Democratic District Attorney Alvin Bragg of Manhattan, New York, has petitioned to impose a gag order on former President Donald Trump.

Trump was indicted by Bragg on April 4, 2023, on 34 felony counts of allegedly falsifying business records related to his alleged payments of “hush money” to adult film actress Stephanie Clifford, known by her stage name of “Stormy Daniels,” to conceal an alleged extramarital affair with her.

On Monday, following Trump’s frequent criticism of the case and of Bragg, personally, the New York County District Attorney’s Office filed a notice of intent to bring a motion to prohibit Trump from making “extrajudicial statements” regarding the case, commonly known as a “gag order.”

“To protect the integrity of this criminal proceeding and avoid prejudice to the jury, the People respectfully request that this Court issue a narrowly tailored order restricting certain prejudicial extrajudicial statements by defendant,” began Bragg’s memorandum in support of the order. “Defendant has a long history of making public and inflammatory remarks about the participants in various judicial proceedings against him, including jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and court staff. Those remarks, as well as the inevitable reactions they incite from defendant’s followers and allies, pose a significant and imminent threat to the orderly administration of this criminal proceeding and a substantial likelihood of causing material prejudice.”

The memorandum quoted several statements by Trump on social media calling Bragg a “Racist, George Soros-backed D.A.” and claiming that he was “a danger to our Country, and should be removed immediately.” It also quoted one posting where Trump warned of “potential death & destruction in such a false charge [that] could be catastrophic for our Country” before calling Bragg a “a degenerate psychopath that [truly] hates the USA!” (Read more from “Manhattan DA Asks Judge to Impose Gag Order on Trump” HERE)

Numerous House Democrats have signaled that they would not certify a 2024 presidential election win from Donald Trump, relying on the 14th Amendment to claim Trump is an insurrectionist and thus ineligible from holding office.

Democrats including Reps. James Clyburn (SC), Jamie Raskin (MD), Adam Schiff (CA), Eric Swalwell (CA), and even House Minority Leader Hakeem Jefferies refused to say that they would confirm Trump to office if he won the 2024 election.

As Dan McLaughlin explained at National Review, Democrats could have the votes to sustain an objection to a Trump win if they take control of the House. “Only a simple majority is required, and unlike when the House chooses a president under the Twelfth Amendment, they don’t vote by states,” he wrote. “Unlike in 2016 or 2004, when they were in the minority, House Democrats could be playing with live ammunition.”

Still, a majority of senators would have to object to a Trump win, too. This would likely take 51 senators, and as McLaughlin pointed out, this would be a tough task for Democrats: They “either have to hold every seat they currently occupy (good luck in West Virginia), or take a Republican-held seat (the bluest of which is either Ted Cruz’s in Texas or Rick Scott’s in Florida),” he said.

A potential way around some of this chaos rests at the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments earlier this month in Trump v. Anderson, a case about whether or not a state, in this case Colorado, can keep Trump off the ballot based on the 14th Amendment. If the high court gives clarity on the issue of Trump eligibility, specifically that he is eligible, then Democrats would not have room to object on this basis. (Read more from “Democrats Hint at Possible Dispute Over Certification of Trump’s 2024 Victory” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Attorneys representing former President Donald Trump filed motions urging the dismissal of a federal indictment led by Special Counsel Jack Smith regarding Trump’s handling of classified documents. Trump was facing 40 counts in the Southern District of Florida, accusing him of unlawfully retaining national defense information and obstructing a federal probe into the matter.

One motion contended that Jack Smith’s appointment was unlawful under the Appointments Clause and the Appropriations Clause. The defense argued that the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, had exceeded his authority by appointing Smith without Senate confirmation, questioning Smith’s legitimacy to prosecute the case. The defense cited a potential threat to the rule of law.

Additionally, Trump’s attorneys challenged the absence of a statute establishing the Office of Special Counsel, asserting that Smith’s appointment was invalid due to the lack of a legal framework for his role. They argued that the investigation’s funding violated The Appropriations Clause, claiming it was an unauthorized and politically motivated prosecution.

The second motion contended that Trump’s possession of classified documents at his Mar-A-Lago home was not unauthorized under the Presidential Records Act (PRA). Trump’s legal team argued that the PRA granted him “unreviewable discretion” to designate records as personal, asserting that the exclusive remedy for records collection efforts by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) was civil in nature, precluding criminal investigations.

These legal challenges raised crucial questions about the legitimacy of the Special Counsel’s role and the funding of the investigation, providing an even more complex backdrop to the case.

Photo credit: Flickr