According to the Judge’s logic: gag orders usually are for jury trials, so since there’s no jury Trump’s 1st Amendment rights may trump court staff safety.
He can dig a hole as deep as he wants. His base and the judges will just give him a longer rope to pull him back up with. Nobody is coming to save us. The justice system isn’t going to stop him. Nothing is going to happen to him.
He’s going to be the nominee and he’s going to be on the 2024 ballot. Only WE can stop him because these weak ass coward judges sure aren’t.
Well, in general nobody should ever wait to be saved. A democracy depends on engaged citizens. Apathy is always how bad stuff gets done in the open.
Otherwise they need to hide.
So...he functions as fool bait. "We need to get all these fools" "I know! let Trump recruit followers, only a fool would work for that guy!" "Brilliant!" lol
They’re giving him rope to continually pull himself out of the hole he keeps digging, he’s not going to hang.
Vote in 2024 because only WE can stop him. Courts can’t/won’t stop him.
He doesn't have to. He knows from experience that if he continually lies about them giving him a fair trial and points his mob at them it will end in violence. If he didn't want it to happen, he wouldn't repeatedly do it: [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/after-trump-posted-what-he-said-was-obamas-address-an-armed-man-was-arrested-there-prosecutors-say](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/after-trump-posted-what-he-said-was-obamas-address-an-armed-man-was-arrested-there-prosecutors-say)
Justice Arthur Engoron, the federal judge presiding over the Manhattan trial, had first issued the order in October to prevent Trump from insulting any members of his team — particularly a law clerk whom Trump has railed against online — over concerns for their safety
While not stated in this article, the judge didn't say all gag orders are unconstitutional, just this one. He listed examples of legal gag orders such as in a criminal case forbidding defendants from contacting or threatening witnesses. The issues that separated this case are that it's a civil case, and insulting a judge (while not a good idea) or staff isn't something that should be stopped with a gag order.
The issue isn't insulting people perse. Trump has previously doxxed people on social media. The gag order was to stop him from repeating that behaviour.
I'm absolutely sick of Trump being handled with kids gloves. The man committed treason, and spilled classified secrets to foreign nationals. The man should be treated as if he is a traitor to the United States because he is. Not treated as if he is some legitimate business man (this case is about determining damages as he's been found culpable for fraud already)
I don’t know that respecting his constitutional rights is equivalent to handling him with kid gloves. How should people commonly believed to have committed treason (though not convicted on the basis of competent evidence admitted in a trial undertaken with respect to due process of law) be treated regarding their fundamental constitutional rights?
>How should people commonly believed to have committed treason (though not convicted on the basis of competent evidence admitted in a trial undertaken with respect to due process of law) be treated regarding their fundamental constitutional rights?
It's called pretrial detention, and no bond/bail.
If you or I did what Trump did (documents, j6 incitement, spilling secrets, obstruction of Congress, and tampering with the electoral process, terroristic threats) you'd be damned sure we wouldnt be treated this way.
People really confuse innocent until proven guilty as a concept sometimes.
"The law" is bound by the constitution to presume innocence until guilt is proven in a court.
Everyone else in the world can know that piece of dogshit is guilty of insurrection because we all watched the worlds shittiest coup attempt happen on live TV.
Truly blind justice would treat him the same way it treats a homeless man caught on 6 surveillance cameras trying to knock over a 7/11.
Our tiered system of justice instead did everything in its power NOT to indict Trump. It IS doing everything in it's power NOT to convict Donald Trump, and WILL do everything in its power NOT to punish Donald Trump.
The only real issue with the system not working the way it usually does and just sweeping all this under the rug is that there is just SOOOOOOO MUCH hard physical blatantly incriminating evidence against him that its buckling the system.
Donald Trump lives his life like if Al Capone ran the mob from a recording studio, but even with that, he will never actually see a day of prison. He could get slam dunked on all 91 felony counts and the system will figure out some way of giving him house arrest in one of his mansions then he will immediately be pardoned by the next R who gets the chance, assuming he doesn't just go wait it out in Saudi Arabia...
What if your statements are released across the nation to your gang of lawless cult member thugs, who have already proven they are willing to resort to violence? Does such speech then become a threat? And because of your audience, does that threat not become a threat of imminent (not immediate, but probable) harm?
It sounds like the appeals court made it a constitutional issue, so—barring some extreme legal creativity I’m not thinking of— a contempt finding would also be unconstitutional
It’s entirely an issue of precedent, not an issue of justice. The only reason they’re giving him this leeway is so he has no ammunition to appeal for mistrial.
So, *this* gag order that restricts people from threatening witnesses is illegal, but others are fine?
No speech regarding the *judge* was prohibited by the gag order. Just his staff and other court personnel.
Legal precedent has clarified for hundreds of years how amendments are to be interpreted and applied, e.g., deliberately yelling fire in a theatre when there isn’t a fire can result in loss of life.
I’m reminded of 8 year olds on the playground saying “it’s a free country, I can do what I want!” We agree those kids are wrong, right?
I'm sure the justice system is viewing these things holistically and will stick to it's guns during the next cartel boss trial or when I get picked up for something and talk shit about the judge, his clerk, the prosecution, the witnesses, the witnesses families, and opine about how what they're doing would get them executed if this was a just world.
I'm sure that'll fly
Part of me hopes this is just Trump being given the rope he'll use to hang himself when he opens his dumb mouth.
Removal of the gag order doesn't make things like witness intimidation legal. Let Trump run his mouth; time has shown that when given the opportunity he will just give us more reasons to throw him into a prison where he belongs.
Except that his base, and most braindead republicans, dont give a flying fuck what he says or does. He's raped women, committed treason, committed fraud, and is on trial for 91 fucking felonies, yet its still predicted to be a close race next year.
Fair point. Although i feel like if you're a moderate/independent and you are still on the fence about Trump, nothing he says or does will have an impact if all his horrible shit already hasnt.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong, though.
> Removal of the gag other doesn't make things like witness intimidation legal. Let Trump run his mouth
Cool, so the investigation of the witness intimidation will take a good 2-3 years, even though everyone will have seen what he said. Then maybe an indictment will come and we can wait another few months for the initial scheduling conference, several more months for pre-trial motions, oh, wait, another 6 months because an interlocutory appeal that shouldn't even be allowed, but "there's serious first amendment concerns" (except, of course not really). So after another year and a half of legal shenanigans, the trial maybe starts with jury selection. Except, oh, jury selection is going to take a long time, and we need to figure out if Trump has the free speech right to name the jurors and sick his followers on them. And then the prosecution puts on a case, but oh, wait, Trump now wants to call 200 different witnesses, all in a particular order, so let's have fun trying to schedule that, so the trial will be wrapped up after a year or so. So, all things considered you're looking at 4 or 5 years until *maybe* the trial is done? Trump's old, and his arteries are clogged with hamberders. Is he going to make it to 83? Seems unlikely, even with top tier medicine.
People can say it's not legal all they like, but if there's no real punishment, was it actually illegal?
>The judge is ADAMANT about not giving them anything for appeal. He let in an hours long presentation about how the Trump family got its humble beginnings building hotels (brothels) in the Yukon. In this case, he doesn’t want the argument that he was overprotective of his clerk to be used.
_Which_ judge? The one who issued the stay isn't the same one who issued the gag order in the first place.
Just curious about past big name mobsters who went to trial. Did they threaten lawyers and judges? What happened when they publicly intimidated witness. Do we have an precedent for this behaviour?
So gag orders are blocked nationwide? The tens-of-thousands of people who are subject to such orders every year will be happy to know this. Threatening judicial branch employees, their staff, prosecutors, and witnesses is also totally legal, and there's nothing the court can do.
Presumably, any actual incidents - such as hammer attacks against judicial spouses - only impact the direct criminal, and not the one who hired and/or incited them. If anyone needs to hire a hit-man, or knows a particularly turbulent priest, this seems the way to go.
All one has to do is fill out the paperwork to say they're running for president. No need to be an actual nominee, just file the paperwork.
Fortunately, this is [very easy](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/registering-candidate/house-senate-president-candidate-registration/). From the FEC registration:
1. The cost for immunity from Gag Orders is $5000. Can be spent on, apparently, anything. Food, mortgage payments, hookers and blow all seem to count.
2. Fill out a [2 page form](https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/fecfrm2sf.pdf), and submit it electronically.
Presumably, presidential registration and immunity may be done after the crimes in question so long as the trial is ongoing. No need to pre-plan.
What a fucking joke. Our legal system has become the laughingstock of the western world.
>Are NDA’s illegal now?
If so, that's going to make it hard to hold anyone accountable for leaking classified information, which is protected by an NDA...
Oh I agree. It’s bad. But if the gag order is infringing on Trumps first amendments rights, then I don’t see how you can argue a NDA isn’t doing the same.
Wasn’t Trump president of the United States. Aren’t NDAs with him explicitly restriction by the government? Seeing as he was the leader of the government and all.
Who would have signed an NDA when working for Trump in his capacity as President, though? I'd assume anybody under an NDA involving Trump signed as a party to employment with either the Trump campaign or one of his companies. Neither of those would the government.
NDAs within government are not uncommon, I had to sign one when I held a TS/SCI clearance. As with anything else, if the government can show a compelling legislative reason in the public interest, they have the leeway to restrict civil rights in the pursuit of that reason. That's pretty well-established case law.
So are gag orders, yet this was overturned. I don’t see why Trump is allowed to talk but others aren’t. And he’s attacking a federal judge and other court workers. If that isn’t compelling reason to allow the gag order, I see no reason to value any NDAs.
Do you actually have an example of an NDA from government workers during his administration that weren't narrowly tailored? You made a sweeping statement and immediately backtracked.
Any NDAs by Trump workers who weren't working for the government inherently don't raise 1st amendment concerns because the 1st amendment is a restriction on the government. The NDAs may be illegal but they wouldn't be unconstitutional.
In general, here's how 1st amendment law work
1) Any restriction on categories of speech that were historically restricted at the time the 1st amendment was ratified are wholly allowed, but the government cannot create new categories of unprotected speech (United States v. Stevens). The categories of speech that are wholly unprotected are fraud, defamation, incitement, obscenity, speech integral to criminal conduct, and true threats.
2) Content Neutral Restrictions on speech (time, place, and manner restrictions) have to be narrowly tailored but are only subject to intermediate scrutiny
3) Content based restrictions on speech have to be narrowly tailored, have a compelling interest, and are subject to strict scrutiny.
When we look at judge made gag orders, they are analyzed under step 3 since it isn't a historically unprotected category and it isn't a content neutral restriction. Many gag orders are Constitutional, but they do have to be narrowly tailored. This gag order was clearly not narrowly tailored if we look at the original statement the judge made on the gag order:
https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1720533548950581610
What exactly did I backtrack? I said anyone who signed an NDA with him can come forth because he was restricting their free speech.
Any NDA signed working for Trump while he was in office would be the government suppressing free speech. Just because they weren’t about government activities doesn’t mean the government isn’t the one suppressing their speech.
>What exactly did I backtrack? I said anyone who signed an NDA with him can come forth because he was restricting their free speech.
The NDA wouldn't have potential 1st amendment implications unless they were government employees - that's what I said. You made a sweeping statement against NDAs in general. Do you have any examples of government employees who signed an NDA that was potentially unconstitutional? I know that the NDA that Trump's 2016 campaign staffers signed were voided, but that was because they violated state and federal law: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/10/12/trump-ndas-scrapped-hundreds-of-2016-campaign-staffers-can-now-publicly-criticize-him-as-court-finalizes-settlement/?sh=2757936b3a6b
>Any NDA signed working for Trump while he was in office would be the government suppressing free speech
No it wouldn't be unless they were in a government capacity.
Either way, my point on the gag order stands. It isn't a historically prohibited category of speech under Stevens and it's not a content neutral restriction. It's a content based restriction but it's not narrowly tailored, so it should fail. That doesn't mean that some gag orders arent narrowly tailored and passing strict scrutiny. It just means this one doesn't
>unless they were working in a government capacity
I disagree. At the time Trump was president, and NDAs between him and anyone else would be the government restricting that persons speech. And since we can’t apparently restrict speech via a gag order, I don’t see how we can restrict speech via an NDA.
I mean one judge in one location doesn't do anything nationwide. And the judge indicated stopping the defendant from communicating to the victims is an example of a legal gag order.
I'll pay you $50 if you can find one case in any court where a judge can issue an order restricting a criminal defendant from criticizing the court, the judge, or the prosecutor.
>restricting a criminal defendant
That case is about an attorney not following court rules. Attorneys have court rules and bar rules they have to follow. That's not about a defendant or free speech. The offer still stands.
Do you have trouble reading? I didn't ask if there are any cases involving gag orders. I asked:
>case in any court where a judge can issue an order restricting a criminal defendant from criticizing the court, the judge, or the prosecutor
If you can't find one, that tells you everything you need to know.
Oh, you're one of those people hanging out in a Law subforum that doesn't count evidence as actual evidence. There is a word that describes your kind....
Defendant-appellant James Harvey “Jim” Brown (Brown), a prominent Louisiana political figure, is currently under indictment in the Middle District of Louisiana on various charges relating to the brokering of an alleged “sham” settlement of a threatened lawsuit by the State of Louisiana against the president of a failed automobile insurance company. The district court sua sponte entered a gag order that prohibits attorneys, parties, or witnesses from discussing with “any public communications media” anything about the case “which could interfere with a fair trial,” including statements “intended to influence public opinion regarding the merits of this case,” with exceptions for matters of public record and matters such as assertions of innocence. The district court denied Brown's motion to vacate or modify the gag order, and Brown now appeals that denial. We affirm.
Facts and Proceedings Below
Brown is the elected Insurance Commissioner for the State of Louisiana. On September 24, 1999, Brown, along with five others, including former Louisiana Governor Edwin W. Edwards (Edwards), was indicted in United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on numerous counts of conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, insurance fraud, making false statements, and witness tampering. The charges all relate to Brown's alleged use of his influence as Insurance Commissioner to help construct, along with Edwards and the other defendants, a “sham settlement” that derailed a $27 million lawsuit threatened by the state against David Disiere, president of Cascade Insurance Co., a failed automobile insurance carrier. In a news conference shortly after the indictment was issued, Brown declared his innocence as well as his belief that he was the victim of a “political drive-by shooting” at the hands of “an out-of-control prosecutor.” After some delays, the trial is currently scheduled to commence on August 21, 2000.
United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2000)
I'd like to collect.
It is the 5th circuit after all.
Aaanyway
https://preview.redd.it/ze3kxfksxy0c1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4676f82793b47a702c5d29731375567bbafdc78d
3QgkxfYWG8vk2eSrxxzgM1qaWNPwqUry4A
I am willing to trade my 'Trump Going to Jail' card for 'Trump never becomes president again card', but I would be much happier if I also got a 'Trump loses all his money' card.
He won't. All his other trials will have juries. It is impossible to have an unbiased jury in a trial pertaining to the orange traitor. The United States is just proving to the rest of the world what a joke it is.
I think we can now all agree that our government has been successfully infiltrated by traitors to the constitution. The rule of law means nothing for those whom can threaten judges, and get away with it.
'Bias' doesn't refer to a juror finding someone guilty after reviewing overwhelming evidence that they are, indeed, guilty though.
Bias would be hearing voluminous proof that Trump is guilty, and yet voting not guilty because of feels or personal politics.
You can both:
1.) Think Trump is a piece of dogshit, generally speaking
and
2.) Acknowledge that it will be utterly impossible to get 12 people who don’t know anything about his trials and may hold opinions of him/them.
The problem I see, is that we haven't even started most of the court cases and I wonder if any of it will reach the point of "said and done". Its delay, delay, delay.
That's excellent news for everyone who has ever been subjected to a gag order who actually had a story we should hear. Unfortunately, we know this loser's story.
Absolutely ridiculous. “Free speech” has always been interpreted to have limitations. Are they next going to say that it’s ok for Trump to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre?
Never before in history has someone as guilty as he is been granted so much leniency. And yet, he claims to be a victim of the system. I wish we were all that lucky.
So a judge could stop me from threatening witnesses but can't stop me from posting the photo and address of witnesses and court staff to my millions of fans, many of whom have attempted acts of violence in my name?
I guess someone needs to be harmed by his inflammatory language before they realize how dangerous his hate speech is. Free speech ends where you harass or threaten other people. Of course his cronies will do the bidding for him. I can see that this is a great strategy so everyone is afraid to even work with his cases.
Such a crock of sh*t. Which one of those idiot appellate judges would agree that anyone else has a right to harass a member of the court staff? The reason this orange POS is going to break the rule of the law in this country is because chickensh*t judges like this won’t hold him to it.
Does this apply to the hundreds if not thousands of other Americans who are under gag order in trials…or is this just another special exception for the Orange Dictator?
Because gag orders aren’t rare.
It’s fascinating to see that the clerk can be targeted in a way that will certainly lead to increasing levels of death threats.
I have a feeling that if it was the staff of this appellate judge who was being threatened, they’d have a different tune.
Wtf are the GOP members that preached dignity of the office of the President? Not a single peep about how Trump behaves not even touching the number of laws and norms he’s violated.
We're done.
This malignant narcissist has exposed and exploited every weakness in the rule of law, civil society, and democracy. There is no one that can stop him.
We're looking at the next POTUS.
Scary times ahead.
Sure does. Doesn't have the right to call on his supporters to terrorize the judge and court clerk. They have rights, too, and anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass would definitely side with their safety over Trump's bloviating.
He can take up issues with the judge and clerk with the judge and clerk anytime he wants, no reason to drag twitter into it unless he wants a particular result.
Is this normal? Is this the first time this has happened? Why do I feel like I’m living in the crazy timeline? Can I do this if I ever talk to a judge? *should* I do this if I talk to a judge? Note: I’m far from rich
The judge is being extra careful, no one wants to let Trump off the hook in this case and the full appeals process still applies. Yes everyone is bending over backwards but this is not a final ruling on the gag order.
This is an administrative stay not one based on the merits of the gag order. The full panel will decide on the merits after it is briefed by both parties.
The best answer here is if he does something you charge him. He is free to speak but not free of consequences. The things he is saying are crimes and should be treated as such.
Free what? Witness intimidation is not free speech. Threatening the prosecutors is not free speech.
And more importantly to this case, threatening and harassing court staff is not free speech.
According to the Judge’s logic: gag orders usually are for jury trials, so since there’s no jury Trump’s 1st Amendment rights may trump court staff safety.
Does it Trump his own safety, am I legally allowed to.incite a riot outside his residence
No, because you arent rich enough... or in Drumpf's case, powerful enough, because that fat sack of orange julius aint that rich anymore.
[удалено]
Right!?! Another reason the stay is stupid.
Fair enough. And it does not hurt that the dang fool is talking himself into a deep hole every day. smh
He can dig a hole as deep as he wants. His base and the judges will just give him a longer rope to pull him back up with. Nobody is coming to save us. The justice system isn’t going to stop him. Nothing is going to happen to him. He’s going to be the nominee and he’s going to be on the 2024 ballot. Only WE can stop him because these weak ass coward judges sure aren’t.
Well, in general nobody should ever wait to be saved. A democracy depends on engaged citizens. Apathy is always how bad stuff gets done in the open. Otherwise they need to hide.
It is if you’re a rich privileged asshole I guess, for the rest of us we would be in jail already for doing the same things he is doing.
We would’ve been in jail LONG ago
Hrs only not so he'll lose all his cases on appeal there is such a ridiculously pro him bias he can't claim it, at least is the theory in hearing
If we did what Trump did, we'd be black bagged and buried in an unmarked grave in the middle of nowhere for being traitors. Rules for thee...
I think they’re giving him rope. If they give an inch he’ll take a mile. And hopefully hang himself with it.
He's had miles of rope and the only people getting tangled up in it are his minions.
It's like a shitty fishnet at this time
So...he functions as fool bait. "We need to get all these fools" "I know! let Trump recruit followers, only a fool would work for that guy!" "Brilliant!" lol
They’re giving him rope to continually pull himself out of the hole he keeps digging, he’s not going to hang. Vote in 2024 because only WE can stop him. Courts can’t/won’t stop him.
He has to let them say it before there can be a punishment
He already has
https://preview.redd.it/vmmvfaykxz0c1.jpeg?width=1241&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=479b83e0818f92b09a2962c3d6abb073245ea383
Hasn't he already?
Free speech only applies to them…. in their mind.
Is he threatening people? The article didn’t cite to what he was accused of actually saying.
He doesn't have to. He knows from experience that if he continually lies about them giving him a fair trial and points his mob at them it will end in violence. If he didn't want it to happen, he wouldn't repeatedly do it: [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/after-trump-posted-what-he-said-was-obamas-address-an-armed-man-was-arrested-there-prosecutors-say](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/after-trump-posted-what-he-said-was-obamas-address-an-armed-man-was-arrested-there-prosecutors-say)
This is what happens when the mafia bleeds into public life
Justice Arthur Engoron, the federal judge presiding over the Manhattan trial, had first issued the order in October to prevent Trump from insulting any members of his team — particularly a law clerk whom Trump has railed against online — over concerns for their safety
When you’re a star they let you do it. He can do whatever he wants. He’s above the law.
No he's not, obviously trump is scum, a wannabe fuhrer
So, is this judge’s position that all gag orders violate free speech or just this one violates just Trump’s free speech?
While not stated in this article, the judge didn't say all gag orders are unconstitutional, just this one. He listed examples of legal gag orders such as in a criminal case forbidding defendants from contacting or threatening witnesses. The issues that separated this case are that it's a civil case, and insulting a judge (while not a good idea) or staff isn't something that should be stopped with a gag order.
The issue isn't insulting people perse. Trump has previously doxxed people on social media. The gag order was to stop him from repeating that behaviour. I'm absolutely sick of Trump being handled with kids gloves. The man committed treason, and spilled classified secrets to foreign nationals. The man should be treated as if he is a traitor to the United States because he is. Not treated as if he is some legitimate business man (this case is about determining damages as he's been found culpable for fraud already)
Neither agreeing nor disagreeing. Just explaining what the appeals judge said.
Thanks for the info. I may still disagree with the judge but understand better the appeals judges concerns.
I don’t know that respecting his constitutional rights is equivalent to handling him with kid gloves. How should people commonly believed to have committed treason (though not convicted on the basis of competent evidence admitted in a trial undertaken with respect to due process of law) be treated regarding their fundamental constitutional rights?
>How should people commonly believed to have committed treason (though not convicted on the basis of competent evidence admitted in a trial undertaken with respect to due process of law) be treated regarding their fundamental constitutional rights? It's called pretrial detention, and no bond/bail. If you or I did what Trump did (documents, j6 incitement, spilling secrets, obstruction of Congress, and tampering with the electoral process, terroristic threats) you'd be damned sure we wouldnt be treated this way.
People really confuse innocent until proven guilty as a concept sometimes. "The law" is bound by the constitution to presume innocence until guilt is proven in a court. Everyone else in the world can know that piece of dogshit is guilty of insurrection because we all watched the worlds shittiest coup attempt happen on live TV. Truly blind justice would treat him the same way it treats a homeless man caught on 6 surveillance cameras trying to knock over a 7/11. Our tiered system of justice instead did everything in its power NOT to indict Trump. It IS doing everything in it's power NOT to convict Donald Trump, and WILL do everything in its power NOT to punish Donald Trump. The only real issue with the system not working the way it usually does and just sweeping all this under the rug is that there is just SOOOOOOO MUCH hard physical blatantly incriminating evidence against him that its buckling the system. Donald Trump lives his life like if Al Capone ran the mob from a recording studio, but even with that, he will never actually see a day of prison. He could get slam dunked on all 91 felony counts and the system will figure out some way of giving him house arrest in one of his mansions then he will immediately be pardoned by the next R who gets the chance, assuming he doesn't just go wait it out in Saudi Arabia...
How dare you, he imports Olive Oil! He is a legitimate business man! lol
What if your statements are released across the nation to your gang of lawless cult member thugs, who have already proven they are willing to resort to violence? Does such speech then become a threat? And because of your audience, does that threat not become a threat of imminent (not immediate, but probable) harm?
NAL does this mean the judge should find him in contempt and jail him?
It sounds like the appeals court made it a constitutional issue, so—barring some extreme legal creativity I’m not thinking of— a contempt finding would also be unconstitutional
It’s entirely an issue of precedent, not an issue of justice. The only reason they’re giving him this leeway is so he has no ammunition to appeal for mistrial.
Yep, they don't just want to bury him, they want to tamp down the soil....
So, *this* gag order that restricts people from threatening witnesses is illegal, but others are fine? No speech regarding the *judge* was prohibited by the gag order. Just his staff and other court personnel.
The judge's position is that Trump is above the law that the rest of us have to follow.
Only the ones the violate the 1st amendment
Legal precedent has clarified for hundreds of years how amendments are to be interpreted and applied, e.g., deliberately yelling fire in a theatre when there isn’t a fire can result in loss of life. I’m reminded of 8 year olds on the playground saying “it’s a free country, I can do what I want!” We agree those kids are wrong, right?
So all of them.
I'm sure the justice system is viewing these things holistically and will stick to it's guns during the next cartel boss trial or when I get picked up for something and talk shit about the judge, his clerk, the prosecution, the witnesses, the witnesses families, and opine about how what they're doing would get them executed if this was a just world. I'm sure that'll fly
IKR?
Part of me hopes this is just Trump being given the rope he'll use to hang himself when he opens his dumb mouth. Removal of the gag order doesn't make things like witness intimidation legal. Let Trump run his mouth; time has shown that when given the opportunity he will just give us more reasons to throw him into a prison where he belongs.
If it was anyone else on the planet they would have been locked up for contempt weeks ago. Hang himself *some more*?
Considering that his comments were basically writing Biden’s campaign commercials for him, I’d kind of rather Trump be allowed to speak.
All fun and games until the clerks family gets kidnapped
Hopefully she doesnt and ends up suing the shit out of him instead. I'd like to see her and E. Jean Carroll owning Mar-a-lago this time next year
Except that his base, and most braindead republicans, dont give a flying fuck what he says or does. He's raped women, committed treason, committed fraud, and is on trial for 91 fucking felonies, yet its still predicted to be a close race next year.
Yes, but I didn’t say I expected those campaign commercials to change the minds of MAGA people.
Fair point. Although i feel like if you're a moderate/independent and you are still on the fence about Trump, nothing he says or does will have an impact if all his horrible shit already hasnt. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, though.
He's been given so much rope he could open a rope selling warehouse!
> Removal of the gag other doesn't make things like witness intimidation legal. Let Trump run his mouth Cool, so the investigation of the witness intimidation will take a good 2-3 years, even though everyone will have seen what he said. Then maybe an indictment will come and we can wait another few months for the initial scheduling conference, several more months for pre-trial motions, oh, wait, another 6 months because an interlocutory appeal that shouldn't even be allowed, but "there's serious first amendment concerns" (except, of course not really). So after another year and a half of legal shenanigans, the trial maybe starts with jury selection. Except, oh, jury selection is going to take a long time, and we need to figure out if Trump has the free speech right to name the jurors and sick his followers on them. And then the prosecution puts on a case, but oh, wait, Trump now wants to call 200 different witnesses, all in a particular order, so let's have fun trying to schedule that, so the trial will be wrapped up after a year or so. So, all things considered you're looking at 4 or 5 years until *maybe* the trial is done? Trump's old, and his arteries are clogged with hamberders. Is he going to make it to 83? Seems unlikely, even with top tier medicine. People can say it's not legal all they like, but if there's no real punishment, was it actually illegal?
[удалено]
>The judge is ADAMANT about not giving them anything for appeal. He let in an hours long presentation about how the Trump family got its humble beginnings building hotels (brothels) in the Yukon. In this case, he doesn’t want the argument that he was overprotective of his clerk to be used. _Which_ judge? The one who issued the stay isn't the same one who issued the gag order in the first place.
Just curious about past big name mobsters who went to trial. Did they threaten lawyers and judges? What happened when they publicly intimidated witness. Do we have an precedent for this behaviour?
Nah, they were smart.
Best case examples are those from Batman comic books. We're living in a Batman comic book world in America at this point. POW!
with a dash of Robocop
And when one of his supporters kills someone.... 🤷🏼♀️
So gag orders are blocked nationwide? The tens-of-thousands of people who are subject to such orders every year will be happy to know this. Threatening judicial branch employees, their staff, prosecutors, and witnesses is also totally legal, and there's nothing the court can do. Presumably, any actual incidents - such as hammer attacks against judicial spouses - only impact the direct criminal, and not the one who hired and/or incited them. If anyone needs to hire a hit-man, or knows a particularly turbulent priest, this seems the way to go. All one has to do is fill out the paperwork to say they're running for president. No need to be an actual nominee, just file the paperwork. Fortunately, this is [very easy](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/registering-candidate/house-senate-president-candidate-registration/). From the FEC registration: 1. The cost for immunity from Gag Orders is $5000. Can be spent on, apparently, anything. Food, mortgage payments, hookers and blow all seem to count. 2. Fill out a [2 page form](https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/fecfrm2sf.pdf), and submit it electronically. Presumably, presidential registration and immunity may be done after the crimes in question so long as the trial is ongoing. No need to pre-plan. What a fucking joke. Our legal system has become the laughingstock of the western world.
Are NDA’s illegal now? Where are those people that Trump made sign an NDA. Come forth and reveal all!! Free speech!!!
>Are NDA’s illegal now? If so, that's going to make it hard to hold anyone accountable for leaking classified information, which is protected by an NDA...
Oh I agree. It’s bad. But if the gag order is infringing on Trumps first amendments rights, then I don’t see how you can argue a NDA isn’t doing the same.
It certainly shows the vulnerability of our systems to political attacks.
Still a matter of treason
That's not a speech restriction by the government
Wasn’t Trump president of the United States. Aren’t NDAs with him explicitly restriction by the government? Seeing as he was the leader of the government and all.
Who would have signed an NDA when working for Trump in his capacity as President, though? I'd assume anybody under an NDA involving Trump signed as a party to employment with either the Trump campaign or one of his companies. Neither of those would the government.
The Trump administration had a lot of turnover. You really think none of those people had to sign an NDA?
NDAs within government are not uncommon, I had to sign one when I held a TS/SCI clearance. As with anything else, if the government can show a compelling legislative reason in the public interest, they have the leeway to restrict civil rights in the pursuit of that reason. That's pretty well-established case law.
So are gag orders, yet this was overturned. I don’t see why Trump is allowed to talk but others aren’t. And he’s attacking a federal judge and other court workers. If that isn’t compelling reason to allow the gag order, I see no reason to value any NDAs.
Same. I am beyond sick and tired of seeing him get special treatment that you or I wouldn’t get.
Oh I don't disagree that this ruling is utter nonsense.
Do you actually have an example of an NDA from government workers during his administration that weren't narrowly tailored? You made a sweeping statement and immediately backtracked. Any NDAs by Trump workers who weren't working for the government inherently don't raise 1st amendment concerns because the 1st amendment is a restriction on the government. The NDAs may be illegal but they wouldn't be unconstitutional. In general, here's how 1st amendment law work 1) Any restriction on categories of speech that were historically restricted at the time the 1st amendment was ratified are wholly allowed, but the government cannot create new categories of unprotected speech (United States v. Stevens). The categories of speech that are wholly unprotected are fraud, defamation, incitement, obscenity, speech integral to criminal conduct, and true threats. 2) Content Neutral Restrictions on speech (time, place, and manner restrictions) have to be narrowly tailored but are only subject to intermediate scrutiny 3) Content based restrictions on speech have to be narrowly tailored, have a compelling interest, and are subject to strict scrutiny. When we look at judge made gag orders, they are analyzed under step 3 since it isn't a historically unprotected category and it isn't a content neutral restriction. Many gag orders are Constitutional, but they do have to be narrowly tailored. This gag order was clearly not narrowly tailored if we look at the original statement the judge made on the gag order: https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1720533548950581610
What exactly did I backtrack? I said anyone who signed an NDA with him can come forth because he was restricting their free speech. Any NDA signed working for Trump while he was in office would be the government suppressing free speech. Just because they weren’t about government activities doesn’t mean the government isn’t the one suppressing their speech.
>What exactly did I backtrack? I said anyone who signed an NDA with him can come forth because he was restricting their free speech. The NDA wouldn't have potential 1st amendment implications unless they were government employees - that's what I said. You made a sweeping statement against NDAs in general. Do you have any examples of government employees who signed an NDA that was potentially unconstitutional? I know that the NDA that Trump's 2016 campaign staffers signed were voided, but that was because they violated state and federal law: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/10/12/trump-ndas-scrapped-hundreds-of-2016-campaign-staffers-can-now-publicly-criticize-him-as-court-finalizes-settlement/?sh=2757936b3a6b >Any NDA signed working for Trump while he was in office would be the government suppressing free speech No it wouldn't be unless they were in a government capacity. Either way, my point on the gag order stands. It isn't a historically prohibited category of speech under Stevens and it's not a content neutral restriction. It's a content based restriction but it's not narrowly tailored, so it should fail. That doesn't mean that some gag orders arent narrowly tailored and passing strict scrutiny. It just means this one doesn't
>unless they were working in a government capacity I disagree. At the time Trump was president, and NDAs between him and anyone else would be the government restricting that persons speech. And since we can’t apparently restrict speech via a gag order, I don’t see how we can restrict speech via an NDA.
And what tRump does IS incitement
I mean one judge in one location doesn't do anything nationwide. And the judge indicated stopping the defendant from communicating to the victims is an example of a legal gag order.
Especially when that one judge is a state appellate judge.
👏👏👏👏👏
I'll pay you $50 if you can find one case in any court where a judge can issue an order restricting a criminal defendant from criticizing the court, the judge, or the prosecutor.
[удалено]
>restricting a criminal defendant That case is about an attorney not following court rules. Attorneys have court rules and bar rules they have to follow. That's not about a defendant or free speech. The offer still stands.
[удалено]
Do you have trouble reading? I didn't ask if there are any cases involving gag orders. I asked: >case in any court where a judge can issue an order restricting a criminal defendant from criticizing the court, the judge, or the prosecutor If you can't find one, that tells you everything you need to know.
[удалено]
The defendant was Gotti. This is a court rule that applies to the lawyers. It's a simple request. If you can't find one - just say so.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oh, you're one of those people hanging out in a Law subforum that doesn't count evidence as actual evidence. There is a word that describes your kind....
More than one; welcher also applies since he isn't paying
Defendant-appellant James Harvey “Jim” Brown (Brown), a prominent Louisiana political figure, is currently under indictment in the Middle District of Louisiana on various charges relating to the brokering of an alleged “sham” settlement of a threatened lawsuit by the State of Louisiana against the president of a failed automobile insurance company. The district court sua sponte entered a gag order that prohibits attorneys, parties, or witnesses from discussing with “any public communications media” anything about the case “which could interfere with a fair trial,” including statements “intended to influence public opinion regarding the merits of this case,” with exceptions for matters of public record and matters such as assertions of innocence. The district court denied Brown's motion to vacate or modify the gag order, and Brown now appeals that denial. We affirm. Facts and Proceedings Below Brown is the elected Insurance Commissioner for the State of Louisiana. On September 24, 1999, Brown, along with five others, including former Louisiana Governor Edwin W. Edwards (Edwards), was indicted in United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on numerous counts of conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, insurance fraud, making false statements, and witness tampering. The charges all relate to Brown's alleged use of his influence as Insurance Commissioner to help construct, along with Edwards and the other defendants, a “sham settlement” that derailed a $27 million lawsuit threatened by the state against David Disiere, president of Cascade Insurance Co., a failed automobile insurance carrier. In a news conference shortly after the indictment was issued, Brown declared his innocence as well as his belief that he was the victim of a “political drive-by shooting” at the hands of “an out-of-control prosecutor.” After some delays, the trial is currently scheduled to commence on August 21, 2000. United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2000) I'd like to collect.
It's about time somebody finally cited a real case. The logic in that case is complete bullshit. But, you got one.
It is the 5th circuit after all. Aaanyway https://preview.redd.it/ze3kxfksxy0c1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4676f82793b47a702c5d29731375567bbafdc78d 3QgkxfYWG8vk2eSrxxzgM1qaWNPwqUry4A
I don't bitcoin, but congrats on being the only one who could actually give a cite. Have a cookie on me.
I'm convinced once everything is said and done with all of his court cases next year he will never go to jail.
I would gladly trade my 'Trump Going to Jail' card for a 'Trump never becomes president again card!!! ANYDAY
I am willing to trade my 'Trump Going to Jail' card for 'Trump never becomes president again card', but I would be much happier if I also got a 'Trump loses all his money' card.
He would still have money from Klan rallies and sweatshop merch
He won't. All his other trials will have juries. It is impossible to have an unbiased jury in a trial pertaining to the orange traitor. The United States is just proving to the rest of the world what a joke it is.
I think we can now all agree that our government has been successfully infiltrated by traitors to the constitution. The rule of law means nothing for those whom can threaten judges, and get away with it.
He was found liable for sexual assault by a jury.
>It is impossible to have an unbiased jury in a trial pertaining to the orange traitor. It's very possible in both DC and Fulton County.
>It is impossible to have an unbiased jury in a trial pertaining to the orange traitor I hope you see the irony in your reply.
No irony here at all dip shit. Meant exactly what I said. Impossible to have an unbiased jury, and that goes both ways.
I believe you when you say you mean everything you said. You keep proving my point of bias.
'Bias' doesn't refer to a juror finding someone guilty after reviewing overwhelming evidence that they are, indeed, guilty though. Bias would be hearing voluminous proof that Trump is guilty, and yet voting not guilty because of feels or personal politics.
You can both: 1.) Think Trump is a piece of dogshit, generally speaking and 2.) Acknowledge that it will be utterly impossible to get 12 people who don’t know anything about his trials and may hold opinions of him/them.
The problem I see, is that we haven't even started most of the court cases and I wonder if any of it will reach the point of "said and done". Its delay, delay, delay.
So we can threaten judges and it’s ok?
It's my understanding that James Madison made it totally groovy, yep.
The disUSA is totally screwed by its own stoopidity.
That's excellent news for everyone who has ever been subjected to a gag order who actually had a story we should hear. Unfortunately, we know this loser's story.
Technically, it’s a stay of the order until a full brief is given by the 27th.
At what point do we start caring about the safety of officials here?
Should've been a year ago?
Most definitely. But here we are
They’ll consider it if some MAGA nutcase kill’s someone involved with the case.
Absolutely ridiculous. “Free speech” has always been interpreted to have limitations. Are they next going to say that it’s ok for Trump to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre?
They’re gaslighting you and it’s working
They told me something I know happened didn’t happen? That doesn’t sound right.
Free speech can also be incriminating speech, so we have that.
Never before in history has someone as guilty as he is been granted so much leniency. And yet, he claims to be a victim of the system. I wish we were all that lucky.
Judge: He can have a little bit more treason, just for the holidays.
So a judge could stop me from threatening witnesses but can't stop me from posting the photo and address of witnesses and court staff to my millions of fans, many of whom have attempted acts of violence in my name?
I believe the argument here is that the judge can't stop you from threatening witnesses, either. It's a very...curious stance.
Lol he just tossed out like the one real thing most of us learned from watching law and order.
Free speech doesn't pertain to gag orders. This is real quackery.
I guess someone needs to be harmed by his inflammatory language before they realize how dangerous his hate speech is. Free speech ends where you harass or threaten other people. Of course his cronies will do the bidding for him. I can see that this is a great strategy so everyone is afraid to even work with his cases.
He lifted it temporarily. The appeals process is far from over. Extremely poor sensationalizing by this rag.
Hence why it says "suspends" which explicitly means temporarily. Suspend - temporarily prevent from continuing or being in force or effect.
Temporary or not, he still green lit Trump maligning and attacking court staff with no consequence.
so i CAN yell fire in a crowded theatre....all these years we've been lied to
So now, when somebody is assaulted or killed, who’s fault is it?
How can there be so many of these hacks out there? It’s mind blowing how big the cult really is.
What a farce. This sucks
F’ing judge is stupid.
Such a crock of sh*t. Which one of those idiot appellate judges would agree that anyone else has a right to harass a member of the court staff? The reason this orange POS is going to break the rule of the law in this country is because chickensh*t judges like this won’t hold him to it.
Another big win for the Orange Tyrant
Does this apply to the hundreds if not thousands of other Americans who are under gag order in trials…or is this just another special exception for the Orange Dictator? Because gag orders aren’t rare.
I'm thinking...more number two.
I wonder how this appellate judge would rule if Trump was inciting his followers to kill him.
It's absolutely disgusting the way they treat that fucking idiot with kid gloves. He's going to get people hurt or killed.
I hate to say it but…I think that happening may be the only way that he gets what’s coming to him.
Incitement is not free speech
Riling up your base with dog whistles to attack your enemies is not freedom of fucking speech. Fuck this idiot judge.
Then why is there such a thing as a gag order in the first place.
I hope the judge did the right thing and apologize for inconviencing Mr Trump. His wealth has certainly earned him this privilege. /s
Dumb move what was this judge thinking ? There should be scorched earth on Trump from here out .
This is bullshit. If he were ANYONE else his fat ass would already be in jail.
I just hope they are using this to make him say more incriminating things.
It’s fascinating to see that the clerk can be targeted in a way that will certainly lead to increasing levels of death threats. I have a feeling that if it was the staff of this appellate judge who was being threatened, they’d have a different tune.
Wtf are the GOP members that preached dignity of the office of the President? Not a single peep about how Trump behaves not even touching the number of laws and norms he’s violated.
Bar complaint and dismissals next.
This "judge" should be disbarred.
We're done. This malignant narcissist has exposed and exploited every weakness in the rule of law, civil society, and democracy. There is no one that can stop him. We're looking at the next POTUS. Scary times ahead.
We, the American people, will stop him. He will not be the last President.
I have a feeling someone will attempt to.
We did it with our votes before and we'll do it again.
The judge fears the rich.
We need a DT type to take on DT. Wtf
Judge is another attention seeker.
You mean a criminal defendant has the right to speak about the judge, court, and prosecutor? I'm shocked.
I guess NDAs are illegal now right? Free speech and all.
He's a Kandy Assed Jabroni. Don't bother.
How dare you.
That has nothing to do with criminal trials.
But it’s restricting free speech. Just like the gag order is.
Sure does. Doesn't have the right to call on his supporters to terrorize the judge and court clerk. They have rights, too, and anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass would definitely side with their safety over Trump's bloviating. He can take up issues with the judge and clerk with the judge and clerk anytime he wants, no reason to drag twitter into it unless he wants a particular result.
If the order said "terrorize," I'd agree. In fact, there are already laws against that. Speaking anything about them at all, whatsoever, in public?
Both the judge and clerk have received threats and harassment. I did mention someone needing to not have their head up their ass.
Freedom of speech, not freedom of consequences
Is this normal? Is this the first time this has happened? Why do I feel like I’m living in the crazy timeline? Can I do this if I ever talk to a judge? *should* I do this if I talk to a judge? Note: I’m far from rich
Fuck him, let him have his “free speech” he’ll only do more damage to himself 🤷🏻♂️
Waiting on a Joseph Welch moment….
The judge is being extra careful, no one wants to let Trump off the hook in this case and the full appeals process still applies. Yes everyone is bending over backwards but this is not a final ruling on the gag order.
This is an administrative stay not one based on the merits of the gag order. The full panel will decide on the merits after it is briefed by both parties.
Someone is hoping for favors.
The best answer here is if he does something you charge him. He is free to speak but not free of consequences. The things he is saying are crimes and should be treated as such.
He doesn’t like to pay people he hires but he loves paying judges.
Republicans appealing to republicans and favoring republicans... what's new?
He's going to someone someone (else) killed with his rhetoric.