The Manhattan DA Wants Jail Time For Trump If He Violates The Courts Gag Order.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg wants President Donald Trump to be put in jail for a month If he tries to violate his suggested “gag order” imposed in his alleged hush money trial in Manhattan by Judge Juan Merchan. Bragg filed a motion to the court asking the court to hold Trump accountable for any possible violation of his gag order which bars President Trump from making public statements about jurors, court staff or witnesses involved in the trial. The DA’s office wants additional fines or jail time if Trump violates the gag order and makes public statements about people involved in the case.
The filing reads “This Court should again admonish the defendant to comply with his obligations under the order. And finally, this Court should warn defendant that future violations of the Court’s restrictions on his extrajudicial statements can be punished not only with additional fines, but also with a term of jail time of up to thirty days,”
The filing reads. “It is absolutely critical that defendant immediately halt any conduct that would violate the April 1 order’s narrow restrictions to protect the integrity of the ongoing trial. A finding of criminal contempt, imposition of sanctions, and stark warnings from this Court are the minimum remedies necessary to achieve this indispensable objective,”
Bragg is claiming that Trump’s social media comments on former porn star Stormy Daniels and his former attorney Michael Cohen are attacks against “known witnesses,” as stated in the court’s April 1 gag order. He also claims that Trump’s claims are in fact “attacks intended to intimidate the Court and impede the orderly administration of this trial”.
In a gag order issued against President Trump on March 26, Merchan barred him from making public criticisms of court staff, witnesses and jurors. The judge expanded the gag order on April 1 to include family members of lawyers and jurists after President Trump made a post on Truth Social criticizing Merchan and his daughter.
———
Really? The court wants to be able to manipulate United States politics and justice by deliberately “publicly attacking a political party and a political candidate” but that same court can’t stand those accused politicians publicly defending themselves from all those public false accusations?
This is our “judicial hypocrisy”. I’m a political court and judge creating public political election interference for a political party but that court can’t tolerate the same kind of interference coming from its political targets?
We are now facing the impact of the Court on politics, where a Court will be basically over-riding
the protections of the Voting Rights Act [by] diluting the voting power of political parties and thereby eventually allowing state legislatures to limit voting rights, and not allow state courts and state constitutions to protect American voters.
American’s are getting a real sense that our U.S. laws are nothing more than partisan politics and I think that’s the really dangerous place we find ourselves in right now in America. The fact that our courts are committed to law over politics actually makes them appear to be more radical than previous, not less, which means that these courts are less inclined to rule toward the center of an issue in a high-profile political case like Trump’s, or less inclined to consider public opinion as an anchor or consideration.
I claim our courts have become politically politicized. We want to make sure that the rule of law is respected, that our institutions, our third branch of government, continues to be decisive on what the law of the nation is, but our courts act in such a politicized and super political way, it makes it very difficult for anyone to continue believing in our courts as the institution whose decisions are right and should be followed (whether or not we disagree with them). We historically had a presumption of “court objectivity” and being “non-political” but I believe all that has unfortunately changed. Our courts are now all officially political.
I claim that our courts are political by design and while they may be operating in good faith, they are in fact “guided missiles” who must for complex legal reasons, end up executing a political agenda.
I claim that if the public perceives that there is a political element to a case, it is totally offended, because it believes that THE LAW is a different realm not impacted by politics. The American public is prepared to accept this anti-democratic institution because it believe’s THE COURT is doing something other than “politics.”. The danger here is that the public illusion of our courts being non-political vaporizes as public confidence goes down the drain. The public then begins to perceive our courts to be a political, and not a legal, institution.
So what are we suppose to do about increasingly political courts?
I claim the only real way to avoid politicized courts is for voters to regularly vote (without rank choice voting) and strictly monitor elected judges background and decisions. We should also be adding a four year maximum term-limit to every elected judge office.
Also Alaska should get off it’s dependency on court of appeals judge nominees being selected by The Alaska Judicial Council, AJC, and then being given to the Governor for appointment. The AJC is a special interests group of attorneys with political agendas. Therefore the AJC then naturally selects nominees with political agendas.
Alaska belongs to its people. It does NOT belong to the Congress or a bunch of pathetic special interest attorneys in the Alaska Judicial Council. Alaska could change the way its court of appeals gets nominees. Instead of special interest nominations it could require standard election procedures with (without rank choice voter approval).
The same deal with Alaska’s Superior Court and District Court judges, completely remove the AJC special interest involvement within the judge nomination process.
The same deal with federal judges but it’s even more important because they get APPOINTED FOR LIFE!Federal judges are recommended by politicians like senator’s or members of the house, The President of the U.S. then Constitutionally nominates them to be Constitutionally Article 3 confirmed by the U.S. Senate. We would really need a national Constitutional change effort to change the way political, special interest federal judges get appointed.
Bottom line, people need to get off their butts, roll up their sleeves and get directly involved to get rid of appointed judges and require them to all be elected by the people, period