Donald Trump has developed a novel strategy aimed at navigating the intricate space between ‘being held in contempt of court’ and ‘continuing to act in contempt of court’. This unusual tactic involves asking the presiding judge to partake in reading a series of articles written by notable figures—however, his strategy seemed to yield little success.
Trump posited his ReTruths weren’t endorsements, yet compelled the judge to review materials he intended to publicly support. His approach hinged on leveraging articles penned by Tom Fitton, Jonathan Turley, and Mark Levin, among others, all arguing for the case to be dismissed.
The former President’s hope was not only to impress the judge with the legal prowess of these authors, but also to gain a type of pre-clearance to test the boundaries of the gag order. Trump’s lawyer, Susan Necheles, asked Judge Merchan to read the stack of news articles to decide whether their online posting would violate the gag order. The judge, however, refused to entertain this idea of issuing preemptive rulings.
Legal experts would likely argue the justice system cannot entertain defendants seeking advisory opinions on how to circumvent existing orders. Trump’s legal team, comprising Susan Necheles and Todd Blanche, already possesses the required legal expertise to advice Trump on whether the latest articles breach the gag order.
This peculiar request could be seen as evidence of Trump disregarding his lawyers’ professional advice coupled with his efforts to have the judge carry out their allotted duties. The legal circles might suggest such a refined request could potentially warrant a stern reprimand, contending it disrespects the court by pushing the responsibility of reading the articles to the judge.
You can read more about this incident in the original report here.