Former President Donald Trump Held in Contempt of Court: What You Need to Know About His Historic Trial

In a significant development to former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial, Judge Juan Merchan has ruled the former president violated his gag order and is thus being held in contempt of court.

According to Merchan, Trump violated his gag order nine times over the course of a week, via social media posts made on the platform Truth Social, many of which targeted key witnesses in the trial, Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen.

As a result of this, Trump has been fined $9,000 in total for his conduct, as well as being instructed to remove these posts from his account on Truth Social.

Merchan made mention of the fact that these fines wouldn’t mean much for Trump, who “can easily afford such a fine,” but did issue another warning to him.

“Defendant is hereby warned that the Court will not tolerate continued willful violations of its lawful orders and that if necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, it will impose an incarceratory punishment,” Merchan said.

How did we get here?

A Manhattan grand jury voted to indict Trump on March 30, 2023. The indictment, revealed by local prosecutors five days later, contained 34 felony counts related to violating New York’s law on corporate record-keeping.

Trump’s defense team forcefully contested the charges, arguing for their dismissal on grounds of selective targeting and politically motivated prosecution. However, Justice Juan Merchan, presiding over the case, turned down these claims and imposed a gag order on Trump, preventing him from publicly discussing likely witnesses or individuals involved in the proceedings.

The trial, scheduled to commence on April 15, 2024, is expected to last up to six weeks. At the center of the charges is the allegation that Trump falsified business records with the intent of furthering separate underlying crimes. Prosecutors have highlighted three theories to support this assertion.

Firstly, they contend that payments made to Stormy Daniels constituted illegal campaign contributions, violating both federal and state election laws. Secondly, they argue that the payments were part of a coordinated effort to aid Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign by vanquishing damaging stories, rather than merely reducing personal embarrassment. Lastly, prosecutors allege that Trump manipulated reimbursement records to evade taxes, violating New York tax law.

Crucially, the judge’s ruling on the motion to dismiss has strengthened the prosecution’s case. Merchan affirmed that Trump’s intent to commit the alleged crimes suffices, regardless of whether he is convicted of the underlying offenses.

What’s going to come of all this?

While the case shows significant strengths, it faces notable challenges. Heightening the charges to felonies by linking them to federal election violations presents a novel legal theory, testing the boundaries between state and federal laws. Trump’s defense may also show the payments as private matters and the charges as technical infractions insufficient to warrant criminal prosecution against a former president.

Moreover, even in the event of a conviction, Trump is unlikely to face prison time. Falsifying business records at the felony level carries a maximum sentence of four years, but first-time non-violent offenders often receive probation instead.

Key witnesses, including Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney, are expected to play crucial roles in the trial. Cohen, who facilitated the hush money payments, has turned against Trump and is anticipated to testify against him.

As the historic criminal trial of former President Donald Trump kicked off on April 22, 2024, both prosecutors and Trump’s defense team presented contrasting narratives to jurors. The trial, which has caught national attention, marks an unprecedented legal battle against a former U.S. president.

Prosecutors wasted no time in outlining their case, maintaining that the reimbursement of hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels was not just a private matter but part of a larger scheme to sway the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, as mentioned earlier on.

Matthew Colangelo, a prosecutor, carefully detailed Trump’s alleged efforts, alongside his former attorney Michael Cohen and ex-National Enquirer chief David Pecker, to diminish damaging information during the crucial 2016 election period.

In remarkable contrast, Trump’s defense team actively asserted his innocence, claiming the charges were baseless and emphasizing Trump’s alleged lack of involvement in the creation of falsified business records. Todd Blanche, Trump’s attorney, emphasized that while there may have been a paper trail, there was no illegal intent on Trump’s part. Blanche’s assertion that “there’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election” set the stage for a contentious legal battle over the construction of Trump’s actions.

The trial’s first witness, former AMI CEO David Pecker, provided brief but potentially crucial testimony before the court adjourned for the day. Pecker’s role in what prosecutors termed the “catch and kill” scheme, aimed at controlling damaging narratives about Trump before the 2016 election, is expected to be the center of the prosecution’s case. His testimony is expected to shed light on key meetings and agreements between Trump and himself about the hush money payments and efforts to conceal damaging information.

However, the legal proceedings faced an immediate obstacle as Merchan assembled a hearing to address allegations that Trump violated the gag order imposed on him. Prosecutors urged the judge to fine Trump for multiple violations of the order, reducing the seriousness of breaching courtroom protocol.

Meanwhile, in a separate courtroom battle, lawyers representing Trump challenged the legitimacy of a $175 million bond posted by Trump for his civil fraud trial. While Trump could not attend the civil hearing due to his obligation to be present at the criminal trial, his legal team strongly contested the proceedings, reducing the multifaceted legal challenges the former president currently faces.

In a post-trial statement to reporters, Trump aimed to distance himself from his former attorney, Michael Cohen, claiming that Cohen’s crimes were unrelated to him. However, fact-checking reveals that Cohen’s convictions, including campaign finance offenses related to the hush money scheme, directly expose Trump, adding another layer of intricacy to the ongoing legal saga.

As the trial unfolds, the focus remains on how the prosecution and defense will work through the intricate web of evidence and legal arguments, with the outcome being confident to repeat far beyond the courtroom, potentially shaping the future of presidential accountability and legal precedent.