The alleged lawfare wouldn't have to happen if Trump had not obstructed the government in his efforts to keep documents that belonged to us, not him.
TRUMP 2024
594,476 Views |
7039 Replies |
Last: 10 hrs ago by packgrad
Wufskins said:
The alleged lawfare wouldn't have to happen if Trump had not obstructed the government in his efforts to keep documents that belonged to us, not him.
Exactly.
For those crying "LAWFARE!!!!11" did Trump obstruct the documents' return?
Do you disagree that he obstructed, or do you just not care?
Yes to both. Presidents since time began have taken documents when they left office. What Trump did is no different. Besides the FBI could have retrieved the documents at any time but in order to push this into the courts they or someone made the decision not to.
When you look at this from a nonpartisan viewpoint, which I know is hard from some, NARA could have designated Mar-a-Lago as a depository for these documents the same way they did the empty unguarded warehouse in Chicago for Dear Leader's documents.
Oh, and I really don't care. But perhaps out of all of this we'll get precise details of what a President must do in order to declassify a document. Can they just wave their magic wand and declassify all but a few exceptions. Can they merely think about it and not tell anyone. Or will we finally get actual actions that a President must take to declassify. Also, what documents can be considered a President's private stash when leaving office and what must be left behind. Then as the staff is packing up the documents they'll know what to include and what to leave out. And let's be honest here Trump didn't pack a single box. I doubt he even opened the boxes to look at the contents. I suspect he didn't have a clue what was in the boxes. This became his Quixote moment where he was going to fight for a concept. Yes he's his own worst enemy but perhaps some good will come out of all this.
When you look at this from a nonpartisan viewpoint, which I know is hard from some, NARA could have designated Mar-a-Lago as a depository for these documents the same way they did the empty unguarded warehouse in Chicago for Dear Leader's documents.
Oh, and I really don't care. But perhaps out of all of this we'll get precise details of what a President must do in order to declassify a document. Can they just wave their magic wand and declassify all but a few exceptions. Can they merely think about it and not tell anyone. Or will we finally get actual actions that a President must take to declassify. Also, what documents can be considered a President's private stash when leaving office and what must be left behind. Then as the staff is packing up the documents they'll know what to include and what to leave out. And let's be honest here Trump didn't pack a single box. I doubt he even opened the boxes to look at the contents. I suspect he didn't have a clue what was in the boxes. This became his Quixote moment where he was going to fight for a concept. Yes he's his own worst enemy but perhaps some good will come out of all this.
Wufskins said:
The alleged lawfare wouldn't have to happen if Trump had not obstructed the government in his efforts to keep documents that belonged to us, not him.
With what has been unredacted recently there is actually an argument now that the boxes may have been "planted" by the government. I don't want to believe that smith would do that but there is a lot of shady things that are now coming out that has happened. A LOT of coincidental bs going on.
Thoughts/prayers for the TDS crew. Looking like blind sheep yet again.
Maybe next time!!!!
Maybe next time!!!!
barelypure said:
Yes to both. Presidents since time began have taken documents when they left office. What Trump did is no different. Besides the FBI could have retrieved the documents at any time but in order to push this into the courts they or someone made the decision not to.
When you look at this from a nonpartisan viewpoint, which I know is hard from some, NARA could have designated Mar-a-Lago as a depository for these documents the same way they did the empty unguarded warehouse in Chicago for Dear Leader's documents.
Oh, and I really don't care. But perhaps out of all of this we'll get precise details of what a President must do in order to declassify a document. Can they just wave their magic wand and declassify all but a few exceptions. Can they merely think about it and not tell anyone. Or will we finally get actual actions that a President must take to declassify. Also, what documents can be considered a President's private stash when leaving office and what must be left behind. Then as the staff is packing up the documents they'll know what to include and what to leave out. And let's be honest here Trump didn't pack a single box. I doubt he even opened the boxes to look at the contents. I suspect he didn't have a clue what was in the boxes. This became his Quixote moment where he was going to fight for a concept. Yes he's his own worst enemy but perhaps some good will come out of all this.
Nice try.
Trump's not in trouble for taking the documents.
He's in trouble for not returning them after being asked umpteen times to do so.
No other President has been unable or unwilling to returns docs like he was.
His own staff warned him that he could be indicted if he didn't return the docs and he ignored that warning too.
Trump just does whatever he wants and doesn't think the rules apply to him. You **** around with enough bulls, eventually you're going to get the horns. He's got nobody to blame but himself.
Ncsufist said:Wufskins said:
The alleged lawfare wouldn't have to happen if Trump had not obstructed the government in his efforts to keep documents that belonged to us, not him.
With what has been unredacted recently there is actually an argument now that the boxes may have been "planted" by the government. I don't want to believe that smith would do that but there is a lot of shady things that are now coming out that has happened. A LOT of coincidental bs going on.
Wouldn't Trump be screaming from the rooftops if he didn't have those boxes and they got planted?
C'mon now.
You forget when he said the fbi planted the evidence? I doubt he had any idea what was in the boxes the feds sent over to him from the dc storage warehouse.
As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Ncsufist said:
You forget when he said the fbi planted the evidence? I doubt he had any idea what was in the boxes the feds sent over to him from the dc storage warehouse.
No, what he said was this
Quote:
"Everyone was asked to leave the premises, they wanted to be alone," he wrote, "without any witnesses to see what they were doing, taking or, hopefully not, 'planting.'"
So he said nothing, basically. He said he hoped they weren't planting evidence.
Just another baseless attempt to discredit something that he thinks may turn out poorly for himself down the road, same as he always does.
It's the classified docs version of the fake "election fraud". He can't ever just lose. He either wins, or someone else cheated. There are no other options in his pea brain.
caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
Civilized said:Ncsufist said:
You forget when he said the fbi planted the evidence? I doubt he had any idea what was in the boxes the feds sent over to him from the dc storage warehouse.
No, what he said was thisQuote:
"Everyone was asked to leave the premises, they wanted to be alone," he wrote, "without any witnesses to see what they were doing, taking or, hopefully not, 'planting.'"
So he said nothing, basically. He said he hoped they weren't planting evidence.
Just another baseless attempt to discredit something that he thinks may turn out poorly for himself down the road, same as he always does.
It's the classified docs version of the fake "election fraud". He can't ever just lose. He either wins, or someone else cheated. There are no other options in his pea brain.
Trump isn't the first defendant to be issued a gag order. A defendant with as big a microphone that Trump has isn't allowed to intimidate members of the jury or any witnesses. He's teetered that line a number of times. He's allowed to smear the Judge and he certainly has, but the other stuff nobody would get away with what he's been allowed to get away with.
SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
I can't keep all his trials straight for obvious reasons but is he appealing all his gags or just the Jack Smith one?
Courts seem to have leaned into the First Amendment pretty heavily on the topic of gags.
I think the state has the burden of demonstrating there is sufficient risk of the fairness of the trial being in jeopardy if the gag is not issued, right? They also can't be overly broad so as not to excessively restrict speech, etc.
I think Trump has insulted the judge and judge's staff moreso than witnesses, but you could clearly make the case that such threats/harassment even of non-witnesses or jurors set a threatening tone, and jurors' and witnesses' ability to weigh in fairly may be impacted if they don't want to become the next harassment victim in Trump's crosshairs.
I'll be interested to hear the arguments and outcome if/when the gag order topic does ever go before an apellate judge.
Let's talk about the "trials."
Looking forward to the comeback on this one.....
- Trial 1: NY vs. Trump - NY changed the law in order to file felony charges against President Trump. Sleepy Joe's #3 guy at the DOJ leaves in order to join the NYC DA's office.... the judge is a staunch Democrat. His daughter runs a PAC that donates to the DNC democrats. Judge gags President Trump from commenting on that or anything that is negative against the trial against him. Bans evidence that will help President Trump. Key witness is on TikTok constantly ripping on President Trump, making money off of his posts, is a convicted with time served felon for lying and is profiting personally off of this.
- Trial 2: Fani Willis.... well, we all know this is a joke. She has a room temperature IQ and is nothing but a mouthy entitled, black female with zero respect for law and order. She is where she is because of her mouth and the voters that support that genre.
- Trial 3: It has been put on pause because of "planting of evidence." Wonder why?
Looking forward to the comeback on this one.....
BIG. This comes the day after @Jim_Jordan exposed Jack Smith’s failures with the classified documents. https://t.co/v7O3kNuRNk pic.twitter.com/7FNmTVJpM5
— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) May 7, 2024
I trust Mike Davis, even if he is a partisan hack, over you, any day of the week…SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
Sorry, your understanding of the Constitution was thrown out many times, with your post…. You have no idea what the Constitution says and means!! FACT!!
https://www.mediamatters.org/media/4019032
Lmao
Civilized said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
I can't keep all his trials straight for obvious reasons but is he appealing all his gags or just the Jack Smith one?
Courts seem to have leaned into the First Amendment pretty heavily on the topic of gags.
I think the state has the burden of demonstrating there is sufficient risk of the fairness of the trial being in jeopardy if the gag is not issued, right? They also can't be overly broad so as not to excessively restrict speech, etc.
I think Trump has insulted the judge and judge's staff moreso than witnesses, but you could clearly make the case that such threats/harassment even of non-witnesses or jurors set a threatening tone, and jurors' and witnesses' ability to weigh in fairly may be impacted if they don't want to become the next harassment victim in Trump's crosshairs.
I'll be interested to hear the arguments and outcome if/when the gag order topic does ever go before an apellate judge.
Cohen (witness) is blabbing all over, badmouthing Trump and soliciting gifts on TikTok. Inexcusable Trump is the only one with a gag order. The judge is far from impartial.
packofwolves said:Civilized said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
I can't keep all his trials straight for obvious reasons but is he appealing all his gags or just the Jack Smith one?
Courts seem to have leaned into the First Amendment pretty heavily on the topic of gags.
I think the state has the burden of demonstrating there is sufficient risk of the fairness of the trial being in jeopardy if the gag is not issued, right? They also can't be overly broad so as not to excessively restrict speech, etc.
I think Trump has insulted the judge and judge's staff moreso than witnesses, but you could clearly make the case that such threats/harassment even of non-witnesses or jurors set a threatening tone, and jurors' and witnesses' ability to weigh in fairly may be impacted if they don't want to become the next harassment victim in Trump's crosshairs.
I'll be interested to hear the arguments and outcome if/when the gag order topic does ever go before an apellate judge.
Cohen (witness) is blabbing all over, badmouthing Trump and soliciting gifts on TikTok. Inexcusable Trump is the only one with a gag order. The judge is far from impartial.
No judge is impartial. They've all got biases.
Their judgments better be based in case law though or they'll be overturned.
Wishful thinking!Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
I can't keep all his trials straight for obvious reasons but is he appealing all his gags or just the Jack Smith one?
Courts seem to have leaned into the First Amendment pretty heavily on the topic of gags.
I think the state has the burden of demonstrating there is sufficient risk of the fairness of the trial being in jeopardy if the gag is not issued, right? They also can't be overly broad so as not to excessively restrict speech, etc.
I think Trump has insulted the judge and judge's staff moreso than witnesses, but you could clearly make the case that such threats/harassment even of non-witnesses or jurors set a threatening tone, and jurors' and witnesses' ability to weigh in fairly may be impacted if they don't want to become the next harassment victim in Trump's crosshairs.
I'll be interested to hear the arguments and outcome if/when the gag order topic does ever go before an apellate judge.
Cohen (witness) is blabbing all over, badmouthing Trump and soliciting gifts on TikTok. Inexcusable Trump is the only one with a gag order. The judge is far from impartial.
No judge is impartial. They've all got biases.
Their judgments better be based in case law though or they'll be overturned.
#daSieve is slick with his clouding of the point being made.Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
I can't keep all his trials straight for obvious reasons but is he appealing all his gags or just the Jack Smith one?
Courts seem to have leaned into the First Amendment pretty heavily on the topic of gags.
I think the state has the burden of demonstrating there is sufficient risk of the fairness of the trial being in jeopardy if the gag is not issued, right? They also can't be overly broad so as not to excessively restrict speech, etc.
I think Trump has insulted the judge and judge's staff moreso than witnesses, but you could clearly make the case that such threats/harassment even of non-witnesses or jurors set a threatening tone, and jurors' and witnesses' ability to weigh in fairly may be impacted if they don't want to become the next harassment victim in Trump's crosshairs.
I'll be interested to hear the arguments and outcome if/when the gag order topic does ever go before an apellate judge.
Cohen (witness) is blabbing all over, badmouthing Trump and soliciting gifts on TikTok. Inexcusable Trump is the only one with a gag order. The judge is far from impartial.
No judge is impartial. They've all got biases.
Their judgments better be based in case law though or they'll be overturned.
Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
I can't keep all his trials straight for obvious reasons but is he appealing all his gags or just the Jack Smith one?
Courts seem to have leaned into the First Amendment pretty heavily on the topic of gags.
I think the state has the burden of demonstrating there is sufficient risk of the fairness of the trial being in jeopardy if the gag is not issued, right? They also can't be overly broad so as not to excessively restrict speech, etc.
I think Trump has insulted the judge and judge's staff moreso than witnesses, but you could clearly make the case that such threats/harassment even of non-witnesses or jurors set a threatening tone, and jurors' and witnesses' ability to weigh in fairly may be impacted if they don't want to become the next harassment victim in Trump's crosshairs.
I'll be interested to hear the arguments and outcome if/when the gag order topic does ever go before an apellate judge.
Cohen (witness) is blabbing all over, badmouthing Trump and soliciting gifts on TikTok. Inexcusable Trump is the only one with a gag order. The judge is far from impartial.
No judge is impartial. They've all got biases.
Their judgments better be based in case law though or they'll be overturned.
Lol, you know I was stating this judge is not being impartial on this case. And this case will be overturned. What he allowed to happen in court today, which is completely irrelevant to a bookkeeping charge, is a disgrace. And no gag order on Cohen, an absolute joke.
caryking said:Wishful thinking!Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
I can't keep all his trials straight for obvious reasons but is he appealing all his gags or just the Jack Smith one?
Courts seem to have leaned into the First Amendment pretty heavily on the topic of gags.
I think the state has the burden of demonstrating there is sufficient risk of the fairness of the trial being in jeopardy if the gag is not issued, right? They also can't be overly broad so as not to excessively restrict speech, etc.
I think Trump has insulted the judge and judge's staff moreso than witnesses, but you could clearly make the case that such threats/harassment even of non-witnesses or jurors set a threatening tone, and jurors' and witnesses' ability to weigh in fairly may be impacted if they don't want to become the next harassment victim in Trump's crosshairs.
I'll be interested to hear the arguments and outcome if/when the gag order topic does ever go before an apellate judge.
Cohen (witness) is blabbing all over, badmouthing Trump and soliciting gifts on TikTok. Inexcusable Trump is the only one with a gag order. The judge is far from impartial.
No judge is impartial. They've all got biases.
Their judgments better be based in case law though or they'll be overturned.
Funny I don't hear you bawling about Aileen Cannon, the most cartoonishly corrupt federal judge we've seen in ages. After an endless number of nonsensical decisions and delays, all benefitting Trump, to the shock of no-one she finally just put the case on ice until after the election, because reasons.
The only judge showing this whole charade for what it is…. Not bawling at all, BTW…SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:Wishful thinking!Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
I can't keep all his trials straight for obvious reasons but is he appealing all his gags or just the Jack Smith one?
Courts seem to have leaned into the First Amendment pretty heavily on the topic of gags.
I think the state has the burden of demonstrating there is sufficient risk of the fairness of the trial being in jeopardy if the gag is not issued, right? They also can't be overly broad so as not to excessively restrict speech, etc.
I think Trump has insulted the judge and judge's staff moreso than witnesses, but you could clearly make the case that such threats/harassment even of non-witnesses or jurors set a threatening tone, and jurors' and witnesses' ability to weigh in fairly may be impacted if they don't want to become the next harassment victim in Trump's crosshairs.
I'll be interested to hear the arguments and outcome if/when the gag order topic does ever go before an apellate judge.
Cohen (witness) is blabbing all over, badmouthing Trump and soliciting gifts on TikTok. Inexcusable Trump is the only one with a gag order. The judge is far from impartial.
No judge is impartial. They've all got biases.
Their judgments better be based in case law though or they'll be overturned.
Funny I don't hear you bawling about Aileen Cannon, the most cartoonishly corrupt federal judge we've seen in ages. After an endless number of nonsensical decisions and delays, all benefitting Trump, to the shock of no-one she finally just put the case on ice until after the election, because reasons.
What did he allow that's such a disgrace?packofwolves said:Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
I can't keep all his trials straight for obvious reasons but is he appealing all his gags or just the Jack Smith one?
Courts seem to have leaned into the First Amendment pretty heavily on the topic of gags.
I think the state has the burden of demonstrating there is sufficient risk of the fairness of the trial being in jeopardy if the gag is not issued, right? They also can't be overly broad so as not to excessively restrict speech, etc.
I think Trump has insulted the judge and judge's staff moreso than witnesses, but you could clearly make the case that such threats/harassment even of non-witnesses or jurors set a threatening tone, and jurors' and witnesses' ability to weigh in fairly may be impacted if they don't want to become the next harassment victim in Trump's crosshairs.
I'll be interested to hear the arguments and outcome if/when the gag order topic does ever go before an apellate judge.
Cohen (witness) is blabbing all over, badmouthing Trump and soliciting gifts on TikTok. Inexcusable Trump is the only one with a gag order. The judge is far from impartial.
No judge is impartial. They've all got biases.
Their judgments better be based in case law though or they'll be overturned.
Lol, you know I was stating this judge is not being impartial on this case. And this case will be overturned. What he allowed to happen in court today, which is completely irrelevant to a bookkeeping charge, is a disgrace. And no gag order on Cohen, an absolute joke.
Civilized said:What did he allow that's such a disgrace?packofwolves said:Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
I can't keep all his trials straight for obvious reasons but is he appealing all his gags or just the Jack Smith one?
Courts seem to have leaned into the First Amendment pretty heavily on the topic of gags.
I think the state has the burden of demonstrating there is sufficient risk of the fairness of the trial being in jeopardy if the gag is not issued, right? They also can't be overly broad so as not to excessively restrict speech, etc.
I think Trump has insulted the judge and judge's staff moreso than witnesses, but you could clearly make the case that such threats/harassment even of non-witnesses or jurors set a threatening tone, and jurors' and witnesses' ability to weigh in fairly may be impacted if they don't want to become the next harassment victim in Trump's crosshairs.
I'll be interested to hear the arguments and outcome if/when the gag order topic does ever go before an apellate judge.
Cohen (witness) is blabbing all over, badmouthing Trump and soliciting gifts on TikTok. Inexcusable Trump is the only one with a gag order. The judge is far from impartial.
No judge is impartial. They've all got biases.
Their judgments better be based in case law though or they'll be overturned.
Lol, you know I was stating this judge is not being impartial on this case. And this case will be overturned. What he allowed to happen in court today, which is completely irrelevant to a bookkeeping charge, is a disgrace. And no gag order on Cohen, an absolute joke.
Come on, like you don't know what has been going on with this case.
That's code for I don't know either I'm just throwing poop out there about the judge.
Dude is just being an ass..at least that's what we use to call it…gaslighting is that the new term..either way it's an omission .. being an ass is no way to go through life.packofwolves said:Civilized said:What did he allow that's such a disgrace?packofwolves said:Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
I can't keep all his trials straight for obvious reasons but is he appealing all his gags or just the Jack Smith one?
Courts seem to have leaned into the First Amendment pretty heavily on the topic of gags.
I think the state has the burden of demonstrating there is sufficient risk of the fairness of the trial being in jeopardy if the gag is not issued, right? They also can't be overly broad so as not to excessively restrict speech, etc.
I think Trump has insulted the judge and judge's staff moreso than witnesses, but you could clearly make the case that such threats/harassment even of non-witnesses or jurors set a threatening tone, and jurors' and witnesses' ability to weigh in fairly may be impacted if they don't want to become the next harassment victim in Trump's crosshairs.
I'll be interested to hear the arguments and outcome if/when the gag order topic does ever go before an apellate judge.
Cohen (witness) is blabbing all over, badmouthing Trump and soliciting gifts on TikTok. Inexcusable Trump is the only one with a gag order. The judge is far from impartial.
No judge is impartial. They've all got biases.
Their judgments better be based in case law though or they'll be overturned.
Lol, you know I was stating this judge is not being impartial on this case. And this case will be overturned. What he allowed to happen in court today, which is completely irrelevant to a bookkeeping charge, is a disgrace. And no gag order on Cohen, an absolute joke.
Come on, like you don't know what has been going on with this case.
SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:Wishful thinking!Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
I can't keep all his trials straight for obvious reasons but is he appealing all his gags or just the Jack Smith one?
Courts seem to have leaned into the First Amendment pretty heavily on the topic of gags.
I think the state has the burden of demonstrating there is sufficient risk of the fairness of the trial being in jeopardy if the gag is not issued, right? They also can't be overly broad so as not to excessively restrict speech, etc.
I think Trump has insulted the judge and judge's staff moreso than witnesses, but you could clearly make the case that such threats/harassment even of non-witnesses or jurors set a threatening tone, and jurors' and witnesses' ability to weigh in fairly may be impacted if they don't want to become the next harassment victim in Trump's crosshairs.
I'll be interested to hear the arguments and outcome if/when the gag order topic does ever go before an apellate judge.
Cohen (witness) is blabbing all over, badmouthing Trump and soliciting gifts on TikTok. Inexcusable Trump is the only one with a gag order. The judge is far from impartial.
No judge is impartial. They've all got biases.
Their judgments better be based in case law though or they'll be overturned.
Funny I don't hear you bawling about Aileen Cannon, the most cartoonishly corrupt federal judge we've seen in ages. After an endless number of nonsensical decisions and delays, all benefitting Trump, to the shock of no-one she finally just put the case on ice until after the election, because reasons.
smooth brain......
So damn funny....
SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:Wishful thinking!Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
I can't keep all his trials straight for obvious reasons but is he appealing all his gags or just the Jack Smith one?
Courts seem to have leaned into the First Amendment pretty heavily on the topic of gags.
I think the state has the burden of demonstrating there is sufficient risk of the fairness of the trial being in jeopardy if the gag is not issued, right? They also can't be overly broad so as not to excessively restrict speech, etc.
I think Trump has insulted the judge and judge's staff moreso than witnesses, but you could clearly make the case that such threats/harassment even of non-witnesses or jurors set a threatening tone, and jurors' and witnesses' ability to weigh in fairly may be impacted if they don't want to become the next harassment victim in Trump's crosshairs.
I'll be interested to hear the arguments and outcome if/when the gag order topic does ever go before an apellate judge.
Cohen (witness) is blabbing all over, badmouthing Trump and soliciting gifts on TikTok. Inexcusable Trump is the only one with a gag order. The judge is far from impartial.
No judge is impartial. They've all got biases.
Their judgments better be based in case law though or they'll be overturned.
Funny I don't hear you bawling about Aileen Cannon, the most cartoonishly corrupt federal judge we've seen in ages. After an endless number of nonsensical decisions and delays, all benefitting Trump, to the shock of no-one she finally just put the case on ice until after the election, because reasons.
Huh? Dude have you any idea what's actually going on in that case??? There is a metric **** ton of prosecutorial and now investigative buffoonery that is going to tank this case. From Brady violations to evidence spoliation to straight up evidence tampering. And this came to light ONLY because the judge unredacted prosecutions own filings.
Redwolf said:Dude is just being an ass..at least that's what we use to call it…gaslighting is that the new term..either way it's an omission .. being an ass is no way to go through life.packofwolves said:Civilized said:What did he allow that's such a disgrace?packofwolves said:Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
I can't keep all his trials straight for obvious reasons but is he appealing all his gags or just the Jack Smith one?
Courts seem to have leaned into the First Amendment pretty heavily on the topic of gags.
I think the state has the burden of demonstrating there is sufficient risk of the fairness of the trial being in jeopardy if the gag is not issued, right? They also can't be overly broad so as not to excessively restrict speech, etc.
I think Trump has insulted the judge and judge's staff moreso than witnesses, but you could clearly make the case that such threats/harassment even of non-witnesses or jurors set a threatening tone, and jurors' and witnesses' ability to weigh in fairly may be impacted if they don't want to become the next harassment victim in Trump's crosshairs.
I'll be interested to hear the arguments and outcome if/when the gag order topic does ever go before an apellate judge.
Cohen (witness) is blabbing all over, badmouthing Trump and soliciting gifts on TikTok. Inexcusable Trump is the only one with a gag order. The judge is far from impartial.
No judge is impartial. They've all got biases.
Their judgments better be based in case law though or they'll be overturned.
Lol, you know I was stating this judge is not being impartial on this case. And this case will be overturned. What he allowed to happen in court today, which is completely irrelevant to a bookkeeping charge, is a disgrace. And no gag order on Cohen, an absolute joke.
Come on, like you don't know what has been going on with this case.
What's going on is the prosecution is trying to establish witness credibility and that the boot knocking happened.
Trump still says he and Stormy didn't bang and that she's lying, remember?
So clearly the prosecution is going to spend time establishing that it definitely happened and that Trump and Stormy banging was what he was paying her hush money to hide.
Ncsufist said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:Wishful thinking!Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
I can't keep all his trials straight for obvious reasons but is he appealing all his gags or just the Jack Smith one?
Courts seem to have leaned into the First Amendment pretty heavily on the topic of gags.
I think the state has the burden of demonstrating there is sufficient risk of the fairness of the trial being in jeopardy if the gag is not issued, right? They also can't be overly broad so as not to excessively restrict speech, etc.
I think Trump has insulted the judge and judge's staff moreso than witnesses, but you could clearly make the case that such threats/harassment even of non-witnesses or jurors set a threatening tone, and jurors' and witnesses' ability to weigh in fairly may be impacted if they don't want to become the next harassment victim in Trump's crosshairs.
I'll be interested to hear the arguments and outcome if/when the gag order topic does ever go before an apellate judge.
Cohen (witness) is blabbing all over, badmouthing Trump and soliciting gifts on TikTok. Inexcusable Trump is the only one with a gag order. The judge is far from impartial.
No judge is impartial. They've all got biases.
Their judgments better be based in case law though or they'll be overturned.
Funny I don't hear you bawling about Aileen Cannon, the most cartoonishly corrupt federal judge we've seen in ages. After an endless number of nonsensical decisions and delays, all benefitting Trump, to the shock of no-one she finally just put the case on ice until after the election, because reasons.
Huh? Dude have you any idea what's actually going on in that case??? There is a metric **** ton of prosecutorial and now investigative buffoonery that is going to tank this case. From Brady violations to evidence spoliation to straight up evidence tampering. And this came to light ONLY because the judge unredacted prosecutions own filings.
I mean, all of that must be totally true because Trump truthed it! Or as usual no, in fact it's a steaming pile of transparently overblown crap that has no bearing on the case whatsoever.
You've seen Stormy's signed statement regarding this issue, right?Civilized said:Redwolf said:Dude is just being an ass..at least that's what we use to call it…gaslighting is that the new term..either way it's an omission .. being an ass is no way to go through life.packofwolves said:Civilized said:What did he allow that's such a disgrace?packofwolves said:Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
I can't keep all his trials straight for obvious reasons but is he appealing all his gags or just the Jack Smith one?
Courts seem to have leaned into the First Amendment pretty heavily on the topic of gags.
I think the state has the burden of demonstrating there is sufficient risk of the fairness of the trial being in jeopardy if the gag is not issued, right? They also can't be overly broad so as not to excessively restrict speech, etc.
I think Trump has insulted the judge and judge's staff moreso than witnesses, but you could clearly make the case that such threats/harassment even of non-witnesses or jurors set a threatening tone, and jurors' and witnesses' ability to weigh in fairly may be impacted if they don't want to become the next harassment victim in Trump's crosshairs.
I'll be interested to hear the arguments and outcome if/when the gag order topic does ever go before an apellate judge.
Cohen (witness) is blabbing all over, badmouthing Trump and soliciting gifts on TikTok. Inexcusable Trump is the only one with a gag order. The judge is far from impartial.
No judge is impartial. They've all got biases.
Their judgments better be based in case law though or they'll be overturned.
Lol, you know I was stating this judge is not being impartial on this case. And this case will be overturned. What he allowed to happen in court today, which is completely irrelevant to a bookkeeping charge, is a disgrace. And no gag order on Cohen, an absolute joke.
Come on, like you don't know what has been going on with this case.
What's going on is the prosecution is trying to establish witness credibility and that the boot knocking happened.
Trump still says he and Stormy didn't bang and that she's lying, remember?
So clearly the prosecution is going to spend time establishing that it definitely happened and that Trump and Stormy banging was what he was paying her hush money to hide.
Civilized said:Redwolf said:Dude is just being an ass..at least that's what we use to call it…gaslighting is that the new term..either way it's an omission .. being an ass is no way to go through life.packofwolves said:Civilized said:What did he allow that's such a disgrace?packofwolves said:Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
I can't keep all his trials straight for obvious reasons but is he appealing all his gags or just the Jack Smith one?
Courts seem to have leaned into the First Amendment pretty heavily on the topic of gags.
I think the state has the burden of demonstrating there is sufficient risk of the fairness of the trial being in jeopardy if the gag is not issued, right? They also can't be overly broad so as not to excessively restrict speech, etc.
I think Trump has insulted the judge and judge's staff moreso than witnesses, but you could clearly make the case that such threats/harassment even of non-witnesses or jurors set a threatening tone, and jurors' and witnesses' ability to weigh in fairly may be impacted if they don't want to become the next harassment victim in Trump's crosshairs.
I'll be interested to hear the arguments and outcome if/when the gag order topic does ever go before an apellate judge.
Cohen (witness) is blabbing all over, badmouthing Trump and soliciting gifts on TikTok. Inexcusable Trump is the only one with a gag order. The judge is far from impartial.
No judge is impartial. They've all got biases.
Their judgments better be based in case law though or they'll be overturned.
Lol, you know I was stating this judge is not being impartial on this case. And this case will be overturned. What he allowed to happen in court today, which is completely irrelevant to a bookkeeping charge, is a disgrace. And no gag order on Cohen, an absolute joke.
Come on, like you don't know what has been going on with this case.
What's going on is the prosecution is trying to establish witness credibility and that the boot knocking happened.
Trump still says he and Stormy didn't bang and that she's lying, remember?
So clearly the prosecution is going to spend time establishing that it definitely happened and that Trump and Stormy banging was what he was paying her hush money to hide.
And there it is, you are paying attention. But you like to pretend your not.
caryking said:You've seen Stormy's signed statement regarding this issue, right?Civilized said:Redwolf said:Dude is just being an ass..at least that's what we use to call it…gaslighting is that the new term..either way it's an omission .. being an ass is no way to go through life.packofwolves said:Civilized said:What did he allow that's such a disgrace?packofwolves said:Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:As I understand it, A gag order would typically be used for the witnesses of the prosecution. The defense, being that they are being indicted, would be able to do whatever, as they are the ones being indicted.Wufskins said:
What's unconstitutional about the gag order?
Lol, you can stop right there. You don't understand it... though I'm sure some rando on X was very convincing.
Yes, you can put a gag order on the defense. See every mob trial in history. And yes it's constitutional... the constitution doesn't just protect free speech, it also protects having a fair trial.
I can't keep all his trials straight for obvious reasons but is he appealing all his gags or just the Jack Smith one?
Courts seem to have leaned into the First Amendment pretty heavily on the topic of gags.
I think the state has the burden of demonstrating there is sufficient risk of the fairness of the trial being in jeopardy if the gag is not issued, right? They also can't be overly broad so as not to excessively restrict speech, etc.
I think Trump has insulted the judge and judge's staff moreso than witnesses, but you could clearly make the case that such threats/harassment even of non-witnesses or jurors set a threatening tone, and jurors' and witnesses' ability to weigh in fairly may be impacted if they don't want to become the next harassment victim in Trump's crosshairs.
I'll be interested to hear the arguments and outcome if/when the gag order topic does ever go before an apellate judge.
Cohen (witness) is blabbing all over, badmouthing Trump and soliciting gifts on TikTok. Inexcusable Trump is the only one with a gag order. The judge is far from impartial.
No judge is impartial. They've all got biases.
Their judgments better be based in case law though or they'll be overturned.
Lol, you know I was stating this judge is not being impartial on this case. And this case will be overturned. What he allowed to happen in court today, which is completely irrelevant to a bookkeeping charge, is a disgrace. And no gag order on Cohen, an absolute joke.
Come on, like you don't know what has been going on with this case.
What's going on is the prosecution is trying to establish witness credibility and that the boot knocking happened.
Trump still says he and Stormy didn't bang and that she's lying, remember?
So clearly the prosecution is going to spend time establishing that it definitely happened and that Trump and Stormy banging was what he was paying her hush money to hide.
You mean the signed statement she quickly recanted and explained that they did have any affair but she thought the NDA required that she say they didn't?
If anything the statement and recanting is all the more reason the prosecution has to establish or re-establish both her credibility and that the sausage did go in the wallet.
Stormy came off as a believable witness yesterday; the prosecution's problem is walking the line between having her share enough detail that the jury believes her story without letting it tip over into sounding gratuitous or prejudicial.
Ole Sieve is gonna be mightly quiet when the lines of Demoncrats being prosecuted for their many stints of crime at Epstein Island. It's comin' Sieve.......req'd of an effective #boomerang toss.
Featured Stories
See All
3:12
15h ago
798
Wes Moore: "We've Got to Find a Way to Bridge the Gap"
by Rob McLamb
12:01
20h ago
747
IPS IN 5: Important Weekend For ACC Men's Basketball
by James Henderson
GAME PHOTOS: NC State's 79-51 Home Win Over Kent State
by Steve Murphy
COMMIT ALERT: JUCO DL AJ Prim Picks NC State
by P.J. Williams
6:55
1d ago
965
IPS IN 5: Wolfpack Women Getting It Done On The Recruiting Trail
by James Henderson