New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan this week became the latest court to impose a gag order on former president Donald Trump with a stinging order that found a history of Trump attacks that threatened the administration of justice. The order will bar public criticism of figures who are at the center of the public debate over this trial and the allegation of the weaponization of the legal system for political purposes, including former Trump counsel Michael Cohen, former stripper Stormy Daniels, and lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelo. Trump is still able to criticize Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Merchan himself. What is most striking is the protection of Cohen who continues to goad Trump in public attacks.
While many of us have criticized past attacks by the former president of judges and staff associated with cases, theses gag orders raise very serious free speech questions in my view. Prosecutors like Special Counsel Jack Smith and Bragg have pushed for a trial before the election. (Recently, Smith even stated that he may force Trump into a trial running up to or even through the election).
After these charges were delayed until just before an election, they have maintained that it is essential to try Trump before November. The timing of charges and proposed trial dates were the choice of these prosecutors. If judges are inclined to facilitate the effort for a pre-election trial, they should show some recognition of the unique context for such prosecution. Yet, judges like federal District Judge Tanya Chutkan have stated that she will not make any accommodation for the fact that Trump is the leading candidate for the presidency.
I was previously highly critical of the efforts of Smith to gag Trump before the election. In my view, the order issued by Judge Chutkan was unconstitutional. I have opposed gag orders in many cases for decades as inimical to constitutional free speech rights.
The barring of Trump from criticizing jurors or court staff (or family members) is largely uncontroversial. However, Cohen and Daniels have long been part of the political campaigns going back to 2016. Indeed, I was highly critical of Cohen when he was still the thuggish lawyer for Trump. He is now one of the loudest critics of his former client and has made continual media appearances, including on his expected appearance in this case.
Cohen’s appearance on the stand will only add to the lawfare claims given the recent view of a judge that he is a serial perjurer who appears to be continuing to game the legal system.
Cohen ironically went public to criticize Trump and celebrate the gagging of him:
“I want to thank Judge Merchan for imposing the gag order as I have been under relentless assault from Donald’s MAGA supporters. Nevertheless, knowing Donald as well as I do, he will seek to defy the gag order by employing others within his circle to do his bidding, regardless of consequence.”
Many Americans view the Bragg case as a raw political effort and many experts (including myself) view the case as legally flawed. Some polls show that a majority now believe the Trump prosecutions generally are “politically motivated.”
This election could well turn on the allegation of lawfare. However, Merchan has now largely barred the leading candidate (and alleged target of this weaponization) from being able to criticize key figures behind the effort.
The inclusion of Colangelo in the order is equally problematic. Trump has campaigned on his involvement in a variety of cases targeting him in his federal and state systems. His movement between cases is viewed by many as evidence of a “get Trump” campaign of prosecutors. He is currently the most talked about figure that many, including Trump, view as showing coordination between these cases and investigations.
My opposition to past gag orders was based on the constitutional right of defendants to criticize their prosecutions. Courts have gradually expanded both the scope and use of such orders. It has gone from being relatively rare to commonplace. However, the use to gag the leading candidate for the presidency in the final months of the campaign only magnifies those concerns.
There is a division on courts in dealing with such challenges involving politicians. For example, a court struggled with those issues in the corruption trial of Rep. Harold E. Ford Sr. (D–Tenn.). The district court barred Ford from making any “extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication,” including criticism of the motives of the government or basis, merits, or evidence of the prosecution.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the gag order as overbroad and stressed that any such limits on free speech should be treated as “presumptively void and may be upheld only on the basis of a clear showing that an exercise of First Amendment rights will interfere with the rights of the parties to a fair trial.”
This order allows for criticism of the case and both Merchan and Bragg. However, you have key figures like Cohen and Coangelo who are already central figures in this political campaign. In Cohen’s case, he has actively engaged in a campaign to block Trump politically and has done countless interviews on this case as part of the legal campaign.
While courts routinely rubber stamp such orders (and Trump’s history will reinforce the basis of the Merchan order), I would still try to appeal it. The odds always run against challenging such orders and appellate courts are disinclined to even review such orders. However, there is a legitimate free speech concern raised by this order that should be reviewed by higher courts.
The party takes care of its own. So long as they don’t step out of line. I personally think it’d be the best thing in a good while if we had a Trump/Gabbard ticket. It’d be a double spit in the eye for these fascists fools. Trump/Gabbard for 2024!
I like Tulsi Gabbard, but would she be an effective President if called on? I think Ben Carson would be a good choice. He is extremely intelligent, very competent and a voice for common sense. Imagine him in a debate with Harris!
Daniel: Agree and agree and agree. Or maybe Condoleeza Rice.
Too close to the neo-cons in my view. But could be helpful in uniting the party and widening the ticket’s appeal.
Daniel and Not SoOld: I think it’s too late for any neocons to have much harmful effect: that train has already left the station, and U.S. intervention in anything these days is viewed/deemed more dastardly by a wider (global) populace methinks.
I like (and would support) any of them.
I also think Nikki Haley’s neo-con personality hurt her, –as did her wasting all her time screeching and hurling insults against Trump, instead of using her time to simply, sanely and respectfully present a platform. And Rice’s East Coast professorship stint could serve to temper her views and broaden her appeal among younger conservatives.
Lin – TBH this is the first time I’ve heard Condi Rice mentioned as a possible VP pick. I haven’t heard anything suggesting Trump is considering Rice, and she was not at all interested in 2016. By contrast, Tulsi would accept. She said so two days ago. She’s young, smart, principled, not inclined toward foreign wars, and the very type of anti-establishment figure that would appeal to Trump.
Would Tulsi deliver Hawaii? A major factor if choosing a VP is delivering a swing state. I don’t see Hawaii voting Republican for a long time. So she cant deliver a state that cant be delivered
I think Tulsi could deliver Hawaii. People there listen to her. She knows what their issues are. She represented them well during her time in the House, and they’re not likely to forget that. She understands their issues in the context of Hawaii’s history and why it turned toward the Dem party. And she was a Dem all along until very recently; her reasons for leaving the Dem party would probably resonate with a lot of Hawaiians. I think she’s smart enough to make a convincing argument to her fellow Hawaiians during the months of her campaign.
Thanks SR KS
I was looking for a sales pitch. I have very limited understanding of Hawaiian politics. Your solid defense of her ability to bring in Hawaii, would be huge proof of her political chops.
The debate where neocon Nikki got all heated and turned to Vivek: “You’re just such scum,” said with a big eye roll, made me lose any respect for her. Now I see her as a screechy shrew of a woman NOT in command of her own emotions. “You just leave my daughter out of your words! or I’ll huff and puff and eye roll you to death, you scum!”
Contrast Haley’s overly emotional response to how cool and collected Tulsi was in her heated debate exchange with Kamala. Enormous difference.
Then Haley’s fake tearing up speech where she talked about her husband being deployed (after Trump asked ‘where’s her husband?’) …. she got emotional, complete with dramatic pause, choking back fake tears…. it made me want to vomit …Leave the tears at home, lady.
All I could see is her standing before the troops as Commander in Chief getting choked up as she sends them off to die in one of her neocon wars. Hard pass.
So now the words “scum” and “Nikki neocon Haley” forever go together.
She’s an overly emotional hag.
#NeverNikki
-Agree with you. And Tulsi’s military service is a real plus for me–she seems to have learned how to handle stress and tough enough to have the courage of her convictions. And being a former Democrat, like Trump. As the old singer Judy Collins said, “I’ve seen both sides now.”
I originally like Haley when she was Gov. Until her run for POTUS and I saw how she handled herself….
Your comment about her addressing Vivek …for me, it started with the “high heels” comment and went downhill from there. I thought she would rise above, but instead, she filled her time with rantings about Trump….funny that she reduced herself to the level that she criticized him for.
I believe both Gabbard and Rice are head and shoulders above Hillary or Harris, in terms of smarts, ability to respectfully respond to differences, and directness/clarity of message. I also, like Daniel, like Carson.
Condi Rice loves football and is part owner of the Broncos now. She’s having too much fun to ditch her status at Hoover Institute all that she’s got going on now to jump into the firestorm with Trump.
. . . but would she be an effective President if called on?
After watching her answers in an extended interview, I conclude that she would be quite effective as POTUS. Her intelligence, demeanor, decisiveness, and integrity inspire confidence in that regard.
The debate where Tulsi gave Kamala “that little girl was me” a big ol’ smackdown was the day she won my forever respect. That was a glorious moment.
@Daniel
I actually don’t disagree, but Carson has such deep Conservative roots; I think people would respond better to Tulsi given she was running as a dem last time. I also fully understand that you and I are just speculating and ruminating. 😂 I like Carson, but we’ve got to realize just how tainted even the whiff of non-dem has become to the brainwashed. Their hypocrisy/idiocy/indoctrination has made reasonable dialogue a literal impossibility, especially the young and triggered. Forget it. They really do think they are fighting Hitler when someone even implies that feelings aren’t facts or that planting trees is better than leveling old growth forests to install solar panels. This is not hyperbole. They really are this unwell, they vote, and if you displease their entitled little butts, like the toddlers they are, they WILL lash out. We’ve got to appeal to everyone else and marginalize them, because they are very much a factor, as absurd as it is (and it is). Whimsicalmama said recently we are just going to have to let these kids age out because they will never contribute anything whatsoever, and I agree with her. Nevertheless, they are a factor who likely couldn’t even define the word ‘factor’.
We have got to accept that we no longer live in a time when rationality matters. You can’t in any kind of seriousness suggest Carlson and expect people to see where you are coming from. That isn’t judgement from me, I agree; it’s just where we are at, and we most definitely are.
PS – people seem to forget or never knew that Trump was once a devoted democrat and embraced within that party. It is idiocy we are dealing with, but deal with it we must.
Daniel,
I think Tulsi has better presence than Ben.
Trump / Gabbard, 2024!
Gabbard 2028!
Has there been a single recusal in any of these political persecutions?
For anyone who could be called a non leftist?
And, there’s no reason to Accord the slightest but of respect or validity in any of these proceedings.
Turley: “What is most striking is the protection of Cohen who continues to goad Trump in public attacks.”
Surely you don’t truly expect justice in a court where the judge acts like a kangaroo.
There are too many judges who look to politics first and law last, if at all.
Young: time for a quick joke for all of us. I remember an old, one-frame cartoon: two mama kangaroos standing together, talking, while their pouched joeys are violently punching each other. One says to the other, “I hate when it’s raining and the kids have to play inside.”
Funny! I can picture it! Thanks Lin. I needed a laugh today.
Not even kangaroos would want to be in NYC courts.
As “interfer[ence] with the rights of the parties to a fair trial” generally refers to the tainting of a prospective jury pool, I would argue that such potential interference is far less manifest in the voice of one person [Trump]– than by the massive, coordinated, and biased voice of NATIONAL anti-Trump MEDIA, raining down upon us every day. How can any person honestly know that he or she has been subliminally [or even overtly] influenced by this?
Prospective jurors who want the visibility and importance of having served in such a major trial will often lie during voir dire to hide their bias (the exposure of which is the very purpose of voir dire). And, since those jurors have never met Trump, their familiarity is wholly premised on what they have learned through the biased coverage of Trump across all of MSM.
Just this morning, I briefly listened to NPR’s interview of CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, who noted that dictators like Trump are selectively against illegal immigration, -“not of a Polish man,” but only of “dark skinned” or Black or Muslim persons. (This followed a very slanted, one-sided discussion about the pending SCOTUS case on medical abortion.) Let’s talk about how much such a statement is gonna affect “dark-skinned, Black, or Muslim voters, let alone jurors?
I wish there could be a gag order against MEDIA for the unrelenting bashing of all things Trump. Whether you like Trump or not, he deserves a fair trial –not polluted by political/racial propaganda. “Selective facts” are as anti-fair-trial as anything Trump could say.
Sorry for the long post.
Just a friendly reminder as it is tax season! Please be sure to pay your fair share promptly as there are 9 Million illegal interlopers waiting for their $1400 debit card. Hunter and Joe unavailable for comment.
The effect of the order is fairly simple: the witnesses against Trump will be allowed to poison the jury pool by making any kind of public accusation against Trump, but Trump will be unable to defend himself. Welcome to Democratic Party/NYC justice.
Never forget that the Democrats are trying feverishly to save our democracy. That translates to securingtheir despotic, majority rule.
It is a limited gag order after Trump attached the judges daughter. Trump can still criticize the judge and the case in general. He just can’t intimidate witnesses, jurors, and court staff. It is entirely reasonable.
Criticism is not intimidation. Words are not violence.
Sammy, just to repeat what Edward Mahl said, “Criticism is not intimidation. Words are not violence.”
The fact you cannot tell the difference between the two puts on full display your lack of critical thinking, logic and common sense.
It also puts on full display your cultist like TDS thinking.
Thank you! 🙂
“Criticism is not intimidation. Words are not violence.”
It is when the MAGAs send death threats, suspicious packages, and SWAT the targets of Trumps tirades.
(were you talking about the messages received by SCOTUS members when the Left didn’t like their “words,” i.e., decisions?)
Oh! Sammy! Lin just owned you! She put you in your place! How does that feel?
BTW, she is a REAL lawyer!
Lin,
Good on you for bringing facts to the table!
Got prof of that?
Or are you going to ignore the assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh?
Who sends SWAT teams to arrest people with CNN camera crews on site? Oh, that would be the corrupt DOJ!
Your TDS cultism is showing! 🙂
OT: ANy conservative, libertarian or Independent that watches ANYTHING on NBC is no different than Ephialtes (the guy that sold out the Spartans at Thermopylae) Benedict Arnold, Quisling, the Rosenburg’s or Algier Hiss and Joe Biden…traitors all. In chronological order they sold out to the Persians, the British, the Germans, the Soviets and lastly the CCP. NBC is the enemy of freedom of speech and thought, please boycott them.
hullbobby: did you notice smirky Chuck Turd’s criticism of NBC for retaining Ronna McDaniel? Two days later, she is gone.
While I (and you) admire our founders’ efforts in creating the First Amendment, it is hard to avoid the reality that money and power can control/buy out the opportunity to be heard by a wider audience.
This week at NBC has been one of those moments that has deeper meaning and effect than known at first blush.
Lin, the scary thing is that we can see and feel the 1st A slipping away thanks to Democrats and the media. Or should I say Democrats and THEIR media?
Amen.
HullBobby,
While, well said, also deeply disturbing.
The parallels to 1930s Germany grow with each passing day.
Those of our leftist friends here on the good professor’s blog like Dennis, Natasha, Sammy et al. support for the Democrat fascists only prove how fascists they are.
Hey did you hear the one about a disbarred lawyer with truth issues and the porn actress turned porn director that is worried about her character?They both walked into a bar…and it hit them in the head.
Did Bill Clinton forcibly rape Juanita Broaddrick, enquiring minds want to know! If they want to investigate, investigate something that actually matters.
The leftist, Marcusian ‘repressive tolerance’ tendency to censor ‘disfavored speech’ (i.e. disfavored by the left/politically incorrect) has infected the leftist elements of the judicial branch of government (graduates of our law schools where neomarxist critical legal theory is all the rage, producing the current crop of leftist soft on crime DAs). Western society needs to be cured of this curious leftist plague before it robs us completely of our enlightenment heritage of freedom and liberty. Curious how the left, which otherwise is the defender of social freedoms (eg abortion rights, recreational drug legalization) is so enamored of limiting freedom of speech in the name of leftist ideology. Of course, this hearkens back to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose idea of the ‘volonte generale’ (general will) imposing its will on those who disagree resulted in the ultimate form of censorship, the guillotine of the French Terror. Herbert Marcuse only echoed that tendency in his seminal neomarxist work outlining the doctrine of political correctness and the censorship of ‘disfavored speech’ in his 1965 essay on Repressive Tolerance.
Cue Dennis, Gigi, Fishlips, etc.
“Gagging our main political opponent helps SAVE Democracy.”
“Being an infamous liar is fine, if you’re lying for OUR side.”
“Violating free speech is A-OK, as long as WE’RE the violators.”
“Pay no attention to those fascists behind the curtain…”
ETC.
Look. We all know that NY State and the NYC area are a stnking pile of corruption, prog/left lunacy and just despicable parasites and criminals. We need to step up and put an end to this. As a resident of northern NY you can smell the stench all the way up here. My only question is how they continue to maintain their grasp – are there no good, honest people left to fight against this woke, prog mafia?
The cost of this travesty is outrageous
Is there some point that SCOTUS puts a stop to all this. Yes, it harms Trump. But it also harms the justice system!
Go ahead and ‘cut his tongue out’ [TRUMP]. Biden will fall straight into a dementia babel, Harris will spew word salad, and the Other’s like; Adam Schiff, Dan Goldman, AOC, Chuck Schumer, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, will pick up the slack of the mantra (Get TRUMP, Get TRUMP, Get TRUMP). The weak mined will follow the call into the abyss and the machine will carry on. If that’s what they want, That’s what they’ll get. When life gives you Lemmings, make Lemmingnade.
“After these charges were delayed until just before an election”
While I’d agree that the federal charges could have been brought sooner. I’d suggest it was the fear of the jjustice department in bringing charges at all as opposed to timing things to interfere with an election. Had it not been for the televised evidence provided by the J-6 committee that shamed the justice department into action. Trump may never have had those charges filed against him. Still, the federal charges were brought a long time ago and simplified so as to make it possible to get through a trial in a timely manner. The reason we are pressing up against an election is that Trump has done alle he could to delay the trial, hoping to delay things past the election when he can order the Attorney General to drop the prosecution or pardon himself should he win the election.
No, that’s not the reason. Nice try.
The reason we are up against an election is because partisan prosecutors engineered it that way.
Right – the justice department is afraid of Trump ?
What are you smoking ?
DOJ did not bring charges – because there is no crime.
Jack Smith – yea, That Jack Smith, litigated a much more egregious version of this against Johnation Edwards 30 years ago and LOST.
Edwards had an affair with a staffer, got her pregnant, and had a big bugs donor pay over a million to buy her silence and hide her from the public.
The FEC said there was NO campaign finance law violation.
Smith took it to trial ANYWAY and lost.
The edwards case was MORE egregious – because there was no doubt that campaign contributions were being used to pay to prevent disclosure of the affair.
In the trump case:
This was NOT reported as a campaign expense. Bragg is trying to argue that because Trump’s campaign benefited that it was.
Only that is a really stupid argument – because Bragg is not only trying to argue that it was a campaign expense – but that it was an illegal one.
Bragg is trying to argue that an actions that is perfectly legal for anyone is magically a federal crime, if you chose to run for election.
And just to be clear – Bragg is NOT charging or trying to convict Trump of a campaign finance law violation.
That is a federal crime – one that the Feds did not prosecute – because there is no crime.
Bragg is trying to get a jury to find that Trump committed a felony violating campaign finances laws – without a conviction – because without the federal crime – there is no state crime.
The state crime Bragg is prosecuting is reporting the money to Cohen as a legal expense.
That is the only ACTUAL charge Bragg has charged.
That charge – which is bogus to begin with – would still be dismissed for statute of limitations problems.
But Bragg is trying to charge it as a felony – not a misdemeanor.
It is only a Felony if the misrepresentation is to cover up a felony.
And the felony Bragg is alleging was covered up is the federal campaign law violation that has never been charged – because for over 30 years the FEC has said not only is this NOT A CRIME, but it is not even a minor reporting violation.
“WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE”
Let’s look at the facts.
– COVID-19 was released at the beginning of the 2020 American presidential election cycle by China as an act of biological warfare designed to take out Xi’s most effective opponent.
– Four prosecutions commenced at the beginning of the 2024 American presidential election cycle against President Trump.
Yep, the Department of Justice, controlled by the Obama-led Biden-Harris Committee to Reelect Biden is terrified—so terrified that it negligently, in derelict fashion, and high-criminally dropped all self-evident charges against Joe Biden as a gross incompetent unable to stand trial for mishandling classified materials and has done its best to put charges against Joe Biden’s son and family off until their presidential pardons become effective (I wonder if the DOJ was terrified when it dropped, in similar fashion, the self-evident charges of destroying 30K emails which constituted destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice, against the high-criminal Hillary Clinton).
This comment is a lot like OJ Simpson saying he was innocent of double murder.
No one believes a word coming out of his lying mouth.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the gag order as overbroad and stressed that any such limits on free speech should be treated as “presumptively void and may be upheld only on the basis of a clear showing that an exercise of First Amendment rights will interfere with the rights of the parties to a fair trial.”
There is an Appeals court decision that states, courts must presumptively overturn gag orders, and the lower courts ignore the superior court direction.
There are court decisions on this going back almost to the founding.
This whole thing is nonsense.
The prosecutor can not try a case in the press.
The DEFENDANT can.
You can not restrict someones free speech by accusing them of a crime.
You can not even restrict a persons free speech by convicting them of a crime.
What good is this “justice” system? It’s becoming more like a “Kangaroo” system of injustice. To, in essence, promote serial liars like Cohen and Daniels is a violation of Trump’s rights. Cohen has been lying for years and his incarceration should tell this judge something about his credibility. Stormy is “a woman for hire” and one should wonder about her credibility as well.
I am not aware of claims that Daniels is a liar. If you have something – please provide.
Daniels was slammed with a huge legal bill for a lawsuit that she filed against Trump years ago.
The findings in That lawsuit should END this farce.
The lawsuit was dismissed because Trump was not a party to the NDA
Daniels was paid by Cohen in return for a binding legal agreement not to disclose her relationship with Trump.
The terms of the NDA required her to pay Cohen over a million dollars if she disclosed that relationship.
Trump was not a party to the NDA, he did not sign it. It was not binding on him.
This is no different from Merchan allowing the access hollywood tape in.
Bragg is free to play the access hollywood tape on a loop in his office.
Democrats can run it continuously in campaign adds.
But it is not evidence in anyway regarding this trial.
This is not a sex trial.
There really is no crime actually alleged.
But to the extent there is – it would be a federal crime not a state one.
With respect to Cohen – while I aggree that any case that has Cohen as the star witness should be dismissed outright.
The major flaw in this case is failure to state a crime.
NDA’s are legal.
Paying hush money is legal.
Paying it from a political campaign is legal
NOT paying it from a political campaign is legal.
The legal side of this has been strongly established for over 3 decades – since Jack Smith lost the case against Johnathan Edwards.
The FEC has consistently held – even back on the edwards case, that paying “Hush money” did not violate campaign finance laws.
Reporting the costs to secure an NDA as a legal expense is not fraud.
Even actually lying about an expense is not fraud – so long as the expense is still an expense.
why bother when GOP continue to DEFUND the entire criminal Democrat Government?
Another day, another miscarriage of justice.