Trump Fined $5,000 for Breaking Gag Order in New York Fraud Trial.
Previous posts have covered the beginnings and progress of the civil court case against – Trump in New York for fraudulent accounting by his businesses in that State. Potentially the most serious of the ninety-one charges against him, as – he has already been found guilty -and whilst criminal charges in other cases – could lead to his imprisonment – that is thought unlikely – and – if he was President by then – he could just pardon himself. But iIn this case – one possible penalty is – for him and his companies to be debarred from doing business, anywhere in the State of New York
The very important distinction in this case, from other criminal indictments against Trump – is that, there is no jury, and the verdict and sentencing is in the hands of the judge – Arthur F. Engoron, in cooperation with the Prosecuting Council, Letitia James, New York State’s Attorney General.
In fact – the judge had, even before the trial began – announced, based on the documented evidence, submitted in advance – that he found Trump guilty of the alleged fraud and the purpose of the hearing was to decide the penalties.
The first of those posts, was –‘Trump Fraud Trial in New York – Day One’.
Had the sub-title – ‘Trump is Thick!’.
Simply because – the fact that the Judge and Prosecutor were the sole arbiters of his approaching punishment – him having already been found guilty – seemed to have passed him by.
He started outside the court – and had personal goes at both of them – and then – right at the beginning of the court hearing – launched into a long, personal verbal attack on both, while doing a pantomime scowl, at each in turn.
t’s not even stupid – it’s moronic – and it didn’t stop –
He continued to use social media to attack the, Judge and Prosecuting Council – and then – an attack on a clerk for the judge in the case’ – and left a copy of posts – online for weeks.Top of Form
The. Judge reacted – “Personal attacks on members of my court staff are unacceptable, inappropriate and I will not tolerate them under any circumstances.”
He said that ‘his statement should be considered a “gag order” forbidding any posts, emails or public remarks about members of his staff.’
Trump went quiet for a short while – and then …….Bottom of Form
The Judge – on the 20th October – fined the Trump $5,000 for a “blatant violation” of a gag order imposed this month.
HE stopped short of holding Trump in contempt but warned that the former president still could face harsher punishments, even jail time, if he breached the order again.
Mr. Trump’s post was removed from his social media platform, Truth Social, on Oct. 3, the day Justice Engoron imposed the gag order, but a copy of the post remained visible on his campaign website.
The post was finally removed from the website around 10 p.m. on Thursday, after Justice Engoron learned of it and contacted Mr. Trump’s legal team. A lawyer for Mr. Trump, Christopher M. Kisi, said in court on Friday that the failure to remove the post sooner was “inadvertent.” He apologised on behalf Trump.
In a new order on Friday, Justice Engoron said he had imposed only a “nominal” $5,000 fine because it was Mr. Trump’s first violation and an unintentional error, but he warned that additional infractions would merit harsher punishments.
“Make no mistake: future violations, whether intentional or unintentional, will subject the violator to far more severe sanctions,” Justice Engoron wrote. He said possible punishments included steeper fines, holding Mr. Trump in contempt of court and “possibly imprisoning him.”
The judge added that, “In the current overheated climate, incendiary untruths can, and in some cases already have, led to serious physical harm, and worse.”
Trump, who has frequently attacked judges, prosecutors and witnesses in the civil and criminal cases against him, is subject to limitations on his speech not only in the Manhattan fraud case, but a federal case in which he is accused of trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
The judges overseeing the cases must strike a balance between respecting the First Amendment rights of a man seeking the White House again and keeping their courts orderly and dignified.
They also must consider what would be an effective punishment — and deterrent — for a man who estimates his net worth in the
Billions.