Trump Update: Gag Order Ruling From Judge Imminent

President Donald Trump’s Manhattan trial (spearheaded by DA Alvin Bragg) continued yesterday with arguments about whether Trump violated the judge’s gag order. The judge’s ruling, which could result in Trump being held in contempt of court (a $10,000 daily fine or possible jail time), is imminent.

Fox News reports on Trump voicing his displeasure with the gag order:

Trump railed against the gag order imposed on him, which was a primary topic during Tuesday's court proceedings. The former president is accused of violating the gag order 11 times, and prosecutors are seeking an $11,000 fine for each alleged infraction.

Merchan did not hand down a final ruling regarding the gag order.

“I'm not allowed to talk, but people are allowed to talk about me,” Trump said. “I’d love to talk to you people. I’d love to say what’s on my mind, but I’ve got a gag order.”

“I don’t believe anything has happened like this. It’s a disgrace and it’s totally unconstitutional,” he added.

The gag order that the judge put in place is very restrictive. President Trump isn’t in court today, but the judge’s ruling could still be issued.

First, let’s discuss what a gag order should be. It’s usually reserved to protect witnesses or jurors who fear possible consequences if they tell the truth about a defendant. This protects the witnesses and jurors from being pressured to lie because they feel threatened – it also hinders witness tampering.

But the Manhattan judge’s order doesn’t fall under this purview. And it even prevents the President from discussing the conflict of interest with the judge’s daughter, who isn’t a witness or a defendant in the trial but a Democratic fundraiser (has raised $93 million) whose client is Rep. Adam Schiff (CA-30). Do you think people might want to know about possible conflicts of interest?

While this circus is taking place in Manhattan, oral argument will begin tomorrow at the U.S. Supreme Court in President Trump’s immunity case. Special Prosecutor Jack Smith is arguing all Presidents should be denied immunity for any actions while in office: “A former President is subject to federal criminal prosecution for personal and official acts that violate valid criminal laws.” Smith’s radical claim ignores the potential consequences for former Presidents.

The ACLJ filed an amicus brief arguing that President Trump should not be held liable for official actions taken in office. Stripping U.S. Presidents of presidential immunity will only weaken the office of the President going forward – this outrageous crusade by the far Left must be stopped.

We also have a big update in our defense of Shahzad Masih, a Pakistani Christian on death row for his faith. When he was only 16 years old, Shahzad was falsely accused of committing blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad. He was charged under section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, which prescribes the death penalty for making derogatory remarks against the Prophet Muhammad. He’s been in prison now for seven years.

Last week, ACLJ attorneys in Pakistan filed a petition with Pakistan’s High Court, asking the court to quickly hear the appeal. During the hearing for that petition, the judge asked the court registrar to set the date for argument on the main appeal.

This means the High Court will be hearing Shahzad’s appeal argument within a few months or weeks – as opposed to years. Because of the ACLJ’s diligence, Shahzad could finally be set free in the days ahead. We won’t stop fighting until he is set free. Sign our petition to join our efforts to free Shahzad.

Today’s Sekulow broadcast included a full analysis of whether the judge will hold President Trump in contempt of court for violating a gag order. Senator James Lankford (OK) also commented on the Senate passing a bill to send aid to Israel. We also gave an update on the legal demand letters we are sending to 43 countries in defense of Israel.

Watch the full broadcast below: