For his multiple violations of a gag order in the hush money case, Donald Trump has thus far merely been fined.
That might not be the last effect. If found guilty, the former president may face an even harsher sentence as a result of his repeated disobedience of the judge’s order, which includes two remarks that have recently tested the limits of that order.
According to Mark Bederow, a seasoned defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor in New York, “Those are obviously aggravating factors, generically speaking, for someone to get a stiffer sentence.” Bederow was referring to Trump’s repeated and unrepentant verbal attacks on witnesses, prosecutors, and the court.
Some of Trump’s assaults have already resulted in punishment from Justice Juan Merchan. Before the trial, Merchan tried to prevent Trump from intimidating those engaged in the case by imposing a gag order. Trump violated the order twice for ten comments that Merchan found to be in contempt. For each infraction, the judge imposed the highest penalties permitted by state law: $1,000. In addition, he threatened to imprison the ex-president for further infractions, clearly acknowledging that the fines would not be enough to discourage someone as wealthy as Trump.
Following his May 6 jail threat, Trump shown more restraint in his public remarks for a period. On the other hand, he has resumed statements that appear to challenge the judge to take additional action as the trial draws to a close, with closing arguments set for Tuesday.
Trump attacked Matthew Colangelo, a prosecutor involved in the case, twice on May 16 and May 21. Despite Trump’s omission of the prosecutor’s name, his assertion that the hush money case was handled by someone who “came from” the Justice Department is an obvious allusion to Colangelo, who had previously worked for the DOJ before joining the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
Trump cannot make any public statements regarding DA Alvin Bragg’s staff (although he can make statements about Bragg himself) due to the gag order. Additionally, he is not allowed to make any remarks about the witnesses or jurors.
A change from their earlier practice of informing the judge of every possible breach of the gag order, prosecutors have not informed Merchan of Trump’s most recent remarks on Colangelo.
It seems like their current priority is to just finalize the case.
New York Law School professor Anna Cominsky stated, “The gag order, having to deal with the gag order is a huge distraction for both sides.”
They may have chosen not to pursue what they perceive as infractions in some cases, according to Cominsky.
Prosecutors are still monitoring Trump’s statements, though. Prosecutors may use them to justify a harsher punishment if he is found guilty.
According to Barbara McQuade, a legal expert and former U.S. attorney, “the judge would usually handle such a situation” in a case like this because Trump’s disregard for the gag order is so unprecedented.
There are 34 counts of felonies related to Trump’s fabricating company records. The allegations are low-level felonies, and Trump would be a first-time offender if found guilty; hence, any prison time is quite unlikely, even if the maximum term is four years. Depending on the judge’s assessment of mitigating and aggravating elements, Merchan may decide to impose a lower punishment, such as probation, rather than jail time.
When deciding on a sentence, judges usually think about considerations including remorse and the desire to encourage lawfulness. According to McQuade, Trump’s repeated transgressions of the gag order clearly show his callous disregard for legal norms and consequences.
While Cominsky acknowledged that the judge may take this into account when handing down a sentence, she firmly believed that the violations of the gag order did not warrant a more severe punishment.
“He has already been punished with respect to the contempt,” Cominsky added.
It appears that Trump’s rhetoric was slightly muzzled by the two contempt orders. Trump has ceased posting comments about possible witnesses on social media, which was the source of most of the 10 infractions.
