Former US President, Donald Trump
$10,000 punishment of Donald Trump for an out-of-court remark made during his New York civil business fraud trial was upheld by a judge on Thursday. The former president’s attorneys said that the amount was unjust and illegal.
Trump was fined by Judge Arthur Engoron on Wednesday after the judge found that his comments to television cameras outside the courthouse had breached a restricted gag order that prevents trial participants from discussing the judge’s personnel in public.
The statement that got Trump into trouble
The Democratic candidate for president in 2024, Rick Engoron, is “a very partisan judge with a person who’s very partisan sitting alongside of him, perhaps even much more partisan than he is,” the front-runner for the Republican nomination in that race said outside of court on Wednesday.
The gag order was sparked by a complaint made earlier that morning by one of Trump’s attorneys over the judge’s chief legal clerk, whom Trump had denigrated in a social media post many weeks prior.
Trump’s claim not credible
When Trump stated that the person “alongside” the judge was Michael Cohen, the former Trump attorney and fixer, rather than clerk Allison Greenfield, he was referring to, and he clarified this on Wednesday when he was called to the witness stand.
Trump’s claim was deemed “not credible” by Engoron on Wednesday, pointing out that the clerk is in closer proximity to him than the witness stand. On Thursday, Trump’s attorneys reiterated that the subject of their conversation was Cohen.
Also Read: “A Good Sign”, Says Canada On India’s Decision To Resume Visa Services
Attorney Christopher Kise noted…
Attorney Christopher Kise noted that shortly after Trump made the comment about the individual “sitting alongside” the judge, he stated, “We are doing very well, the facts are speaking very loud.” Cohen is referred to as “a totally discredited witness.”
Kise requested Engeron to reconsider the fine, arguing that it suggested Cohen was the one “alongside” the judge. Additionally, Kise contended that Trump’s First Amendment rights would be violated if the court upheld the claim that the comment was, in fact, directed at the clerk.
“His business is being attacked, and he’s entitled to comment, fairly, on what he perceives in open court,” Kise said.
Engoron was cool to the constitutional argument: “I don’t think it’s impinging on anybody’s First Amendment rights to protect my staff,” he explained. But he agreed to examine the full remarks and reconsider the fine.
After that, Engoron made the decision to uphold the punishment, pointing to “a brief but clear transition” between the reference to the individual who was “alongside” the judge and the statement regarding the “discredited witness.”
“That was, to me, a clear transition from one person to another, and I think the person originally referred to was my clerk,” Engoron said.
