As the gavel fell on the first-ever criminal trial of a sitting or former U.S. president, the case against former President Donald Trump captured national attention.

According to The Hill, former White House ethics lawyer Jim Schultz believed that a New York judge would likely find former President Trump’s social media posts, which quote others but reference the jurors, as violations of the gag order in his hush-money case. 

The trial scrutinizes allegations that Trump falsified records to hide a hush money payment, while new concerns about him possibly influencing jurors through social media have surfaced.

The court proceedings commenced this Monday in a landmark scenario imbued with high stakes and historical significance. This trial marks an unprecedented episode in American legal and political history, spotlighting the nation's robust judicial accountability structures.

Proceeding swiftly, jury selection was wrapped up by Friday, paving the way for the ensuing phases of the trial. The court is scheduled to resume next week, and evidence and testimonies will be rigorously examined under the collective gaze of the judiciary, media, and public.

Trump Denies Allegations of Falsified Business Records

Central to the trial are the charges against Trump, who allegedly altered business records to conceal a sum of money paid to an adult film actor.

This payment, as alleged, was intended to prevent any negative impact on his 2016 presidential campaign by keeping the lid on revelations about his personal life.

The former president has responded to these accusations by pleading not guilty, contesting the basis of the charges to clear his name and maintain his political legacy.

Donald Trump's Social Media Use Raises Legal Eyebrows

Trump’s activity on social media platforms adds complexity to the trial. This Wednesday, Trump released a post that quoted Jesse Watters of Fox News.

Watters claimed "undercover Liberal Activists" allegedly deceiving the court to infiltrate the jury – a comment that Trump endorsed and amplified.

Legal analysts have expressed concerns regarding Trump's action. During Trump's administration, Jim Schultz, a former White House ethics lawyer, explained on CNN News Central that while Trump was essentially pushing out someone else's statement, he nevertheless holds the responsibility for its implications.

"He’s referencing the jurors. He’s pushing out something that someone else said,” Schultz commented. "But the bottom line is, it applies to him, right?"

Gag Order at Risk: Possible Violations by Trump

A specific gag order in this trial prohibits any public statements about prospective jurors or jury members. Despite this, Trump’s actions have led to suggestions that he might be attempting to sway or intimidate the jurors indirectly, which would be a clear breach of the order.

A legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, stressed the gravity of such actions, especially for someone in Trump’s current legal position. "Donald Trump doesn’t seem to realize he is now a criminal defendant and criminal defendants have different and lesser rights than ordinary citizens," Toobin noted.

Further elaborating on the potential consequences, Schultz speculated that while the judge could react with measures ranging from a fine to a formal warning, he doubted severe actions like incarceration would be pursued before the trial's conclusion. Yet, he anticipates ongoing challenges with Trump’s communication style. "And you’re still gonna hear from Donald Trump on Truth Social," Schultz predicted.

Proceedings Continue Amidst Legal Tensions

As legal experts and observers weigh in, the spotlight on Trump’s trial grows, and the discourse becomes richer in legal insights and public interest. It remains to be seen how these developments will influence the conduct and outcome of this groundbreaking trial.

In sum, the courtroom drama revolves around serious allegations against a former leader, a plea of not guilty, potential juror influence through new-age media platforms, and the ongoing interpretation and enforcement of judicial orders designed to protect the integrity of the legal process.

As this historical event unfolds, every motion, argument, and decree continues to stitch a new patch into the fabric of American legal precedent.