In a New York courtroom, prosecutors presented evidence that former President Donald Trump breached a gag order that barred him from making public statements about the ongoing hush money trial against him. They highlighted ten specific social media posts on his accounts that allegedly violated the court’s prohibition. The prosecution argued that these posts constituted a ‘deliberate flouting’ of the order and requested that Trump be fined $1,000 for each offense.
Prosecutor Christopher Conroy emphasized that Trump had violated the order repeatedly, with the most recent instances occurring outside the courtroom on Monday, where Trump commented on his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, the government’s primary witness in the case.
Defense attorney Todd Blanche countered by asserting that Trump’s comments were simply responses to statements made by others, protected under his right to free speech.
Presiding Judge Juan Merchan did not issue an immediate ruling but expressed growing exasperation with the Trump team’s conduct. He cautioned that Blanche’s assertions that Trump was diligently trying to comply were eroding the team’s credibility.
This hearing could lead to further financial penalties for Trump, who was previously fined $15,000 for violating a similar order during his civil fraud trial in New York last year. However, it remains uncertain whether this will deter him from making future inflammatory comments or further antagonize him. Trump, who is also facing three other criminal cases, has made his legal battles a central focus of his presidential campaign, using them to rally support and cast himself as a victim of political persecution.
The ongoing hearing preceded the resumption of testimony in the trial, where David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, was expected to take the stand again to provide details about his alleged collaboration with Trump and Cohen in a strategy known as ‘catch and kill’ to suppress negative stories during the 2016 election campaign.
In opening statements, prosecutors had outlined their case, alleging that Trump had illegally sought to influence the 2016 election by preventing damaging personal stories from surfacing, including by authorizing hush money payments to a pornographic actor who claimed to have had an extramarital sexual encounter with him. Trump has denied these allegations.
The defense, led by attorney Blanche, vehemently challenged the prosecution’s case, attacking Cohen’s credibility and portraying Trump as innocent of any crimes. They argued that the Manhattan District Attorney’s office should never have brought the case against him.
The opening statements presented vastly different narratives to the 12-person jury and the public, setting the stage for a highly contested trial that will unfold amidst the backdrop of a closely fought presidential race. This case holds historical significance as the first criminal trial of a former American president and the first of Trump’s four ongoing prosecutions to reach a jury.
Prosecutors have emphasized the gravity of the case, arguing that it centers on election interference, exemplified by the hush money payments made to the pornographic actor. They have accused Trump of orchestrating a ‘criminal scheme’ to corrupt the 2016 election and subsequently covering it up through falsified business records.
Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, each carrying a potential prison sentence of up to four years. While it is unclear whether the judge would seek imprisonment, a conviction would not disqualify Trump from running for president again. However, as a state case, he would not be able to pardon himself if found guilty.
The prosecution’s case delved into the tawdry saga that unfolded during Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, when his past personal conduct collided with his political ambitions. They highlighted the involvement of key figures such as Stormy Daniels, the pornographic actor who received the hush money payment; Michael Cohen, the lawyer who allegedly facilitated the payment; and David Pecker, who allegedly acted as the campaign’s ‘eyes and ears.’
In his opening statement, prosecutor Colangelo outlined a comprehensive effort by Trump and his associates to suppress three potentially damaging stories, including allegations of prior sexual encounters, from emerging during the campaign. This undertaking was particularly urgent after the release of the infamous ‘Access Hollywood’ tape, in which Trump was heard making lewd comments about women.
Following the public release of the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape, the prosecution alleges that The National Enquirer alerted Cohen that Daniels was considering going public with her claims of a 2006 sexual encounter with Trump. ‘At Trump’s direction, Cohen negotiated a deal to buy Ms. Daniels’ story to prevent American voters from hearing it before Election Day,’ Colangelo told the jury.
However, the prosecution emphasized that ‘neither Trump nor the Trump Organization could just write a check to Cohen with a memo line that said ‘reimbursement for porn star payoff.” Instead, they allegedly ‘cooked the books’ to make it appear that the payment was income for services rendered, forming the basis of the 34-count indictment against Trump.
Trump has denied having a sexual encounter with Daniels.
Defense attorney Blanche attempted to undermine the credibility of Cohen, portraying him as untrustworthy. Blanche maintained that Trump’s company had not engaged in any illegal activity when recording the payments to Cohen as legal expenses and argued that it was not against the law for a candidate to attempt to influence an election.
Blanche challenged the prosecution’s assertion that Trump had authorized the Daniels payment to protect his campaign, instead characterizing it as an effort to suppress a ‘sinister’ attempt to embarrass Trump and his family. ‘President Trump fought back, like he always does, and like he’s entitled to do, to protect his family, his reputation, and his brand, and that is not a crime,’ Blanche told the jury.
The prosecution referred to the suppression of these stories as ‘catch-and-kill’ – a practice common in the tabloid industry, where potentially damaging stories are acquired and then effectively ‘killed’ through agreements that prevent the individuals involved from sharing them with others.
In addition to the payment made to Daniels, the prosecution presented evidence of an arrangement to pay a former Playboy model $150,000 to suppress her claims of a nearly yearlong affair with Trump. The prosecution alleged that Trump was desperate to prevent this information from becoming public due to concerns about its potential impact on the election.
