Trump’s Gag Order: Prosecutors Support Easing Restrictions on Witness Comments Prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office have expressed support for allowing former President Donald Trump to speak publicly about witnesses in his hush money trial. However, they urged Judge Juan Merchan to maintain restrictions on his comments regarding jurors, court staff, and individual prosecutors, citing concerns about their safety. Trump’s lawyers had requested the lifting of the gag order, arguing that it hindered his ability to respond to criticism from political opponents. Prosecutors countered that the order only prohibits Trump from making threats or derogatory comments about witnesses, and that he retains the right to criticize the verdict or the case in general. Prosecutors further argued that the restrictions on Trump’s comments about witnesses were no longer necessary, as the trial had concluded. However, they emphasized the need to protect jurors from potential threats and harassment, given the history of Trump’s supporters attempting to identify and intimidate them. The judge has yet to make a decision on any changes to the gag order. If lifted, Trump would be allowed to discuss certain aspects of the case, including the testimony of witnesses, but would still be barred from making harmful or threatening statements.
Prosecutors Open to Partial Lifting of Trump’s Silence Order Prosecutors in the criminal investigation into former President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents expressed willingness to consider partially lifting a gag order on the release of information related to the case. During a hearing, prosecutors acknowledged that the order, which prevents the Justice Department from revealing details of the probe, may be overly broad. They suggested that certain aspects of the investigation, such as the specific documents involved, could be made public without compromising the integrity of the case. Defense attorneys for Trump argued that the order should be lifted entirely, claiming it was preventing them from adequately defending their client. They contended that the public had a right to know about the allegations against Trump and the evidence being gathered. The judge presiding over the case indicated that the court would consider modifications to the order but emphasized the need to balance the interests of the parties involved and the need to protect the ongoing investigation. Prosecutors explained that they were concerned about releasing sensitive information that could harm national security or interfere with the fairness of the proceedings. However, they acknowledged that transparency was important and that they were exploring ways to strike a compromise. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for a later date.
