Donald Trump's Lawyer Repeatedly Hammered by Judges in Court Exchange

Appeal court judges frequently interrupted Trump's lawyer during a testy gag order hearing in Washington, D.C., on Monday.

The former president was indicted on four counts in Washington, D.C., for allegedly working to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.

It is one of four criminal cases that Trump is facing while he campaigns as frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination. He has also pleaded not guilty to charges in the other cases and has repeatedly said that they form part of a political witch hunt. Newsweek sought email comment on Monday from Donald Trump's attorney.

Judge Cornelia Pillard raised her voice several times when peppering Sauer with questions about Trump's social media and campaign rally comments about witnesses in the case.

She also strongly suggested that Trump may have violated his conditions of release that are keeping Trump out of prison pending his election tampering case.

The judges hearing oral arguments about the gagging order on Monday included Pillard and Patricia Millett, who are both appointees of President Barack Obama, and Brad Garcia, who was nominated by President Joe Biden.

Sauer was petitioning the Washington, D.C., appeal court to revoke a gag order imposed by Judge Tanya Chutkan in Trump's federal election tampering case, which is due to go to trial in 2024. Chutkan's gag order prohibits Trump from making or reposting statements statements "publicly targeting" Special Counsel Jack Smith and his staff, as well as targeting the judge's staff and the staff of other D.C. district court personnel.

"The order is unprecedented and it sets a terrible precedent for future restrictions on core political speech," Sauer told the panel.

He said Trump's comments "come nowhere near" the "clear and present danger" that the Supreme Court says is necessary to overcome free speech rights.

Pillard repeatedly disputed that claim and said the clear and present danger test set by the Supreme Court does not apply to participants in a criminal trial.

Lawyers for Smith are fighting to reimpose the gag order after it was temporarily lifted for the appeal court hearings.

Sauer told the court on Monday that prosecutors can't blame Trump for threats or harassment of court staff.

"They can't draw a causal line from any social media post to threat or harassment when we have wall-to-wall media coverage of this case," Sauer told the court.

Without naming the woman involved, Pillard asked Sauer about the case of Abigail Shry who was charged with threatening Chutkan after allegedly leaving a voicemail saying: "If Trump doesn't get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you."

Sauer said that Trump was not responsible for a woman whose own father stated that she is an alcoholic who never leaves her apartment and who makes threatening phone calls while watching TV all day.

Judge Pillard asked a series of hypothetical questions about Trump's former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who may be called as a witness in the case.

She asked Sauer if it was a breach of release conditions for a criminal defendant to phone a potential witness in the case.

Sauer asked if the phone call was simply to wish the witness a happy Thanksgiving.

Pillard snapped back: "I'm not telling you!" and suggested that if a defendant is prohibited from contacting witnesses as a condition of release, the content of the conversation should not matter.

She then asked if it was acceptable to make social media comments or campaign rally comments about that same witness.

Sauer said that Trump has engaged in protected political speech that came nowhere near the clear and present danger test set out by the Supreme Court.

At another point, she told Sauer, "That is not my question! Nope, nope, nope!" when he attempted to address the Meadows issue.

Garcia took a more conciliatory tone but asked several questions about why Sauer didn't accept that a standard less than clear and present danger was applicable for a criminal defendant like Trump.

Trump's comments about Meadows came after an ABC News report said that Meadows was granted a form of immunity to testify in the election interference case.

In response, Trump posted to his social media platform, Truth Social, that he wouldn't expect Meadows to "lie about the Rigged and Stolen" election "merely for getting IMMUNITY," but, "some people would make that deal."

Pillard asked a series of questions built around the Meadows scenario and asked if it was acceptable to make hostile comments about a potential witness.

The appeal panel is not expected to rule on the gag order on Monday and will hear arguments from both sides.