I’m not a lawyer, but given Merchan’s gag order:
ORDERED, that the Court's Order of March 26,2024, is amended as indicated below. Defendant is directed to refrain from:
Making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation of in this criminal proceeding;
Making or directing others to make public statements about
(1) counsel in the case other than the District Attorney,
(2) members of the Court's staff and the District Attorney's staff, or
(3) the family members of any counsel, staff member, the Court or the District Attorney,
if those statements are made with the intent to materially interfere with, or to cause others to materially interfere with, counsel's or staffs work in this criminal case, or with the knowledge that such interference is likely to result; and Making or directing others to make public statements about any prospective juror or any juror in this criminal proceeding.
And Trump’s subsequent statement:
I do have a lot of surrogates and they are speaking very beautifully and they come from all over Washington...
How is Trump not in violation? By saying his surrogates said various things he approves of, he is implicitly saying those very same things. He is (transitively) making a statement about things he forbidden to say.
If he had said that respected legal scholars were saying things, that would be an arguably neutral observation.
If he had said people were trying to speak on his behalf, but he wouldn’t go that far, he would be distancing himself from echoing those statements.
But when he says that someone acting on his behalf (which is what a surrogate is) said something, and moreover he agrees with what they said, how could that not be a violation of the order?
To be clear, I’m not arguing here that he directed those people to make those comments (although one could make that case). The point is that he explicitly referenced and endorsed statements he is forbidden from saying himself.
Did Merchan screw up? Should he have included a prohibition on re-tweeting, referencing, encouraging, praising, or otherwise endorsing forbidden acts?
Inquiring minds want to know…. Maybe some lawyer could clarify?