Judge Juan Merchan, the jurist overseeing Donald Trump's criminal hush money cover-up case which just saw the former president convicted of 34 felonies, "must say no" to Trump's latest gag order request, according to a former impeachment counsel.
Norman Eisen, former impeachment counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, argued on Sunday that Trump "is clamoring to get back on the attack" with his request for Merchan to suspend the gag order the ex-president violated at least 10 times.
Eisen, who previously served as a U.S. ambassador and in senior White House and congressional staff roles, wrote the piece along with former federal prosecutor Andrew Warren. It's called, "Trump wants his gag order lifted. Judge Merchan must say no."
Want more breaking political news?
"For the sake of protecting the administration of justice, Merchan should not go along with their request," the lawyers wrote.
The experts continued:
"During and after the trial, Trump has bashed Merchan, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and even President Joe Biden for what he called a 'rigged' trial. But the gag order has muzzled Trump from attacking everyone, restricting him from public statements about trial witnesses, jurors and the other prosecutors and court staff as well as their families."
They also debunked Trump's legal team's arguments on the matter.
"Trump’s attorneys claim that the gag order has served its purpose, and with the trial over there is no need to bar him from verbally assailing witnesses, assistant prosecutors, court staff or their families," they wrote. "In response, prosecutors pointed out that the verdict is not the end of the case; sentencing and post-trial motions remain, as does the need to protect the judicial process. In a case this high-profile, juror safety is still of paramount importance long after a verdict. It would be perverse if jurors were now targeted as a result of their public service. It would also compromise the ability to seat jurors in the three other criminal cases against Trump that remain pending."
In conclusion, they said, "Merchan’s gag order struck an appropriate balance between ensuring the First Amendment rights of a candidate seeking office and the need to protect the integrity of the court proceedings."
"Although the trial has concluded, the wider proceedings continue, as does the need to protect them. Perhaps if Trump had not created the need for the gag order in the first place, then repeatedly violated it, his request would be more reasonable," the article states. "But there is no need to accommodate a vindictive man who has shown he is willing to break the law as eagerly as he disregards the truth."
