Trump Fined for Violating Gag Order in Hush-Money Trial
In a shocking turn of events, a New York judge has ruled that former US President Donald Trump blatantly disregarded the gag order placed on him during his criminal hush-money trial.
Justice Juan Merchan delivered a verdict on Tuesday, slapping Trump with a hefty fine of $9,000 (£7,100) – $1,000 for each violation of the order that prohibits him from attacking court staff, their families, witnesses, and jurors.
Prosecutors alleged that Trump violated the order a total of 10 times, with Trump vehemently arguing that it infringes on his right to free speech.
Justice Merchan sided with the prosecution on all but one of the violations, setting the stage for another hearing on Thursday to address four additional instances of Trump’s alleged defiance of the gag order.
Trump was initially placed under the gag order in late March, which was later expanded after he launched personal attacks on the judge’s daughter via his Truth Social platform.
Prosecutors contended that Trump continued to brazenly flout the order during the trial, prompting them to seek contempt charges, fines, post deletions, and a stern warning of potential imprisonment for future violations.
During a hearing on the violations, prosecutor Christopher Conroy highlighted Trump’s derogatory Truth Social posts about key witnesses and attempts to undermine the jury selection process.
Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche, faced intense scrutiny from Justice Merchan as he defended his client’s actions, claiming Trump was unaware of violating the order.
Following the court proceedings, Trump expressed outrage at the gag order, lamenting his inability to defend himself while others freely discuss him.
Despite facing restrictions in multiple legal battles, Justice Merchan acknowledged Trump’s right to speak freely but emphasized that attacks on individuals involved in the case serve no legitimate purpose.
As the legal drama unfolds, Trump’s use of social media as a defense tool continues to fuel controversy and scrutiny from the judiciary. Stay tuned for more updates on this high-profile case. — BBC
