No Gag Order - Judge Drops Hammer On Trump Trial

Hey ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and the prosecution

and a lot of people, well they just got rocked by something in the Trump trial

Before we get started, please make sure you like, comment, share and subscribe

Those little things really help us out and they help our channel continue to grow

You know, there's certain networks that you're not really expecting to hear anything pro-Trump

or even just not anti-Trump from. Chief among those networks is MSNBC and a judge, a former judge, was on their panel

when the two anchors are saying basically, not only should the gag order be on Trump

it's not against by the way Michael Cohen or anybody else, but not only should it be on Trump, it should be on Trump surrogates, like people that have nothing to do with the

case like Rick Santorum or Trump's children or me or any of us

They were trying to say Trump surrogates, there's a lot of us, should have a gag order

on them. People who aren't involved in the case, try enforcing that

See if we wouldn't bring the most massive First Amendment case you've seen in your life

to the Supreme Court and finally do away with gag orders altogether

See if that won't happen. So the judge actually says, no, you can't do that, you can't put a gag order on all

these people. That's nuts. It's insane. I want you guys to listen to this on MSNBC

It's kind of stunning. I want you guys to listen to it and then let me know what you think

Has Trump even treated fair in this trial? Let me know. As always, please remember to like, comment, share and subscribe

I'm Carmine Sabia for Explain America. We love you guys. God bless you

Take care, everybody. John E. Jones, who previously served as chief judge of the U.S. Middle District Court of

Pennsylvania, where he was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2002

He is now also president of Dickinson College. Judge, thank you so much for being with us

And let me start with what we just heard from Rick Scott. We know that Donald Trump is under a gag order, and yet you have someone close to him who

would like to be potentially his vice presidential running mate, saying the judge's daughter

is a political operative who raises money for Democrats. The lead prosecutor's wife, a significant donor to Democrats

What is your reaction to that? And is there anything Judge Mershawn can or should do about people who are close to Donald

Trump saying things that maybe he can't? I don't think so, Chris

And first of all, it's great to be with you. But I think that's so much outside noise to Judge Mershawn

You know, when I was on the bench and I had a controversial case, I used to joke that

I thought my name was changed to Bush appointed judge because you get typecast in a certain way

I don't find that as anything that Mershawn is going to pay particular attention to

And quite honestly, you know, it sort of flies in the face of what we can see or hear with

our own eyes in terms of the way the trial is being conducted. Well, and in fact, his family is not there

Well, Eric Trump was there for one day, but he hasn't had validators there for him

But doesn't the gag order also say that people close to Trump, that it's a violation for

other people on his behalf to demean family of the court, anyone besides the judge and

the prosecutors? Well, the problem, Andrea, is that, you know, for Mershawn, well, first of all, the people

would have to act in the person of the district attorney, the prosecutors to try to call them

on that. And then the problem becomes creating a nexus between the speaker and Donald Trump

You know, did they do it? Did Scott volunteer it or was he goaded into doing it by Trump

It's probably an area that Mershawn and the prosecution doesn't want to wade into

And again, I think Mershawn has done a great job thus far managing the case

And he's tried to avoid pretty successfully the kind of sideshows that can take a trial

off track. And that's what what this would be. Well, that's one of the key things that a judge has to do, right, is keep the trial

on track. And part of that is what he says, what he does

But also another part of that is, I think, you know, does the jury look at Judge Mershawn

or any judge, you or anyone else who's ever served that way and say, this is someone I

trust, this is someone I listen to. We've talked about sort of how the jury is reacting to, say, Susan Necklace, the defense

attorney, how they're reacting to Stormy Daniels, the witness. But should we be paying a lot of attention to how the jury is responding to Judge Mershawn

Absolutely, Chris, it's a it's an excellent point. Juries feel a certain closeness to the presiding judge, and it's logical that they would feel

that way. The judge greets them in the morning. The judge presides over the case

The judge gives them breaks during the day, including a lunch break. He says farewell to them at night

I go back to the E. Jean Carroll case. If you remember, Trump's attorneys, including Attorney Haba, tried to run roughshod over

the presiding judge in that case. They were discourteous to the judge

And I really think that the jury didn't like that. The jury took that, you know, offensively

And so, you know, you have to be careful when you are, in this case, a defense attorney

or in, you know, the very defendant, the former president in this case

If the jury thinks that you're abusing their friend, their protector, a person they bond

with in the person of the trial judge. And I saw this happen time again in cases that I presided over

Then they're going to react badly and they'll they'll count that as a strike against the

party that does that. And we just have about a minute. But let me ask you a quick question about how concerned he may be about trying to, on

such an important case, avoid being overturned on appeal and on the introduction of prejudicial

information during the direct testimony of Stormy Daniels. He said afterwards, out of the out of the earshot of the jury, of course, at times that

he jumped in to strike things without an objection because the defense lawyers hadn't objected

What do you make of that? That's a great question. Yeah, well, that's a great question, Andrea, because, you know, it's not just objections

by the lawyers. The presiding judge has the obligation to protect the record in the case

And if you have to jump in and your own initiative, then you must do that

You're not a potted plant. You have to just sit there or you don't have to just sit there and listen to it

And I thought he did that well under the circumstances. And look, he's not afraid of being reversed

I think he's in the moment. If you judge defensively, you're not going to judge well

So you just have to do your job. You hunker down. And in a case like this, it's there's a lot coming at you and you just manage it the best

that you can. Judge Johnny Jones, thank you so much for sharing your expertise with us