Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Contempt in court

Abbreviated Pundit Roundup is a long-running series published every morning that collects essential political discussion and analysis around the internet.

We begin today with Norman L. Eisen, Karen Agnifilo, Andrew Warren, Jacob Kovacs-Goodman, and Siven Watt of Just Security tackling all aspects of the first order of business today in The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump: a hearing to determine whether Trump willfully violated the gag order imposed by Judge Juan Merchan.

To sustain a finding of criminal contempt under the Judiciary Code based on an alleged violation of the court’s gag order, DANY must establish the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt (see 21 N.Y. Jur. 2d Contempt § 36):

1. There was a lawful court order in effect (i.e., that the court had jurisdiction);
2. The court order expressed a clear and unequivocal mandate;
3. Trump had actual knowledge of the order’s terms;
4. Trump violated the order; and
5. Trump’s violation was knowing and willful.

We review all five elements, although the inquiry is likely to focus on 2, 4, and 5.

[...]

We believe that DANY will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump willfully violated the gag order...

The judge would be on firm legal footing to sanction Trump for all of the statements, but in an abundance of caution, may distinguish some of the repostings for the sake of taking a balanced approach and an incremental one. For example, number 9 simply consists of a complete verbatim article with no editing by Trump. That distinction provides an opportunity for the judge to sanction the other repostings while at the same time further clarifying the scope of the order as reaching even verbatim repostings with no editorial selection or quotation whatsoever. Justice Merchan has shown a propensity to find compromise to be fair to the defendant, and we think he will likely seek that or some other concession here as well, while overall rejecting Trump’s actions.

But wait! There’s more!