‘Punishable By Incarceration’: Read FULL Trump Contempt Order Threatening To Lock Him Up Over Gag Order

Judge Juan Merchan threatened former President Donald Trump with jail time in a scathing contempt of court ruling for violating his gag order a tenth time.

Court began Monday in the Stormy Daniels hush money-election interference trial with fireworks, as Merchan issued his ruling, telling Trump “I find you in criminal contempt for the 10th time,” and adding “Going forward this court will have to consider a jail sanction.”

“Mr. Trump it’s important you understand the last thing I want to do is put you in jail. You are the former president of the United States and possibly the next president as well,” Judge Juan Merchan said.

The order itself leaves little doubt:

(T)his Court finds that the People have established the elements of criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court’s Expanded Otder is lawful and unambiguous. Defendant violated the Otder by making public statements about th” i”ry’ and how it was selected. In doing so, Defendant not only called into question the integrity, and therefore the legitimacy of these proceedings, but again raised the specter of fear for the safety of the jurors and of their loved ones. Such concerns undoubtedly threaten to “interfere with the fair administration of justice and constitutes a direct attack on the Rule of Law.” Expanded Order pg. 3. It remains this Coutt’s fundamental responsibility to protect the decency of the criminal process and to control disruptive influences in the courtroom. Expanded Order pg. 3. See Sheppard u. Maxwell,384 U.S. 333 U966i4.

The Court finds Defendant in criminal contempt for willfully disobeying a lawful mandate of this Cout in violation of Judiciary Law Section 750(3).

PUNISHMENT AND ORDER

As stated in its Decision and Otdet of Apd 30,2024, criminal contempt is punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, by jail not exceeding 30 days or by both in the discretion of the court. Judiciary Law $ 751(1). The Judiciary Law permits this punishment “to protect the dignity of the judicial system and to compel respect for its mandates,” Matter of Mc{orrnick, 59 NY2d 57411983) and “to punish the contemnor for disobeying a court order.” Rash u. Saue M1 Home Corp.,145 AD3d 930 [2.d Dept 2016]. Because the offensive statement was made prior to this Court’s Decision of April 30 and because the People are seeking only a monetary fine, the Court urill, once again, fine Defendant $1,000. Howevet, because this is now the tenth time that this Court has found Defendant in criminal contempt, spanning three separate motions, it is apparent that monetary fines have no’., and will not, suffice to deter Defendant from violating this Court’s lawful orders.

THEREFORE, Defendant is hereby put on notice that if appropriate and warranted, future violations of its lawful orders will be punishable by incarceration;

and it is hereby ORDERED, that Defendant pay a $1,000 fine for his violation of this Court’s lawful otdet by the close of business on Friday, May 10, 2024;

and it is further ORDERED that if the offending statement has been posted to Defendant’s T’ruth Social account or his official campaign website, it is to be removed by 2:15 pm Monday, May 6, 2024.

Read the full order here.