It has been noted that Trump lawyer Alina Habba slammed the jury in former President Donald Trump’s trial few hours after the judge threatened to throw Trump in jail if he violates the gag order again via Mediaite.
Trump’s hush money election interference trial had included a contempt finding by Judge Juan Merchan, who ruled Trump violated the gag order nine times. He also said the next step for Trump could be jail.
On Tuesday’s edition of Fox News Channel’s The Story with Martha MacCallum, anchor Martha MacCallum asked Habba about the ruling and the judge’s threat.
Habba launched into a rant that included ripping the jury as biased and unfair:
“MARTHA MCCALLUM: With that, we bring in Alina Haba, attorney for former President Trump. Elena, great to have you here. Thanks for coming by today. I want to read what the judge said about this gag order. Fine that he put forth today. The judiciary law does not vest the court with authority to craft an appropriate punishment when $1,000 fine will not achieve the intended purpose. He says in some cases you can go higher, $2500. But he basically says none of that will matter in this case, and so it may be necessary–. Jail may be a necessary punishment. What did you think of that? Do you think he’s trying to make a point so that the former president just stops Truth Social-ing about these people?
ALINA HABBA: Well, when you say Truth Social-ing, let’s be clear what we’re talking about. We’re talking about a defendant in a criminal case who’s being attacked politically, who’s being attacked by his opponents, who’s also being attacked by witnesses.
And the witnesses in this case have no gag, have no, their free speech, their First Amendment rights are completely intact. But then you have a judge who we’ve asked to recuse themselves for reasons that I can’t speak to because of the gag order, as we know.
And we have this all going on and on and on. And then he turns and makes statements like that. That is the exact reason, Martha, that the defense team has said this judge needs to recuse.
There is a clear political bias here. We’re seeing it through the comments. We’re seeing it from the way that they speak to the attorneys on the defense table.
I’ve been there, I get it. It happens, but there is no place for it.
So I think it’s completely unconstitutional. I think when you’re a defendant, truthfully, these statements are the statements that you’re allowed to hear from the defense innocent until proven guilty, especially when you’ve done nothing wrong and when these are all have been coordinated. This is past the statute of limitations. And I could go on and on.
MARTHA MCCALLUM: And I mean, everything you’re laying out is that is all of the perfect sort of puzzle pieces that would fit together for an appeal. But this is the first part of the process. So, I mean, it’s possible that this jury could convict him. They hear all day long about Stormy Daniels and payments and Karen McDougal and all of these things, which all of the people that we talked to say, is not a crime.
ALINA HABBA: It isn’t a crime.
MARTHA MCCALLUM: But but this is what they’re getting. That’s why they’re getting filled with all the all day long. So I mean, they may be persuaded by it.
ALINA HABBA: That’s right. And that’s the concern that I raised last week and we spoke on this issue. The issue I have is not whether Donald Trump and President Trump did anything wrong. He did not. The facts are on our side.
The issue we have is when we have politicized judges and and blue juries come in and they’re supposed to be impartial, but you have a judge tweaking, reprimanding, putting down counsel on the other side, being harder on one side than the other.
That affects the jury. And that’s not fair. It’s not right now. If President Trump was given a fair jury, a fair trial like anybody else in this country would be because his name is Trump, he doesn’t. That’s where my concern is not the facts. The facts are on our side.”
