Trump deletes social media posts violating the gag order after he was fined $9,000 for contempt and warned he could face jail if he does it again

Donald Trump has taken down social media posts that violated the hush money trial gag order after he was held in contempt of court and fined $9,000.

Judge Juan Merchan gave the former president a deadline of 2.15pm on Tuesday to take down nine posts that landed him a $1,000 fine each.

With 30 minutes left, the links that included attacks on 'sleazeball' witnesses Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels either displayed ‘Not found’ or a ‘404 error page’.

Judge Merchan also warned the former president he would face jail if he does it again in a stern warning to start the third week of the case.

He ripped the 'absurd' defense Trump's legal team presented and said he may have to opt for incarceration because the defendant can 'easily' pay the fines.

Donald Trump has been found in contempt of court for violating the hush money trial gag order and fined $9,000

There was some good news for the 77-year-old on the tense morning in court, as Judge Merchan ruled he could attend Barron's high school graduation next month. 

The decision follows a contentious court hearing where Trump's lawyer contended that none of the posts or statements violated the gag order and cited arguments grounded in the First Amendment.

The judge acknowledged those sensibilities, saying he was 'keenly aware of, and protective of, Defendant's First Amendment rights, particularly given his candidacy for the office of President of the United States.'

He said those rights must not be curtailed, being able to 'fully campaign for the office which he seeks and that he be able to respond and defend himself against political attacks.' But he called the gag order 'narrowly tailored to prevent risk. 

The 77-year-old former president blows his cheeks out as he returns to the courtroom following a short break 

Trump aide Margo Martin leaves Trump Tower with the president to make their way to court 

Martin was absent from court last week while testimony began and David Pecker was on the stand 

Eric Trump was also part of his father's group of supporters today for the start of the third week of the trial 

Natalie Harp, another Trump aide, and his senior advisor Dan Scavino make their way into the motorcade 

Harp, who has been a key fixture on Trump's side aty the trial, prepares to get into the motorcade 

Eric walks alongside his father as they enter the court complex in downtown Manhattan 

Harp follows behind the Trumps in preparation for the second week of testimony 

Sweetener: Even as Judge Mercan found Trump in contempt, he ruled that he could attend his son Barron's graduation in May

Judge Merchan held Trump in contempt and fined him $9,000 for violations of a 'gag' order he imposed

Trump faces not just fines, but possible jail time if further violations are found

The judge didn't buy Trump's argument that he was merely reposting other people's views that attacked potential witnesses

And he threatened to impose an 'incarceratory sentence' if Trump continued.

It was the latest development in the Stormy Daniels 'hush' money trial that has brought a series of revelations, including which celebrities, powerbrokers, and golf pros had their numbers logged by Trump's longtime assistant. 

Trump directed criticism at the judge once again on the way into court – again complaining about his failure to recuse himself from the case.

That was a veiled reference to Judge Merchan's daughter, whose work for a digital advocacy firm with prominent Democratic clients is the basis for some of Trump's attacks.

Judge Merchan updated his gag order to prohibit attacks on family members. 

'It's called recusal abuse,' Trump said Tuesday inside criminal court in Manhattan. 'The judge should terminate the case because they have no case,' he said.

Judge Merchan blasted Trump lawyer Todd Blanche during a hearing where prosecutors claimed violations of the gag, one-by-one.

Blanche tried to summon arguments while his client looked on, sometimes but the judge was unpersuaded. 

'Mr Blanche, you're losing all credibility, I have to tell you right now,' Merchan said. 'You're losing all credibility with the court. Is there any other argument you want to make?' he said at one point.

The judge in his decision wasn't persuaded by Trump's arguments that his violations were not 'wilful' or that he reposted material by others.

'This Court's Expanded Order is lawful and unambiguous. Defendant violated the Order by making social media posts about known witnesses pertaining to their participation in this criminal proceeding and by making public statements about jurors in this criminal proceeding,' he wrote.

The judge found Trump 'curated' the posts and published them to maximize their reach. He used some of Trump's own boasts against him. 

"When I put out a statement it is SPREAD all over the place, fast and furious. EVERYBODY SEEMS TO GET WHATEVER I HAVE, TO SAY, AND QUICKLY... If it didn't work, or properly get the word out, I wouldn't use it - But it does work, and work really well,' Trump said.  

'It is counterintuitive and indeed absurd, to read the Expanded Order to not proscribe statements that Defendant intentionally selected and published to maximize exposure,' he wrote.

He also rapped Trump for the way he altered a quote by Fox News anchor Jesse Watters and said liberal activists were 'lying' to get on the jury. 

'This is not a repost but rather the Defendant's own words. Mr. Watters uttered a statement which Defendant altered, placed in quotes, attributed to Mr. Watters and posted. The purpose being to call into question the legitimacy of the jury selection process in this case. This constitutes a clear violation of the Expanded Order and requires no further analysis.'

The order prevents Trump from 'making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding, and 'public statements about any prospective juror or any juror.'

The judge warned that financial penalties might not have the desired effect on a wealthy defendant - bringing him back to the jail threat.

'While $1,000 may suffice in most instances to protect the dignity of the judicial system, to compel respect for its mandates and to punish the offender for disobeying a court order, it unfortunately will not achieve the desired result in those instances where the contemnor can easily afford such a fine. In those circumstances, it would be preferable if the Court could impose a fine more commensurate with the wealth of the contemnor. In some cases that might be a $2,500 fine, in other cases it might be a fine of $150,000. Because this Court is not cloaked with such discretion, it must therefore consider whether in some instances, jail may be a necessary punishment.'