Jack Smith

One of Donald Trump's attorneys who was attempting to keep Judge Tanya Chutkan from expanding a gag order is reportedly not scoring any points with the judge and had to be admonished on Monday.

According to the Guardian's Hugo Lowell attorney John Lauro was pressed by the judge to explain the reasoning behind the former president labeling special counsel Jack Smith a "thug" and Lauro replied with a snippy answer that resulted in a warning.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan suggested on Monday that she would restrict former President Donald Trump's speech after he issued threatening social media posts to prosecutors and witnesses.

In a hearing in Washington, D.C., Chutkan heard arguments from prosecutors from special counsel Jack Smith's office, who asked for a gag order to prevent Trump from making disparaging statements regarding his trial for election interference.

Donald Trump issued a fundraising plea ahead of a hearing in Washington, D.C. federal court that will decide if he would face a gag order in the Jan. 6 election interference case.

District Judge Tanya Chutkan heard arguments Monday from special counsel Jack Smith's office and the former president's attorneys on possible new restrictions on his public comments on the case – and Trump's campaign sent out a fundraising email shortly before asking for donations.

A hearing on Monday in United States District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Tanya Chutkan's courtroom could have a wide-ranging impact on Donald Trump's other trials depending on whether a limited gag order is broadened at the request of special counsel Jack Smith.

According to MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner, the courts -- so far -- have been granting the former president great leeway in what he has said about the judges overseeing his multitude of criminal cases as well as his attacks on prosecutors and investigators.

Depending on the severity of Chutkan's ruling -- which could ban him from inciting his followers at rallies and on his struggling Truth Social platform -- other judges could feel free to clamp down on the former president's out-of-court shenanigans.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

As Kirschner writes, "Regarding court-imposed limitations on a defendant’s speech, in 1991 the Supreme Court made it clear that courts can restrict extrajudicial statements that pose a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing” a judicial proceeding without running afoul of the First Amendment’s free speech guarantees."

He then notes that Trump has been given more than enough rope by judges who have balked at making controversial rulings fearing the appearance of bias.

"I cannot recall ever seeing a defendant on pretrial release in a felony case threaten the life of a witness — or, in Trump’s case, suggest that a witness should be executed — and remain on pretrial release," he argues. "The judicial system’s casual treatment of Trump’s unending threats, harassment and intimidation of witnesses is as perplexing as it is alarming."

A judge in Georgia will decide on the questions that both prosecutors and defense attorneys can ask of prospective jurors in the election racketeering case against two of former President Donald Trump's co-defendants on Monday, reported The Messenger.

According to Alessandro Marazzi Sassoon, Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee stated in his order released on Friday that the "proposed questions" have already been submitted by both District Attorney Fani Willis and attorneys representing Trump-aligned lawyers Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell. The summons for jury selection have been sent to 900 residents.

Attorneys for former President Donald Trump have asked U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon for a delay in a case where he was charged with mishandling classified documents.

In a motion filed on Thursday, attorneys Todd Blanche and Christopher Kise argued that special counsel Jack Smith had failed to turn over discovery documents in a timely manner.

As the Manhattan fraud trial of the Trump organization wraps up its second week, attorneys for Donald Trump and his family are attempting to throw the company's controller under the bus as they defend against accusations the real estate company was grossly overstating the valuations of the properties it owns.

According to a report from the Daily Beast's Jose Pagliery, retired Trump executive Jeffrey McConney is a key witness in the prosecution of the former president and his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, and although he was a trusted employee for years when it came to financial matters, now Trump's legal team is trying to undercut his testimony saying he lacks the expertise to answer questions.

As the report notes, financial maneuvering by Eric Trump is one of the key focuses of the prosecutor's queries.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for president?

As Pagliery noted, "The inherently contradictory nature of Trump lawyers’ stance on McConney underscored the sharp contrast on display at the ongoing bank fraud trial, where James is trying to bolster a case the judge has already decided has merit while Trump lawyers combat the very premise of the investigation. When investigators point to spreadsheets, the defense either shrugs, appears confused, or claims vastly inflated values are mere differences of opinion."

Case in point, the report notes, is what Pagliery called Eric Trump's "dodgy math" that led him to instruct McConney to list a property they could not sell at quadruple its value in 2013 in financial statements.

"McConney testified that, after a telephone conversation with the Trump company executive in 2013, another section of Seven Springs jumped in value on paper from $25 million to $101 million—even though they couldn’t actually sell the property they claimed to have," the report states.