Tristan Snell, an attorney formerly with the New York state Attorney General’s office, is arguing for steep consequences on ex-President Donald Trump for threats that he might make amid court proceedings he’s facing, a list that includes four criminal cases and wide-ranging civil litigation.
“Anyone else threatening judges’ family members — or prosecutors — or witnesses — the way Donald Trump has would be sitting awaiting trial at Rikers. Lock. Him. Up,” Snell wrote on social media in recent days. In another post, he added: “How Trump SHOULD be handled when he threatens the court and prosecutors and witnesses: First violation — at least $100,000 fine[.] Second violation — jail for pre trial detention until trial[.] End of list.”
Trump was recently the subject of another volley of outrage in this area as he began incessantly targeting in his public rhetoric a daughter to the judge in his New York City criminal case.
She is not involved in the case, but Trump was trying to use her purported political activities to advance his longstanding claims that he’s a victim of some series of secretive, political plots. Presiding Judge Juan Merchan eventually expanded a gag order on Trump, which had already protected witnesses, jurors (both prospective and actual), and others. Now, also included are family members of a list including the judge, various lawyers on the case, and District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who is leading the prosecution.
Trump and his team, though, also used the judge’s daughter’s purported political involvement for another attempt at pushing the judge himself off the case, alleging bias. Prosecutors quickly filed characteristic opposition to the Trump team’s ploy, which on the former president’s end also involved a claim of the judge making inappropriate, extrajudicial statements, meaning statements outside the regular court processes. The prosecution argued the claim was nonsense, saying that comments involved in the dispute were relatively isolated from the case and not remotely indicative of specific bias or even precise intentions on the judge’s part.
