Prosecutors say Trump violated his gag order 10 times. The judge is finally set to weigh in.
Justice Juan Merchan has scheduled a Tuesday hearing on prosecutors’ request to hold Trump in contempt. On Monday, Manhattan prosecutors began trying to persuade a jury that Donald Trump is guilty of 34 felonies in his hush money case. On Tuesday, they’ll try to persuade the judge that he deserves a more immediate penalty: They want him held in contempt.
The prosecutors say Trump has repeatedly violated a gag order that prohibits him from attacking witnesses, jurors and others involved in the case. Justice Juan Merchan has scheduled a Tuesday morning hearing, outside the presence of the jury, to consider the prosecutors’ arguments.
from earlier today. todd blanche is in a bit of hot water.
there was a point where merchan called blanche’s argument silly.
Moving onto the post about the jury and Jesse Watters, Judge Juan Merchan asked: “Your client manipulated what was said and put it in quotes, am I right?”
“I wouldn’t use the word manipulation your honor,” Donald Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche responded. “But the rest of the quote was not part of the quote.”
Merchan said that Trump’s post on the jury was not a repost.
“This is something that was said on TV and your client had to type it out. He had to sit there, use quotation marks, the shift key and type every thing out and then add those additional words,” the judge said.
Blanche acknowledged that Trump’s post about the jury was not a repost.
“You’re losing all credibility with the court,” Merchan told Blanche.
Just a reminder here that “a jury of one’s peers” isn’t even a thing in American law. It’s a purely British concept, and means that nobles will be tried by nobles and commoners by commoners. But here in the US, we’re all of us, even Presidents, commoners.
That led to the Batson challenge which still exists today.
In 1986, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712 (1986), that peremptory challenges may NOT be used to discriminate against and eliminate potential jurors on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or religion. Doing so violates a criminal defendant’s right to Due Process of Law and Equal Protection under the United States Constitution. - SOURCE
He may well lose some of his people, he’ll likely never loose all of them. A number of people believe in the religious sense, that he is there for THEM. How many? I’d guess something like 10-20% of the MAGA base, so 5ish % of the nation, will follow him into and beyond the grave.
But even so, it’s not THIS case (re Stormy) that is going to be what breaks his followers. AFAICT, this is a pretty technical, legalese argument that isn’t going to move many minds. Does it put Trump in jeopardy? Make him look weak? Sure, but it doesn’t really have any bearing on his actions for/against the nation as far as most people (and certainly almost all Republicans) are concerned.
I really wish people would stop saying that. Not only is it tired and unfunny, it’s an insult for those of us who take time out of our lives to give back. Every single person on the two juries where I served were much more than smart enough to “get out” of jury duty. None of us wanted to be there. We did it anyway.
(I have nothing against people with legitimate hardships not serving on juries)
I believe in jury nullification. I’ve posted on this board about it more than once. Do I need to tell the judge? Is that me getting out of jury duty unfairly? Is it better if I keep that to myself and not tell them?