Trump Deletes Truth Social Posts Just Before Deadline Imposed by Judge’s Ruling He Violated Gag Order

AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File

Former President Donald Trump deleted multiple posts on his Truth Social account Tuesday, in compliance with a deadline imposed by Judge Juan Merchan’s ruling that he had violated the gag order.

Trump is facing 34 felony counts for falsifying business records regarding alleged hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election — a historic first-ever criminal trial of a former U.S. president. The ex-president has made headlines for reportedly falling asleep repeatedly (at least four times so far) and his ongoing grumbling about the gag order imposed by Merchan.

At a hearing last week regarding the gag order, Merchan sharply scolded Trump attorney Todd Blanche, raising his voice several times in frustration and even warning him at one point, “You’re losing all credibility with the court!” Prosecutors also brought up several additional posts and comments by Trump that they alleged violated the gag order; a hearing is scheduled to address those on May 2.

Most legal experts doubted that Merchan would actually toss the ex-president in the slammer, at least not for this first set of violations, and the judge did indeed impose fines of $9,000 for nine violations so far, as well as setting a deadline of 2:15 pm ET Tuesday for the offending posts to be rem0ved from his Truth Social account and campaign website.

The judge also issued a warning to Trump that future violations will get him locked up, because New York law does not grant the court the authority to raise the fine to a level that would be meaningful to a person as wealthy as the former president:

However, the Judiciary Law does not vest the Court with authority to craft an appropriate punishment when a $1,000 fine will not achieve the intended purpose. While $1,000 may suffice in most instances to protect the dignity of the judicial system, to compel respect for its mandates and to punish the offender for disobeying a court order, it unfortunately will not achieve the desired result in those instances where the contemnor can easily afford such a fine. In those circumstances, it would be preferablc if the Court could impose a fine more commensurate with the wealth of the contemnor. In somc cases that might be a $2,500 fine, in other cases it might be a fine of $150,000. Because this Coum is not cloaked with such discretion, it must therefore consider whether in some instances, jail may be a necessary punishment.

THEREFORE, Defendant is hereby warned that the Court will not tolerate continued willful violations of its lawful orders and that if necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, it will impose an incarceratory punishment.

For several hours after Merchan’s ruling, the posts remained up, as JustSecurity fellow (and former Law&Crime managing editor) Adam Klasfeld observed.

Then, an update, less than an hour before the deadline: Klasfeld and several others noted that Trump had finally complied with the order and taken down the posts.

Moving forward, Trump will have a tough time arguing that a repost of someone else’s comment attacking a witness is allowable, as Merchan broadly rejected that argument in his ruling:

Addressing first what has been referred to as “reposts,” Exhibits 1, 4, 5,6,7,8 and 9, this Court finds that a repost, whether with or without commentary by the Defendant, is in fact a statement of the Defendant. The issue of “reposting” appears to be a question of first impression. Lacking legal authority to guide its decision, this Coutt must, as defense counsel stated at the hearing, rely on common sense.

Both the Truth Social account and the official campaign website, exclusively represent the opinions and views of the Defendant, and neither is an open forum for others to post their own content. Defendant curated the posts at issue and then took the necessary steps to publish the posts on his Truth Social account and on his campaign website. In doing so, he endorsed the posts with one purpose in mind – to maximize viewership and to communicate his stamp of approval. Indeed, Defendant has boasted about the reach of his Truth Social platform when describing its value…

Thus, there can be no doubt whatsoever, that Defendant’s intent and purpose when reposting, is to communicate to his audience that he endorses and adopts the posted statement as his own.

It is counterintuitive and indeed absurd, to read the Expanded Order to not proscribe statements that Defendant intentionally selected and published to maximize exposure. This is not to say that a repost will always be deemed a statement of the reposter, as context is directly relevant. However, here, under the unique facts and circumstances of this case, the only credible finding is that the reposts constitute statements of the Defendant.