As we await the defendant for a hearing on alleged gag order violations, the DA's trial team is joined by the DA himself, Alvin Bragg, in the first row of the gallery.
And he is joined by his chief of appeals, Steven Wu, and behind them, even a now-retired veteran of the office, former first executive assistant D.A. Peter Pope.
McBrien:
9:20 a.m Joshua Steinglass, Susan Hoffinger, Matthew Colangelo arrive.
For the defense, we have Todd Blanche to Trump's right, Emil Bove to his left, and Susan Necheles to Bove's left, in their usual seats. Pool photographers are snapping pics now.
9:33 a.m., all rise, Merchan is on the bench, and prosecution and defense make their introductions.
Steinglass immediately asks to approach.
Trump, having waived his right to be present at sidebars last week, remains seated at the defense table, alone.
"Trump ignored questions about why he did not appeal his DC gag order, if he'll continue to post about the witnesses, what he would do to quell protests at college campuses and if he thinks Michael Cohen is a 'sleaze bag.'"
The oddest moments are when all of the lawyers are in the judge's chambers and Trump is just sitting at the defense table alone, staring forward, with the entire courtroom watching him from the back. (Which is what's happening right now.)
Merchan reviews the purpose of the hearing—whether we'll find Trump in contempt "for one or all of these alleged violations," Merchan says. "I believe it's the People's burden. I'll hear you."
Prosecutor: I am handing up 10 documents, the violations. Number Nine is the landing page of a Truth Social post linking to an article, 9A is the article that's linked to. Judge, each of the 10 posts violate the order of April 1, which amended the March 25 order
Conroy is now talking about an alleged 11th violation: "For the record, yesterday, here in this building, right outside those doors...the defendant violated the order on camera...He did it right here, in the hallway outside."
Prosecutor: The defendant said Cohen put in an invoice, and he [the Defendant] got indicted. So the defendant should be held in contempt of court. On April 10 at 10:07 am, the defendant reproduced a post by Michael Avenatti. Defendant added, 2 sleazebags
Justice Merchan: Can you link this to the gag order?
Prosecutor: Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels are known to be witnesses... Next, defendant posted a picture of a document, Official Statement of Stormy Daniels. He added, Will the fake news report it.
22/ Again, Twitter is glitching all over the place. My posts may reflect that.
Press:
Prosecutor: He put on his campaign website, "ICYMI," which I understand to mean, In Case You Missed It, a link to an article... He published on Truth Social, the same link, about Serial Perjurer. On April 16 at 7:09 pm, defendant posted a picture of Cohen
Conroy working his way through list of the alleged violations, starting with repost from Stormy Daniels' former lawyer Michael Avenatti.
Can you make a connection between that post and the stipulations of the gag order? Merchan asks.
By calling them sleaze bags, by going after their credibility, that’s part of the plan for this trial, it’s the defendant conditioning his followers, says Conroy.
Conroy makes the pt several more x about timing of post—5 days before jury selection.
Prosecution: What Fox News Jesse Watters' said on tv about the prospective jurors/jurors versus what Trump posted are different in that Trump's Truth Social post was slightly modified in a way and it violates the gag order.
Conroy is still working his way through the list of allegations, adding context, and drawing explicit connections to the wording of the gag order.
He's discussing Jesse Watters.
Conroy says the Watters example is a hybrid of something someone else said—"They're catching undercover liberal activists lying to the judge"—with something that Trump added—"in order to get on the Trump jury."
All of the posts here are made in relation to this criminal proceeding, says Conroy. "We know that from the words...it's just very clear that they relate to this case."
👉🏼"Throwing MAGA into a post doesn't make it political. It may make it more ominous," he says.
There's no indication that Trump's claim that he's responding to attacks is anything more than an after the fact justification, says Conroy.
"[Trump] says whatever he needs to say to get the results that he wants. It's tortured at best," says Conroy, arguing that the defendant has plenty of leeway to talk about a great many other things.
Trump was "knowingly and willfully breaching the crystal clear unequivocal lines set by this court in the April 1 order to protect the integrity of this proceeding," says Conroy.
Now he's addressing Trump's argument for an order carve out for reposts, rather than original posts of his own.
👉🏼👉🏼 Prosecutor: We are not yet asking for an incarceratory penalty. We are asking for a $1000 fine for each of these ten posts, and that he be ordered to take the ten posts down.
Trump's lawyer Blache: President Trump knows what the gag order allows him to do
Conroy says they're "not yet" seeking sanctions of jail time—only fines, ordered removal of the posts, and for the court to issue another warning that this won't be tolerated and that incarceration is an option "should it be necessary."
Blanche is up now.
"Just to set the record very straight and clear: Pres Trump does in fact know what the gag order allows him to do and not allow him to do."
Conroy says they are not seeking jail time, but "defendant seems to be angling for that."
"Retweets are not endorsements" as a legal argument
Conroy is disputing that "reposts" are exempt from the gag order. He points to New York defamation law, which says that someone who repeats defamatory material “is subject to liability as though he had originally published it.”
Merchan clarifies the timing of a post from Cohen post, which would proceed Avenatti's post.
"We're gonna take one at a time, otherwise it's going to get really confusing," Merchan says to Blanche. He wants to get the timeline of these posts, reposts, and replies clear.
Merchan presses Blanche: What about Cohen's post makes it a political attack?
Blanche replies that it's the reference to a pardon.
👉🏼Merchan, skeptically:
"You believe that everything that Mr. Avenatti said does not relate to the trial, but that the use of the word 'pardon' makes it political and authorizes your client to respond?"
"When your client is violating the gag order, I expect you" to have more than one word — i.e. pardon — as a justification.
Blanche denies that Trump violated the gag order.
The judge says he hasn't yet made that finding.
[Me: This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where they’re pitching their show to NBC, asked why they should buy a show about Nothing, George says, “bc it’s on TV” and NBC Guy says, “Not yet!”]
Blanche says that the witnesses are making money, documentaries, TV interviews about Trump, all while Trump is gagged and threatened with jail if he responds.
Merchan wants to get into what was actually said rather than interpret and "read between the lines."
Blanche argues that the mention of the pardon in Cohen's post is what makes it political in nature.
Merchan asks if Blanche has spoken to Avenatti (no), then asks, "How can you infer...what he means?"
What defense is saying is a) it's political and b) significantly, if he's talking about witnesses it can't have anything to do with these proceedings. Remember why the language in the order exists, says Blanche.
Merchan: "I remember."
Blanche; "I don't want to relive that."
“You refer to the repeated attacks, yet this first exhibit didn't happen until the day after the matter was brought to the appellate division," Merchan says. It's "not a recent attack, but a series of attacks, can you understand why I'm curious about that?"
Merchan asks impatiently if we can go onto exhibit 2.
"This was a response to what specific attack?" Merchan demands. "This is six years old, when [Trump] pulled it out."
The document is six years old, but Trump had posted "Look what was just found"
Merchan clarifies that he didn't get an answer about what specific attack exhibit 2 was in reference to, but Blanche says it's a response to repeated attacks.
Merchan: "Repeated is not specific. Give me one, give me the most recent one that he was responding to here."
👉🏼Merchan is audibly and visibly irritated with Blanche now, as the judge says to him: "I'm asking the questions. I'm going to decide whether your client is in contempt or not...so please don't turn this around."👈🏼 [Me: Oof!]
Merchan mentions that it's almost 10:30, and jurors are waiting.
😂 #WompWomp 👉🏼If you can't tell from my live tweets so far, this contempt hearing doesn't seem to be going well for the defense.
Blanche mentions two potential violations that the DA didn't bring up.
That suggests that somehow the people or the court does not take action on a violation, that the gag order is waived, that's just silly, 👈🏼Merchan says. That doesn't negate the validity of the gag order.
"It's not making a mockery of the gag order, your honor," Blanche says.
Merchan: "Then what is your argument?"
😆👉🏼This isn't quite like watching a full blown car accident, but it's certainly like watching a fender bender.
Justice Merchan: What was he responding to?
Trump's lawyer Blanche: To the two systems of justice in this courtroom Merchan: You're saying there are two system of justice in this courtroom?
Blanche: Mr. Weisselberg is in jail, and Michael Cohen is not
Merchan: You suggest that because the People or the Court do not respond to every violation of the gag order, it's waived. It's not. It does not negate the validity of the gag order
Blanche: He reposted others and the People didn't act
Justice Merchan: How does his account work?
Trump's lawyer Blanche: There's a group of folks that look for articles they think President Trump's audience should know about.
Justice Merchan: It's not passive. Someone had to do something.
Justice Merchan: Is your client saying he thought reposting couldn't violate the gag order? You've presented nothing.
👉🏼👉🏼Trump's lawyer Blanche: Do you want me to put President Trump on the stand? Is that was your asking for?👏🏼
So it's your client's position that when he was reposting these things, he was not violating the gag order?...Are you testifying under oath that's your client's position? Merchan asks Blanche.
😂👏🏼I'm going to revise my earlier tweet calling the contempt hearing a "fender bender."
"If anything, the court should make crystal clear what it means with the reposts" says Blanche, but Merchan says it's not ambiguous, and that Blanche isn't giving him any argument to counter that point.
Merchan makes an analogy about if Trump grabs a sign from someone outside, one that says horrible things about the witnesses or jury, and walks around with it.
Blanche takes issue with that analogy, bc he says a news article is at issue here.
👉🏼Merchan says: What you shoulda done, is probably said my client is thinking of reposting things, it's not really clear in the gag order, so Judge Merchan is that allowed? But you didn't.
Laffy, thank you for doing this; we greatly appreciate it. Your sense of humour shines through while helping us slobs out here get an idea of what's happening. 😊
I am loving this entire process so much. I have been out of patience with this guy's endless shenanigans and manipulations for a very long time, and it's nice to see a judge quickly reaching that same level of fed up.
It wouldn't matter if there were cameras live streaming the street there. A chunk of his followers believe anything he says regardless of how outlandish or untrue it is, and he knows that.
@GottaLaff That analogy is actually spot-on. Doesn't matter if it's a news article or someone else's personal opinion -- he grabbed it and paraded around with it as a proxy for his own statements.
It is only "Boom" if there are actual consequences. Trump and his lawyer don't care about lectures, in fact they will make good commercials. They only care about fines and jail time. And significant fines at that (7 or 8 figures at least, 9 would be better, but I assume that is not even possible.)
@GottaLaff That kind of slow pulling off of someone else's fender because the car doesn't realize it needs to stop and back up. Onlookers just cringing.
@GottaLaff NFL
This must be so surreal for him.
His whole adult life he’s been surrounded by sycophants and any words against him are at a distance - like a play or a movie.
Suddenly, it’s very real, very present, and very close. There are so many people who do not like him and do not approve of him and will not bow to him. #TrumpTrial
@GottaLaff It would be fun to organize a "maga" protest outside the courts, where everyone looks dejected and can barely raise the energy to lift their signs and does interviews in the most disinterested and unconvinced way possible.
He's trying to recreate another Jan 6
Another reason he should be held in contempt with no phone.
Can you imagine the chaos if the #magats take up his cause and over run the courthouse.
Add comment