Connect with us

News

Trump Lawyer Trips Over His Own Argument as Judges Appear Skeptical of Gag Order Appeal

Published

on

A three-judge panel in federal court in Washington, D.C. appeared skeptical of arguments an attorney for Donald Trump made Monday in his appeal of a very narrow gag order imposed by U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan.

Barely 20 minutes into arguments, former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal wrote: “The gag order argument in our nation’s second highest court is … not going well for criminal defendant Donald Trump.” He also described Trump’s layer as “struggling.”

Judge Chutkan’s order prohibits Trump from targeting court personnel, witnesses including potential witnesses, Special Counsel Jack Smith, and his staff.

Minutes into Trump attorney John Sauer’s claims, Judge Bradley Garcia, one of the three judges on the panel, cut in and stated that a court has already overruled one of his arguments: “That court rejected the argument you’re making today.”

At one point another judge pressed attorney Sauer, asking if he were suggesting Donald Trump is above the law. Sauer’s response: “We certainly haven’t argued that.”

READ MORE: ‘Hideous Lie’: White House Condemns Elon Musk’s ‘Abhorrent Promotion’ of Antisemitism

The judge also warned Sauer his suggestion that everything Trump says is political speech may be faulty, that it may not necessarily be political speech. She said what Sauer is calling Trump’s “core political speech” could actually be “political speech aimed at derailing or corrupting the criminal justice process.”

“You can’t simply label it” core political speech.

Later, Judge Garcia said, “We have a past pattern. When the defendant speaks on this subject, threats follow, and now, he’s making similar statements again, we’re months out from the trial. This is predictably going to intensify … Why does the district court have to wait and see, wait for the threats to come?”

At another point, one of the judges told Sauer: “Back in August,” the district court “gave clear warnings to the parties not to make the type of statements that are at issue. That trend continued. And now we have an order that’s targeted at the exact types of statements that have been occurring.”

The judge also reminded Sauer, “A day after he said, ‘if you come after me, I’m coming after you,’ that threat was issued.”

“That evidence is very specific,” the judge pointed out. “As this trial approaches, the atmosphere is going to be increasingly tense. Why does the district court have to wait and see, and wait for the threats to come? Rather than taking a reasonable action in advance?”

At another point, the judge told Sauer, “the conditions of release in this case, prohibit your client from communicating about the facts of the case with any individual known to the defendant to be a witness, except through counsel or in the presence of counsel. Your client signed those conditions of release counsel, before the district court was quite clear that that was not being challenged. How under your analysis, would those conditions of release not be invalid? You’re taking a position that that those conditions of release violate the First Amendment?”

Another damning interaction came when the judge told Sauer, “I’m really trying to understand your legal test. If he were to pick up the phone and call someone that is known to him to be a witness, prospective witness in this case, and speak with that person without counsel present. Would, could, would that violate the restriction?”

“Would the First Amendment protect that communication under your test?” she asked.

READ MORE: Santos Expulsion Resolution Sets Up Test of House GOP Speaker Mike Johnson

“We have not contended –” Sauer replied.

“That is not what I am asking,” she said loudly, almost shouting. “I’m asking you to apply the test that you propose to us because we have to write a test that can be applied, and we have to know how it’s going to be applied. So I’m asking your position, your legal position, would that phone call be protected by the First Amendment or not?”

After some back-and-forth, the judge continued to build her line of questioning.

“Now for next hypothetical,” she said, “he gets on the phone and he says … ‘you’ve always been someone with courage, backbone. A loyalist, a patriot, and, you know, loyalists and patriots don’t talk to prosecutors in my case,’ and hangs up.”

“Okay, if you said that, I think that would be a clear violation of the terms of release,” Sauer agreed.

“Okay,” the judge continued. So [Trump] gets on a stage somewhere, or on social media and says that exact same thing… A public figure is being bothered by the prosecutor. People who are loyal, honest, patriots don’t talk to the government.”

The judge after Sauer insisted Trump had not said that demanded he “answer the question. I’m not suggesting he has said this to be clear. For the record. This is a hypothetical question.”

“Because he’s not speaking directly to the witness. He’s doing this on social media or at a town hall or a news interview, he says that. Does it violate the First Amendment to say that’s prohibited?”

Each side was originally allowed 20 minutes. The court is still hearing arguments 90 minutes in.

Editor’s note: This is a rush transcript.

READ MORE: OnlyFans, Sephora, Botox and Hermes: Report Alleges How Santos Spent Campaign Contributions

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation

Published

on

Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.

Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”

“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”

In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”

He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”

“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”

“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”

“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”

The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.

“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”

Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”

Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.

Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.

Continue Reading

News

Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs

Published

on

President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.

“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”

The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”

Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”

TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”

Critics blasted Trump.

“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.

One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”

Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”

The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.

U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”

 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

News

One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.

According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.

Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”

“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”

Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”

Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.

Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.

The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.

“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.

The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.

“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”

 

Image via Reuters

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.