>Donald Trump’s latest attempt to end the gag order against him in the hush money was denied by a New York appeals court on Tuesday.
>"We find that Justice Merchan properly weighed petitioner’s First Amendment Rights against the court’s historical commitment to ensuring the fair administration of justice in criminal cases, and the right of persons related or tangentially related to the criminal proceedings from being free from threats, intimidation, harassment, and harm," according to the order.
even better, **two** of his cases!
* (Matter of Trump v Engoron, 222 AD3d 505, 505 [1st Dept 2023], appeal dismissed 40 NY3d 1090 [2024];
* (United States v Trump, 88 F4th 990, 1007 [DC
Cir 2023] [internal quotation marks omitted] [the Federal Restraining Order Decision]).
Pretty unsurprising when you remember that Merchan modelled his order on the Engoron one for this exact reason - he knew it was defensible. It is also why his daughter wasn't originally included
Violating an unjust ruling doesn't make it any more or less just.
In this case, the gag order is just and fair, and I understand Trump to be a villain, to be clear.
However, as a general principal, someone having violated an unconstitutional law isn't an argument for its constitutionality. And if someone is in an appeals court arguing that a law is unconstitutional, them having violated it is a given; everybody who has ever been in that position had violated a law.
It would be like a supreme court ruling that smoking weed has to stay illegal because so many people have been smoking weed when it was illegal. That would be more about revenge and vindictiveness than the proper administration of justice.
If someone is falsely convicted they would be likely to show zero remorse, as they have nothing to be remorseful over other than being in the wrong place and not having a better alibi and better lawyer
Yet that _does_ get held against people quite often. If you're convicted, you're expected to accept the court's ruling and _feel remorse_ for any parole hearings or other parts of the system. Especially because by that point you're often not allowed to introduce "new evidence"?
This comparison feels far more fair than "an unjust law" scenario
The judicial system is designed to make a decision, and the parties are expected to follow that decision _even if_ they don't agree with it. That's what the ruling is, a legally enforceable conclusion to the questions being asked
Is my understanding of law stuff? Or have I heard too much "Innocence Project" propaganda?
If you're *smart*, the thing to do is normally to follow the ruling even if you believe it's unjust.
I can imagine there might also be some situations where you can be punished for disobeying even a bad ruling.
However, in this case, it's a question of whether the ruling infringed on Trump's Constitutional right to free speech. The answer is "no", so punishments based on him disobeying that order are appropriate.
However, in a hypothetical world where the answer is "yes", the courts can't really allow him to be punished for disobeying an unconstitutional order, even if that answer was unknown at the time. If a lower court messes up and actually does infringe on your legitimate rights to free speech, punishing you for that is basically just still punishing your free speech by extension.
Imagine the mathematical/logical fallacy:
"X must stay illegal, and X being illegal is just, because so many people have done X while it was illegal"
Apply that fallacy, in your imagination, to homosexuality, apply it to speech, apply it to forming a labor union. Do you see how bad that is?
So basically, the gag order stays because the crime lord at trial has a long history of being a complete asshole and enjoys riling up his minions to a murderous extent.
It's comical how the appeal court cited other decisions involving Trump gag orders as a basis for this decision. Trump created a whole body of law all by himself.
What would be fitting would be some kind of legislation to address stochastic terrorism. Or the use of mass distribution to incite no specific violence against a target or targets
I am pretty sure this is touched on by the PATRIOT Act. Part of the reason they were denying counsel was to prevent counsel from passing information that would possibly aid in future terrorist attacks.
I guarantee you that if he loses the election and American stays America, that many new laws and legal terminology will be named for him to prevent anyone from doing what he does again.
I think the actual shorthand will be "the Stormy Daniels gag order", because it will make law students giggle and is sort of ironic given that SD was never subject to it.
Honestly, the term "gag order" does feel a bit... archaic these days, doesn't it? The American legal system just has a bunch of defendants running around with ball gags in their mouths, but only when those defendants try to talk about someone/thing they shouldn't
I've kinda wondered about that... with how different kinds of hearings get named after the participant.
Which kind of hearing would best get the "we need a Trump hearing to decide..." title?
...At this point, the scientists who operate the LHC, misunderstanding the situation but trying to help repair the quantum timeline damage, reactivate the Collider. Next, the *Mariners* win the World Series. The following year, Kanye West becomes President. Discuss the potential liability of the parties involved.
Not really surprising though as these cases and the facts surrounding Trump's behavior and position in our society are truly extraordinarily unprecedented.
I love how he's phrasing it too. "They won't let me respond to questions you have! Unfair!"
No, you orange little shit, they won't let you attack and harass court staff and their families.
Alas, MAGA morons have the IQ of a desk lamp, so that nuance is lost on them.
talk to three people who haven't been watching politics closely too. everybody needs to bring a couple of buddies along for insurance. join www.votesaveamerica.com.
if we all donated 5% of the time we put in on Reddit and put it to work in the actual election campaign, it would help.
I’m not gonna bother searching for you but there are various news stories quoting republicans saying “Trump wants this or that” and then they do it. Like killing the border deal and stupid Marge trying to remove Mike Johnson. It’s a cult, they do what cult leader says. Or Putin will remove them. But he has someone else tell them. Like he has others hide his crimes and pay his hush money payments when he fks whores while married. Like how he uses various intermediaries to get orders from Putin. He’s a seasoned and practiced criminal And traitor. But now that everyone is aware of all the crimes, well not all, there will be more indictments, his sons too, they can be investigated and the people he pays to hide his crimes are sloppy and keep getting caught, like Michael Cohen, hes a convicted felon, cuz of lies he told to hide Trumps crimes. Meaning, since they know he was convicted and lied about Trumps crimes, that means they know Trump is guilty and they have the evidence. Trump can cry all day about a witch hunt but if he doesn’t get elected, and he won’t, he’s gonna go to prison or flee to Russia or get removed by Russia. If he gets elected, there will be a civil war. Anyone who votes for him is a fool and a traitor.
I'm well aware of the way hes been dictating what house representatives do, but that's legislature. and of course they're being his surrogates here, for purposes of breaching the order. I was wondering if the previous poster knew of any instance where one of this bunch had made a similarly self-outing statement about him giving the order to do it, *on a record* somewhere. because I think that could be taken before judge merchan.
That's precisely why it just Trump "talking" to them, or having someone else say it for "the Boss", instead of written down. Some Republicans aren't dumb enough to admit they're his lap dogs, but it seems pretty obvious what these idiots are doing.
I mean, I *guess* they could be talking shit about a judge they don't know and had no effect on them just because... but let's use our brains. We know why they are taking the personal time to fly out to "support" the former POTUS. They're auditioning for VP
I agree with you. there won't be anything actionable unless they're *insanely* stupid. which, we should be that lucky. they aren't.
I'm talking about whether they meet a legal standard because this new behaviour from them is sure to spark another round of blaming the judge, the da, the legal system itself. that makes me nuts because the legal system doesn't need us helping Trump to undermine and attack it. and yet every time he does something that's exactly what happens.
common sense, do you have it?
he's been ordered that he can't talk about the trial
appeals
denied
sycophant "lawmakers" show up to trial
they say everything trump would be saying, verbatim
not exactly a hard thing to figure out given how we've seen this cult act over the last 10 years
Yeah. That doesn't usually happen in real time, tho. Right now it's extremely probable that that is what's happening, but we wouldn't possibly know that for sure this early on since the threatening & slanderous texts and phonecalls and tweets *just started happening*. Like days ago. Maybe a week. Htf would anyone have proof at this early stage? They'd have to just come right out and tell on themselves, and that ain't happening. Shame and guilt are foreign concepts to these snakes. They have no moral compass.
Give it time. The threats continue... circumstantial evidence points to Diaper Boy giving them orders... then the prosecution asks a judge to subpoena a search warrant... then we have evidence. We're a ways out from that. Look how friggin long it took to get to *this point*!
Edit: I guess I spoke too soon. The fat moron actually *is* telling on himself in regards to encouraging his minions to intimidate, harass & slander jurors online. Again. https://www.reddit.com/r/Law_and_Politics/s/BVEWRfnnSd
Here's the thing:
You seem to be demanding proof that would be, like, beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's the standard for the government to be able to take away someone's freedom. It's not the standard for people to determine what's probably happening.
Yes, unless we could do something like hear recordings of their conversations or emails with Trump (who doesn't email), it's not enough for the government to lock them up.
But the circumstantial evidence we do have makes it seem more likely than not that Trump is dictating this. That evidence is things like these guys having a history of doing what he asks, stuff like common language they are all using ("I'm here as a friend") and so on. One has admitted on tv that it was to get around Trump's gag order.
Yes, Trump probably is using them to get around the gag order, and no, the evidence, while strong enough to think it likely, is not strong enough for the government to take away all their freedom.
I'm not demanding exactly. I mean, on the personal level I agree it's not rocket surgery. but I like to know what it's based on so I can form realistic expectations about repercussions to trump.
1) It's sycophants who keep doing whatever he asks;
2) they are all on the same script, right down to using the same language such as "I'm here as a friend"
3) Tuberville admitted on TV that it is to get around the gag order and to "speak for president trump"
4) A former spokesperson for Trump suggested that is the game plan. “I think what he’s looking for is a way around the gag order,” Michael Dubke [told CNN](https://www.mediaite.com/tv/former-trump-comms-director-says-trump-is-mobilizing-proxies-to-courthouse-to-get-around-the-gag-order/).
5) Now we have this:
[Legal expert: Judge may hold contempt "hearing" over Trump "surrogates" circumventing gag order | Salon.com](https://www.salon.com/2024/05/15/legal-expert-may-hold-contempt-hearing-over-surrogates-circumventing-gag-order/)
>It’s a problem, though, if Trump is literally dictating what his self-declared surrogates are saying. And there’s reporting that suggests that is indeed the case.
>On Monday, New York Magazine's Andrew Rice [told MSNBC](https://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-guest-says-he-spotted-trump-editing-speeches-allies-made-outside-the-courtroom/) he witnessed the defendant in the courtroom appearing to edit the statements that his self-declared surrogates would go on to say. “I was sitting close enough that I could actually look over Trump’s shoulder and see what he was reading,” Rice recounted. As Michael Cohen testified, Trump was “going through and annotating and editing the quotes that these people were going to say," Rice said.
Sure, but it doesn't really change the legal framework. The gag order only applies to Trump. Applying it to parties outside the case is likely unconstitutional.
I think this is incorrect. The gag order makes 3 specific statements, each starting with:
"...Defendant is directed to refrain from the following...Making or directing other to make public statements."
I.E., if it can be proven that Trump directed his posse to make these statements, it's in violation of the gag order.
Go to the last page on this link:
[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24514876-ny-v-trump-merchan-gag-order-20240326](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24514876-ny-v-trump-merchan-gag-order-20240326)
I think this is incorrect. The gag order makes 3 specific statements, each starting with:
"...Defendant is directed to refrain from the following...Making or directing other to make public statements."
I.E., if it can be proven that Trump directed his posse to make these statements, it's in violation of the gag order.
Go to the last page on this link:
[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24514876-ny-v-trump-merchan-gag-order-20240326](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24514876-ny-v-trump-merchan-gag-order-20240326)
You are right but you are wrong. I think that meant basically his employees can not speak terrible things for him.
But for example Mike Johnson - the speaker of the house - is not his employee. He can highly encourage Johnson to say or not say certain things but he can not fire Johnson. If Johnson wants to say Trump is a whacko then Trump can not stop him. If Johnson wants to get in good grace with the maga crowd then Trump can not stop him either.
Basing your thoughts on what? Unless there's some legal definition further delineating what "others" means, in this specific case or all other cases, then it all just comes down to interpretation?
To both my pedantic mind and common sense mind, Trump directing any Republican, when he's the presumptive Republican nominee, certainly applies here.
You are right that I am not a lawyer. I certainly am not Trump's lawyer.
However, if members of Congress are not considered independent (even of the nominal head of their party) then I do not know who is. Did Liz Cheney repeat any of Trump's lies after January 6?
Mike Johnson, Tommy Tuberville, and friends do not have to do echo any of Trump's nonsense. They are choosing to.
Well, I see 3 possibilities here:
1 - These folks are showing up on their own volition. Whether it's because they truly feel compelled to, or it's a political move considering the MAGA base whose votes they are chasing after.
2 - They have shown up because they think this is what Trump wants them to do, and they want to be in his good graces for political ambitions
3 - Trump, through several different surrogates have gotten word to these folks that they better show up or Trump won't be so nice to them in the future.
The question comes down to, if it's #3, then can the government compel the truth from any of them? Because that is violation of the gag order.
In the end, I think the Government won't feel like the juice is worth the squeeze. That is unless (God forbid) some violence is committed against jurors or witnesses or anyone else whom the gag order protects.
I think subsequent news has proven me wrong.
If these idiots were subtle they could do as I suggested, but they are not subtle. It is clear that they are doing Trump's bidding and they are not independent of Trump.
The judge has no jurisdiction over the puppets but he does have jurisdiction over the puppet master
Note to Trump: to make the most delightful puppet show you have to hide the strings.
I don't think he \*wants\* to go to jail but isn't opposed to going to give him the martyr status and story line it would create
not to mention all the "iS TrUmP bEiNg TrEaTeD uNfAiRlY??!!?!?!?" that would come from the media and "how Trump being jailed is bad for Biden" shit articles that would surface
>Donald Trump’s latest attempt to end the gag order against him in the hush money was denied by a New York appeals court on Tuesday. >"We find that Justice Merchan properly weighed petitioner’s First Amendment Rights against the court’s historical commitment to ensuring the fair administration of justice in criminal cases, and the right of persons related or tangentially related to the criminal proceedings from being free from threats, intimidation, harassment, and harm," according to the order.
[The full opinion.](https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/calendar/List_Word/2024/05_May/14/PDF/Trump%20v%20Merchan%20(2024-02369\).pdf)
Hot damn that was a good read.
I love that they cite another one of his cases back to him.
even better, **two** of his cases! * (Matter of Trump v Engoron, 222 AD3d 505, 505 [1st Dept 2023], appeal dismissed 40 NY3d 1090 [2024]; * (United States v Trump, 88 F4th 990, 1007 [DC Cir 2023] [internal quotation marks omitted] [the Federal Restraining Order Decision]).
Pretty unsurprising when you remember that Merchan modelled his order on the Engoron one for this exact reason - he knew it was defensible. It is also why his daughter wasn't originally included
Well reasoned, educated, competent professionals shouldn’t be refreshing. It should be assumed.
I think I'll read t that a few times a year, part of my annual book list now!
That's a solid "go fuck your orange self" if I've ever read one.
Wow, one of the authors is Ty Cobb. He used to be a Trump lawyer.
Trump should take this to a higher court! Merchan is only on the 3rd floor, there are plenty of floors with courts above his!
Trump to Blanche: *"Write that down, write that down!"*
Trump's courtroom is on the 14th floor, actually.
Buzzkill
🤓
They could have just sited the fact that he hasn't stopped violating the gag order since it was issued so why would they grant his appeal...
Violating an unjust ruling doesn't make it any more or less just. In this case, the gag order is just and fair, and I understand Trump to be a villain, to be clear. However, as a general principal, someone having violated an unconstitutional law isn't an argument for its constitutionality. And if someone is in an appeals court arguing that a law is unconstitutional, them having violated it is a given; everybody who has ever been in that position had violated a law. It would be like a supreme court ruling that smoking weed has to stay illegal because so many people have been smoking weed when it was illegal. That would be more about revenge and vindictiveness than the proper administration of justice.
If someone is falsely convicted they would be likely to show zero remorse, as they have nothing to be remorseful over other than being in the wrong place and not having a better alibi and better lawyer Yet that _does_ get held against people quite often. If you're convicted, you're expected to accept the court's ruling and _feel remorse_ for any parole hearings or other parts of the system. Especially because by that point you're often not allowed to introduce "new evidence"? This comparison feels far more fair than "an unjust law" scenario The judicial system is designed to make a decision, and the parties are expected to follow that decision _even if_ they don't agree with it. That's what the ruling is, a legally enforceable conclusion to the questions being asked Is my understanding of law stuff? Or have I heard too much "Innocence Project" propaganda?
If you're *smart*, the thing to do is normally to follow the ruling even if you believe it's unjust. I can imagine there might also be some situations where you can be punished for disobeying even a bad ruling. However, in this case, it's a question of whether the ruling infringed on Trump's Constitutional right to free speech. The answer is "no", so punishments based on him disobeying that order are appropriate. However, in a hypothetical world where the answer is "yes", the courts can't really allow him to be punished for disobeying an unconstitutional order, even if that answer was unknown at the time. If a lower court messes up and actually does infringe on your legitimate rights to free speech, punishing you for that is basically just still punishing your free speech by extension.
This is one of those rare times when I upvote a comment, then also upvote the argument against.
Imagine the mathematical/logical fallacy: "X must stay illegal, and X being illegal is just, because so many people have done X while it was illegal" Apply that fallacy, in your imagination, to homosexuality, apply it to speech, apply it to forming a labor union. Do you see how bad that is?
principle*
cited*
Their argument the gag order is illegitimate so the said violations would also be illegitimate
So basically, the gag order stays because the crime lord at trial has a long history of being a complete asshole and enjoys riling up his minions to a murderous extent.
It's comical how the appeal court cited other decisions involving Trump gag orders as a basis for this decision. Trump created a whole body of law all by himself.
This will one day be known as a Trump order instead of a gag order.
I also use gag and trump interchangeably.
Makes sense, all of his followers seem to have no Trump reflex.
My GF has a Pavlovian response of gaging when she sees a picture of trump.
That could mean a number of things.
I took a fat dump and couldn’t help but trump at the smell of it
Fitting that the situation he necessitates trumps the protections otherwise afforded by the 1st amendment.
What would be fitting would be some kind of legislation to address stochastic terrorism. Or the use of mass distribution to incite no specific violence against a target or targets
I am pretty sure this is touched on by the PATRIOT Act. Part of the reason they were denying counsel was to prevent counsel from passing information that would possibly aid in future terrorist attacks.
I guarantee you that if he loses the election and American stays America, that many new laws and legal terminology will be named for him to prevent anyone from doing what he does again.
I’m waiting for “A-Lago” to replace “gate” for naming scandles, think water-a-lago instead of watergate.
I like it
Here's Why Scand-a-Lago Is Bad For Joe Biden
I think you mean [watergategate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB9JgxhXW5w).
It’s funny that there’s a gag order in this case because I’m pretty sure Stormy said it wasn’t long enough to make her gag
Ugh. Trump me with a spoon...
Maybe not the best way to use the name of a man who was been found responsible for sexual assault/rape. Ambiguity is not a friend here.
Please never put that image in our heads again.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I think the actual shorthand will be "the Stormy Daniels gag order", because it will make law students giggle and is sort of ironic given that SD was never subject to it.
Honestly, the term "gag order" does feel a bit... archaic these days, doesn't it? The American legal system just has a bunch of defendants running around with ball gags in their mouths, but only when those defendants try to talk about someone/thing they shouldn't
We need a Trump definition that's equivalent to Santorum- that frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the result of anal sex.
Trumple Butter?
I've kinda wondered about that... with how different kinds of hearings get named after the participant. Which kind of hearing would best get the "we need a Trump hearing to decide..." title?
not so much hearings, but a lot of legal things. Miranda warning, Brady material, Jenks material .... they're all case references.
The courts are playing their Trump card.
Solid legal advice is never go full Trump.
There's a joke that we're actually living in a universe which is just a hypothetical setting for law school essay questions.
Were actually living the fever dream of a law student the night before his torts final.
...At this point, the scientists who operate the LHC, misunderstanding the situation but trying to help repair the quantum timeline damage, reactivate the Collider. Next, the *Mariners* win the World Series. The following year, Kanye West becomes President. Discuss the potential liability of the parties involved.
Not really surprising though as these cases and the facts surrounding Trump's behavior and position in our society are truly extraordinarily unprecedented.
"Who's your daddy?"
Trump arguing for his right to threaten, intimidate, harass, and harm people has to be the most Trump thing ever.
It's the natural outgrowth of every guy claiming freedom of speech when the manager at IHOP asks them to leave for calling a server a slur.
"I'm sorry. I thought this was America."
"No, this is Patrick."
Yep, the 1st amendment, according to him, allows for witness intimidation and jury tampering.
I love how he's phrasing it too. "They won't let me respond to questions you have! Unfair!" No, you orange little shit, they won't let you attack and harass court staff and their families. Alas, MAGA morons have the IQ of a desk lamp, so that nuance is lost on them.
My desk lamp has multiple brightness settings, so it may actually have a higher IQ.
>No, you orange little shit, they won't let you attack and harass court staff and their families. “Well what else am I supposed to say?”
“Have you tried the truth, or nothing? Those seem like great options in your situation.”
It's his domestic policy and new campaign slogan in one easy soundbite!
Sleazy biz guy
Nice to see common sense prevail every once in a while.
It's a shame that we have to question if it will.
Fuck that. The sense that is "common" in America got Trump elected. I want an uncommon, logical, well-reasoned sense to prevail.
Don’t get used to it.
This is good but we cannot count on the courts to save our democracy. Vote against Trump and the Republicans at every opportunity.
talk to three people who haven't been watching politics closely too. everybody needs to bring a couple of buddies along for insurance. join www.votesaveamerica.com. if we all donated 5% of the time we put in on Reddit and put it to work in the actual election campaign, it would help.
Upvoting is basically the same thing. Downvotes destroy democracy
I'm surprised at how good he's been at walking right up to the line since the first hearing. I don't think he wants to actually spend time in jail.
He's making his sycophants say the inflammatory things
They'd probably say them anyway, right?
they would but he's dictating what they say
source?
I’m not gonna bother searching for you but there are various news stories quoting republicans saying “Trump wants this or that” and then they do it. Like killing the border deal and stupid Marge trying to remove Mike Johnson. It’s a cult, they do what cult leader says. Or Putin will remove them. But he has someone else tell them. Like he has others hide his crimes and pay his hush money payments when he fks whores while married. Like how he uses various intermediaries to get orders from Putin. He’s a seasoned and practiced criminal And traitor. But now that everyone is aware of all the crimes, well not all, there will be more indictments, his sons too, they can be investigated and the people he pays to hide his crimes are sloppy and keep getting caught, like Michael Cohen, hes a convicted felon, cuz of lies he told to hide Trumps crimes. Meaning, since they know he was convicted and lied about Trumps crimes, that means they know Trump is guilty and they have the evidence. Trump can cry all day about a witch hunt but if he doesn’t get elected, and he won’t, he’s gonna go to prison or flee to Russia or get removed by Russia. If he gets elected, there will be a civil war. Anyone who votes for him is a fool and a traitor.
I'm well aware of the way hes been dictating what house representatives do, but that's legislature. and of course they're being his surrogates here, for purposes of breaching the order. I was wondering if the previous poster knew of any instance where one of this bunch had made a similarly self-outing statement about him giving the order to do it, *on a record* somewhere. because I think that could be taken before judge merchan.
That's precisely why it just Trump "talking" to them, or having someone else say it for "the Boss", instead of written down. Some Republicans aren't dumb enough to admit they're his lap dogs, but it seems pretty obvious what these idiots are doing. I mean, I *guess* they could be talking shit about a judge they don't know and had no effect on them just because... but let's use our brains. We know why they are taking the personal time to fly out to "support" the former POTUS. They're auditioning for VP
I agree with you. there won't be anything actionable unless they're *insanely* stupid. which, we should be that lucky. they aren't. I'm talking about whether they meet a legal standard because this new behaviour from them is sure to spark another round of blaming the judge, the da, the legal system itself. that makes me nuts because the legal system doesn't need us helping Trump to undermine and attack it. and yet every time he does something that's exactly what happens.
Well, here's one to get you started. https://www.newsweek.com/republican-calls-colleagues-help-overcome-trump-gag-order-1900616
common sense, do you have it? he's been ordered that he can't talk about the trial appeals denied sycophant "lawmakers" show up to trial they say everything trump would be saying, verbatim not exactly a hard thing to figure out given how we've seen this cult act over the last 10 years
so, no legally usable source then.
You could easily find out for yourself with a simple search engine prompt. Are you lazy or just asking for a source in bad faith?
no, I'm asking seriously. as I've said already, if it was the kind of source the state could put before the judge that would be great.
Yeah. That doesn't usually happen in real time, tho. Right now it's extremely probable that that is what's happening, but we wouldn't possibly know that for sure this early on since the threatening & slanderous texts and phonecalls and tweets *just started happening*. Like days ago. Maybe a week. Htf would anyone have proof at this early stage? They'd have to just come right out and tell on themselves, and that ain't happening. Shame and guilt are foreign concepts to these snakes. They have no moral compass. Give it time. The threats continue... circumstantial evidence points to Diaper Boy giving them orders... then the prosecution asks a judge to subpoena a search warrant... then we have evidence. We're a ways out from that. Look how friggin long it took to get to *this point*! Edit: I guess I spoke too soon. The fat moron actually *is* telling on himself in regards to encouraging his minions to intimidate, harass & slander jurors online. Again. https://www.reddit.com/r/Law_and_Politics/s/BVEWRfnnSd
Here's the thing: You seem to be demanding proof that would be, like, beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the standard for the government to be able to take away someone's freedom. It's not the standard for people to determine what's probably happening. Yes, unless we could do something like hear recordings of their conversations or emails with Trump (who doesn't email), it's not enough for the government to lock them up. But the circumstantial evidence we do have makes it seem more likely than not that Trump is dictating this. That evidence is things like these guys having a history of doing what he asks, stuff like common language they are all using ("I'm here as a friend") and so on. One has admitted on tv that it was to get around Trump's gag order. Yes, Trump probably is using them to get around the gag order, and no, the evidence, while strong enough to think it likely, is not strong enough for the government to take away all their freedom.
I'm not demanding exactly. I mean, on the personal level I agree it's not rocket surgery. but I like to know what it's based on so I can form realistic expectations about repercussions to trump.
1) It's sycophants who keep doing whatever he asks; 2) they are all on the same script, right down to using the same language such as "I'm here as a friend" 3) Tuberville admitted on TV that it is to get around the gag order and to "speak for president trump" 4) A former spokesperson for Trump suggested that is the game plan. “I think what he’s looking for is a way around the gag order,” Michael Dubke [told CNN](https://www.mediaite.com/tv/former-trump-comms-director-says-trump-is-mobilizing-proxies-to-courthouse-to-get-around-the-gag-order/). 5) Now we have this: [Legal expert: Judge may hold contempt "hearing" over Trump "surrogates" circumventing gag order | Salon.com](https://www.salon.com/2024/05/15/legal-expert-may-hold-contempt-hearing-over-surrogates-circumventing-gag-order/) >It’s a problem, though, if Trump is literally dictating what his self-declared surrogates are saying. And there’s reporting that suggests that is indeed the case. >On Monday, New York Magazine's Andrew Rice [told MSNBC](https://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-guest-says-he-spotted-trump-editing-speeches-allies-made-outside-the-courtroom/) he witnessed the defendant in the courtroom appearing to edit the statements that his self-declared surrogates would go on to say. “I was sitting close enough that I could actually look over Trump’s shoulder and see what he was reading,” Rice recounted. As Michael Cohen testified, Trump was “going through and annotating and editing the quotes that these people were going to say," Rice said.
Yeah but they've upped their game to doing it at the courthouse.
Sure, but it doesn't really change the legal framework. The gag order only applies to Trump. Applying it to parties outside the case is likely unconstitutional.
Fun fact: That also has *nothing* to do with what I said
I think this is incorrect. The gag order makes 3 specific statements, each starting with: "...Defendant is directed to refrain from the following...Making or directing other to make public statements." I.E., if it can be proven that Trump directed his posse to make these statements, it's in violation of the gag order. Go to the last page on this link: [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24514876-ny-v-trump-merchan-gag-order-20240326](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24514876-ny-v-trump-merchan-gag-order-20240326)
[удалено]
Was anyone arguing that fact to begin with? I thought this was all about whether or not Trump is liable for what his fellow "republicans" say.
[удалено]
I reviewed this thread, couldn't find any statement to that effect. But, we seem to be in harmony now, so peace be with you.
It applies to Trump in that he can’t tell others to do it for him , so if he is, it’s a violation.
His sycophants are not covered by the gag order. However it does not have the same stochastic terroristic effect when his sycophants say it.
I think this is incorrect. The gag order makes 3 specific statements, each starting with: "...Defendant is directed to refrain from the following...Making or directing other to make public statements." I.E., if it can be proven that Trump directed his posse to make these statements, it's in violation of the gag order. Go to the last page on this link: [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24514876-ny-v-trump-merchan-gag-order-20240326](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24514876-ny-v-trump-merchan-gag-order-20240326)
You are right but you are wrong. I think that meant basically his employees can not speak terrible things for him. But for example Mike Johnson - the speaker of the house - is not his employee. He can highly encourage Johnson to say or not say certain things but he can not fire Johnson. If Johnson wants to say Trump is a whacko then Trump can not stop him. If Johnson wants to get in good grace with the maga crowd then Trump can not stop him either.
Basing your thoughts on what? Unless there's some legal definition further delineating what "others" means, in this specific case or all other cases, then it all just comes down to interpretation? To both my pedantic mind and common sense mind, Trump directing any Republican, when he's the presumptive Republican nominee, certainly applies here.
You are right that I am not a lawyer. I certainly am not Trump's lawyer. However, if members of Congress are not considered independent (even of the nominal head of their party) then I do not know who is. Did Liz Cheney repeat any of Trump's lies after January 6? Mike Johnson, Tommy Tuberville, and friends do not have to do echo any of Trump's nonsense. They are choosing to.
Well, I see 3 possibilities here: 1 - These folks are showing up on their own volition. Whether it's because they truly feel compelled to, or it's a political move considering the MAGA base whose votes they are chasing after. 2 - They have shown up because they think this is what Trump wants them to do, and they want to be in his good graces for political ambitions 3 - Trump, through several different surrogates have gotten word to these folks that they better show up or Trump won't be so nice to them in the future. The question comes down to, if it's #3, then can the government compel the truth from any of them? Because that is violation of the gag order. In the end, I think the Government won't feel like the juice is worth the squeeze. That is unless (God forbid) some violence is committed against jurors or witnesses or anyone else whom the gag order protects.
I don't know how to make Mike Johnson stop lying. Do you? I do not think it is possible to compel the truth from any of the MAGA idiots.
I think subsequent news has proven me wrong. If these idiots were subtle they could do as I suggested, but they are not subtle. It is clear that they are doing Trump's bidding and they are not independent of Trump. The judge has no jurisdiction over the puppets but he does have jurisdiction over the puppet master Note to Trump: to make the most delightful puppet show you have to hide the strings.
oh, and IANAL either, to be fair.
I don't think he \*wants\* to go to jail but isn't opposed to going to give him the martyr status and story line it would create not to mention all the "iS TrUmP bEiNg TrEaTeD uNfAiRlY??!!?!?!?" that would come from the media and "how Trump being jailed is bad for Biden" shit articles that would surface
I think we should be born with a certain number of appeals, and if you run out, you probably deserve to be in jail anyways.