Rule on Alleged Gag Order Violations in Trump Criminal Trial
By Michael Washburn
Former President Donald Trump speaks during a press conference at 40 Wall Street after a pre-trial hearing in New York City on March 25, 2024. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
Justice Juan Merchan is likely to rule on former president and current front-runner Donald Trump’s alleged gag order violations shortly after the “hush money” trial resumes this week. Following a Monday recess, direct and cross-examination will continue on April 30, May 2, and May 3. The judge’s decision could come on any one of those days.
The hotly anticipated ruling adds a new layer of novelty to what is already an unprecedented case in which prosecutors have reinterpreted legal standards and concepts in pursuit of a political foe, a legal scholar and expert witness in high-profile criminal cases has told The Epoch Times.
On April 25, Christopher Conroy and other government lawyers spent the opening part of the proceedings at 100 Centre St. trying to convince Justice Merchan that statements of President Trump’s in a press conference, in interviews, and on social media violate the terms of the judge’s gag order.
While acknowledging that the defendant “has a constitutional right to speak to the American voters freely, and to defend himself publicly,” the April 1 amendment to the gag order goes to some lengths to express concern about the potential effects of President Trump’s “dangerous rhetoric” on the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings, and on jurors’ willingness to participate at all if they fear the enmity of Trump supporters.
During jury selection, one candidate broke down in tears while attempting to answer routine questions about her impartiality and said that others’ knowledge of her participation made her too afraid to be a juror in this trial. The judge promptly excused her.
Yet assuaging jurors’ anxieties does not supersede the First Amendment right to free speech, and it would be highly unusual if a candidate campaigning for president did not attempt, in any context or for any purpose, to address public accusations of wrongdoing and high-profile legal proceedings brought against him or her.
Moreover, a careful reading of the terms of Justice Merchan’s gag order will raise questions about whether it applies to the statements that government lawyers have invoked in their efforts to persuade the judge to find President Trump in violation.
That’s the view of Harvey Kushner, chair of the criminal justice department at Long Island University in Brookville, New York, and an expert witness and consultant who has worked extensively with federal agencies on terrorism, drug, and other high-profile law enforcement matters.
“This is a case where a gag order is a political weapon,“ Mr. Kushner told The Epoch Times. ”Here you have a different situation, you have someone who is actually running for president, and this order is not allowing him to comment when he should have the ability to make his case on every aspect of the proceeding. There is no precedent for this.”
Read full article here
