More sophistry/game playing/I never touched you - I hope this nonsense argument does not fly.
As far as I can tell, this is the current version, from April 1, 2024:
[my bolding]
The order applies to Trump and doesn’t mention anyone else.
If you can prove that Trump directed someone to make statements caught by the order, then he would be in breach. But you need proof that he did so, and that the statements come within the scope of the order, for him to be jugged.
But the order does not automatically apply to anyone but Trump. If you can prove that Trump directed the statements, and you can prove that the person appreciated that the statements would be contrary to the order, that might be sufficient to land that second person in contempt; I don’t know how broadly NY state law of contempt works.
But I don’t think it’s enough to say “She’s Trump’s spokesperson.” You need evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to incarcerate someone. That’s what due process is about.
And since this is about speech, I would guess that a judge would always give a strong benefit of the doubt to the third party, since they are not directly mentioned in the order and they have rights under the 1st Amendment to comment on public affairs as they see fit.
As always, IANAUSL.
A diet of McDs will do that for you.
What about the phrase “Making or directing others to make public statements …” (emphasis mine) which appears three times in the gag order?
If Habba is indeed on Trump’s payroll as a spokesperson, then ISTM that they may potentially both be in violation.
Moderating:
Time to stop with the goofing. You’re all going off topic. Thanks.
I dealt with that already:
But surely the order is not so toothless in that regard that Trump could continuously tell her in private conversations, “Say XYZ and if anyone asks, I didn’t direct you to do so”…? Or is it?
I keep using that phrase: “If you can prove it.”
Do you want the court to have the power to put someone in jail, breaching their constitutional right to liberty, without proof?
No, but it seems as if some measure beyond nothing is in order. Not jail necessarily. “Mr. Trump, it has come to the court’s attention that your legal spokesperson seems confused regarding the nature of the gag order. Please disabuse her of the idea that this type of discourse is acceptable.” As a first step…?
Remember the Stringer Bell principle: " is you taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy ? What the fuck you thinking man!"
Smart criminals don’t take notes, they keep their mouths shut, and they keep the group in the know to a minimum.
They know that if they breach those rules, they’re more likely to generate evidence against themselves.
Note that I am not suggesting the Trump gang is composed of smart criminals.
She is not a party to the proceedings, nor counsel of record in the proceedings.
Where does the court get jurisdiction to try to restrict her speech?
(Again, assuming no proof that he is directing her.)
The order isn’t restricted to those who are party to the proceedings. Trump may not direct others to violate the order. How can someone who is a legal spokesperson be considered outside Trump’s influence?
The idea that Trump is untouchable because nobody can prove his lawyer/spokesperson was directed to say those things makes a mockery out of the idea that any court can control him. From a practical point of view it means the court has no power to enforce a gag order against Trump.
The order states: “Defendant is directed to refrain from…”.
It does not refer to anyone else being directed not to do something.
Yes. But since the sanction is jail, the prosecution must prove that Trump directed Habba to say the things. Criminal contempt by Trump must be proven.
I do not know if NY law of contempt would be extended to apply to a third party who says something because Trump told them to, when they are not named in the order.
Because the criminal law in the US isn’t based on collective liability. And that’s a very good thing.
If the state thinks that an individual has committed an offence, like contempt, the state has to prove that the individual has done so. It can’t be based on things like “she works for X, so she must be doing it because X told her to do it.”
The state has to prove it. And that requirement is an essential part of the constitutional principles of due process and the presumption of innocence.
So are you saying that the state can put Trump in jail without proving he breached the court order?
If any lawyer repeatedly on TV news attacked a witness in an ongoing trial, would that witness have recourse to sue? I’m not in the US, but a standard response to TV reporters here about any matter or person before the courts is always a firm “I cannot comment.”
Alina Habba, as Trump’s paid legal spokesperson, should know she is unfairly influencing the court - whether there’s a gag order in place or not, she seems to be crossing a line to me.
But that gag order itself says just that, doesn’t it? He is not allowed to direct someone else to do these things. The other person wouldn’t be held in contempt, Trump himself would be. The other person doesn’t have to be specified, it’s a blanket ban on rump directing anyone to do this.
If it were otherwise, the gag order would be meaningless. There’s hundreds of thousands of MAGAts out there who would be delighted to talk shit about anyone related to this case, if Trump were to call them up and say, “Hey, can you do me a favor?” And he could do that; he’s got all their contact details from his fundraising efforts.
Hell, come to think about it, that would probably help his fundraising; “Donate enough, and you too may get a personal call From Trump, asking you to be his personal warrior in the battle against the Deep State!”
By inquiring, under oath and subject to the penalties of perjury, whether or not she is acting as spokeperson for Trump in return for any form of promised remuneration or benefit.
And maybe further inquiring how she can come to believe things that are so obviously untrue. As with the 2020 “election fraud”, the things that wingnuts say on Fox News are usually radically different than what they say when confronted in court. Freedom of speech matters, but oftentimes truth matters even more.
But that doesn’t have anything to do with the trial, and might delay it.
If Habba just chose to say things on her own, then she’s an independent actor, like Jack Ruby. That’s my take. The court can’t control what someone else might do inspired by Trump. Another loophole.
Not entirely independent. She is a legal spokesperson, so it’s quite possible she can personally be held responsible for the statements as prejudicial to the proceedings.
So, sure, if there’s evidence she was directed to make those statements, Trump could be in trouble.
But if there is no such evidence, then, while Trump might not face consequences, she herself could be in trouble if it was found credible she was acting in her capacity as a legal spokesperson, even if there had not been a gag order in place. At minimum, it appears to be a violation of ethical standards and she’s supposed to know better.
I’d wonder why she was willing to take a bullet in this situation, but I gather she’s not held up as an example of a capable lawyer.