packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Redwolf said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

What's unconstitutional about the gag order?

---

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.

---

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.

---

What did he allow that's such a disgrace?

---

Come on, like you don't know what has been going on with this case.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I'm not pretending anything.

I'm asking y'all questions so you'll support your claims.

I'm disagreeing that the judge did a 'disgraceful' job yesterday.

The judge objected several times to try to keep Stormy's testimony relevant, and said as much. People can quibble with some specifics but there was nothing 'disgraceful' about the job he did. He was clearly tuned into trying to keep the testimony relevant.

It's hilarious that y'all get your panties all wadded up about a judge's handling of Trump's case, but not Trump's ridiculous conduct that leads to these cases.

Werewolf said:

---

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.

---

You're right. You damn sure won't see me on here whining if a prosecutor finds enough evidence to indict Democratic politicians for criming.

Politicians of all stripes that commit crimes should be prosecuted. Period.

That's the way the system works.

Unfortunately y'all are forgetting that evidence is necessary to do that.

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Redwolf said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

What's unconstitutional about the gag order?

---

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.

---

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.

---

What did he allow that's such a disgrace?

---

Come on, like you don't know what has been going on with this case.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I'm not pretending anything.

I'm asking y'all questions so you'll support your claims.

I'm disagreeing that the judge did a 'disgraceful' job yesterday.

The judge objected several times to try to keep Stormy's testimony relevant, and said as much. People can quibble with some specifics but there was nothing 'disgraceful' about the job he did. He was clearly tuned into trying to keep the testimony relevant.

It's hilarious that y'all get your panties all wadded up about a judge's handling of Trump's case, but not Trump's ridiculous conduct that leads to these cases.

---

The case is about how the transaction was recorded in the books. There is no dispute a payment was made. Anything outside that scope is a deliberate side show and is irrelevant to the charges.

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Redwolf said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

What's unconstitutional about the gag order?

---

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.

---

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.

---

What did he allow that's such a disgrace?

---

Come on, like you don't know what has been going on with this case.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I'm not pretending anything.

I'm asking y'all questions so you'll support your claims.

I'm disagreeing that the judge did a 'disgraceful' job yesterday.

The judge objected several times to try to keep Stormy's testimony relevant, and said as much. People can quibble with some specifics but there was nothing 'disgraceful' about the job he did. He was clearly tuned into trying to keep the testimony relevant.

It's hilarious that y'all get your panties all wadded up about a judge's handling of Trump's case, but not Trump's ridiculous conduct that leads to these cases.

---

The case is about how the transaction was recorded in the books. There is no dispute a payment was made. Anything outside that scope is a deliberate side show and is irrelevant to the charges.

---

This isn't a simple review of bookkeeping.

The 'why' matters because one of the charges against him is "conspiracy to promote election." That's a felony in NY.

The state is alleging Trump, Cohen, et. al. conspired to cover up or bury dirt against Trump so it wouldn't harm his election campaign.

Motive is relevant.

They're establishing why he needed to falsify the business records. He needed to make the hush money payment to avoid a salacious affair hitting the papers leading up to the election and potentially harming his 2016 electoral prospects. Then he covered up the hush money payment later by falsifying the records.

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Redwolf said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

What's unconstitutional about the gag order?

---

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.

---

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.

---

What did he allow that's such a disgrace?

---

Come on, like you don't know what has been going on with this case.

---

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.

---

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've seen Stormy's signed statement regarding this issue, right?

---

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.

---

All of what you said may be true; however, you can't get around the fact that it's a signed testimony! That's about as good as it gets. Now, is she lying for some other reward? Who knows? Was she tricked? Who knows? What we do know is… we have a signed testimony!!!

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Redwolf said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

What's unconstitutional about the gag order?

---

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.

---

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.

---

What did he allow that's such a disgrace?

---

Come on, like you don't know what has been going on with this case.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I'm not pretending anything.

I'm asking y'all questions so you'll support your claims.

I'm disagreeing that the judge did a 'disgraceful' job yesterday.

The judge objected several times to try to keep Stormy's testimony relevant, and said as much. People can quibble with some specifics but there was nothing 'disgraceful' about the job he did. He was clearly tuned into trying to keep the testimony relevant.

It's hilarious that y'all get your panties all wadded up about a judge's handling of Trump's case, but not Trump's ridiculous conduct that leads to these cases.

---

The case is about how the transaction was recorded in the books. There is no dispute a payment was made. Anything outside that scope is a deliberate side show and is irrelevant to the charges.

---

This isn't a simple review of bookkeeping.

The 'why' matters because one of the charges against him is "conspiracy to promote election." That's a felony in NY.

The state is alleging Trump, Cohen, et. al. conspired to cover up or bury dirt against Trump so it wouldn't harm his election campaign.

Motive is relevant.

They're establishing why he needed to falsify the business records. He needed to make the hush money payment to avoid a salacious affair hitting the papers leading up to the election and potentially harming his 2016 electoral prospects. Then he covered up the hush money payment later by falsifying the records.

---

News flash, it's not illegal to bury a story, with or without a payment. Why do you think the Feds decided not to bring charges?

---

And if it is illegal in NY, that's likely an unconstitutional law.

Oldsouljer said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Redwolf said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

What's unconstitutional about the gag order?

---

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.

---

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.

---

What did he allow that's such a disgrace?

---

Come on, like you don't know what has been going on with this case.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I'm not pretending anything.

I'm asking y'all questions so you'll support your claims.

I'm disagreeing that the judge did a 'disgraceful' job yesterday.

The judge objected several times to try to keep Stormy's testimony relevant, and said as much. People can quibble with some specifics but there was nothing 'disgraceful' about the job he did. He was clearly tuned into trying to keep the testimony relevant.

It's hilarious that y'all get your panties all wadded up about a judge's handling of Trump's case, but not Trump's ridiculous conduct that leads to these cases.

---

The case is about how the transaction was recorded in the books. There is no dispute a payment was made. Anything outside that scope is a deliberate side show and is irrelevant to the charges.

---

This isn't a simple review of bookkeeping.

The 'why' matters because one of the charges against him is "conspiracy to promote election." That's a felony in NY.

The state is alleging Trump, Cohen, et. al. conspired to cover up or bury dirt against Trump so it wouldn't harm his election campaign.

Motive is relevant.

They're establishing why he needed to falsify the business records. He needed to make the hush money payment to avoid a salacious affair hitting the papers leading up to the election and potentially harming his 2016 electoral prospects. Then he covered up the hush money payment later by falsifying the records.

---

News flash, it's not illegal to bury a story, with or without a payment. Why do you think the Feds decided not to bring charges?

---

And if it is illegal in NY, that's likely an unconstitutional law.

---

It's not illegal in NY either.

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Redwolf said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

What's unconstitutional about the gag order?

---

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.

---

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.

---

What did he allow that's such a disgrace?

---

Come on, like you don't know what has been going on with this case.

---

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.

---

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've seen Stormy's signed statement regarding this issue, right?

---

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.

---

All of what you said may be true; however, you can't get around the fact that it's a signed testimony! That's about as good as it gets. Now, is she lying for some other reward? Who knows? Was she tricked? Who knows? What we do know is… we have a signed testimony!!!

---

Which obviously the defense will enter into evidence and lean on heavily.

packofwolves said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Redwolf said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

What's unconstitutional about the gag order?

---

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.

---

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.

---

What did he allow that's such a disgrace?

---

Come on, like you don't know what has been going on with this case.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I'm not pretending anything.

I'm asking y'all questions so you'll support your claims.

I'm disagreeing that the judge did a 'disgraceful' job yesterday.

The judge objected several times to try to keep Stormy's testimony relevant, and said as much. People can quibble with some specifics but there was nothing 'disgraceful' about the job he did. He was clearly tuned into trying to keep the testimony relevant.

It's hilarious that y'all get your panties all wadded up about a judge's handling of Trump's case, but not Trump's ridiculous conduct that leads to these cases.

---

The case is about how the transaction was recorded in the books. There is no dispute a payment was made. Anything outside that scope is a deliberate side show and is irrelevant to the charges.

---

This isn't a simple review of bookkeeping.

The 'why' matters because one of the charges against him is "conspiracy to promote election." That's a felony in NY.

The state is alleging Trump, Cohen, et. al. conspired to cover up or bury dirt against Trump so it wouldn't harm his election campaign.

Motive is relevant.

They're establishing why he needed to falsify the business records. He needed to make the hush money payment to avoid a salacious affair hitting the papers leading up to the election and potentially harming his 2016 electoral prospects. Then he covered up the hush money payment later by falsifying the records.

---

News flash, it's not illegal to bury a story, with or without a payment. Why do you think the Feds decided not to bring charges?

---

And if it is illegal in NY, that's likely an unconstitutional law.

---

It's not illegal in NY either.

---

You guys seem to struggle with multifaceted problems.

Most presidents have taken classified documents.

But, no other presidents have been unable or unwilling to return them once asked to do so a bunch of times. That's obstruction, and is quite possibly criminal.

Similarly, hush money payments are not illegal.

But, conspiring to promote Trump's election by falsifying business records to cover up the payments quite possibly is illegal according to New York State law.

Whether or not the feds bring charges is not the state's concern. Different laws.

We'll see how well the state makes their case, but it's abundantly clear this goes beyond simply evaluating the legality of a hush money payment. At issue is the cover-up and conspiracy.

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Redwolf said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

What's unconstitutional about the gag order?

---

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.

---

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.

---

What did he allow that's such a disgrace?

---

Come on, like you don't know what has been going on with this case.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I'm not pretending anything.

I'm asking y'all questions so you'll support your claims.

I'm disagreeing that the judge did a 'disgraceful' job yesterday.

The judge objected several times to try to keep Stormy's testimony relevant, and said as much. People can quibble with some specifics but there was nothing 'disgraceful' about the job he did. He was clearly tuned into trying to keep the testimony relevant.

It's hilarious that y'all get your panties all wadded up about a judge's handling of Trump's case, but not Trump's ridiculous conduct that leads to these cases.

---

Yeah... the "ridiculous conduct" is exactly what is happening.

From you and your pillow biting buddies.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/08/politics/georgia-trump-fani-willis-appeal/index.html

packgrad said:

---

Nothing says I don't know what the **** I'm talking about but I'm a cheerleader for the charges like
"But, conspiring to promote Trump's election by falsifying business records to cover up the payments quite possibly is illegal according to New York State law."

It's quite possibly illegal guys!!! This is the one!!!!!

TDS is a mental illness like transgenderism.

---

Correct. It's not up to me whether or not Trump is guilty of the charges.

There's definitely a law against conspiring to promote an election on the NY state books though.

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Redwolf said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

What's unconstitutional about the gag order?

---

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.

---

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.

---

What did he allow that's such a disgrace?

---

Come on, like you don't know what has been going on with this case.

---

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.

---

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've seen Stormy's signed statement regarding this issue, right?

---

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.

---

All of what you said may be true; however, you can't get around the fact that it's a signed testimony! That's about as good as it gets. Now, is she lying for some other reward? Who knows? Was she tricked? Who knows? What we do know is… we have a signed testimony!!!

---

Which obviously the defense will enter into evidence and lean on heavily.

---

Why does it matter to you? You already discredited the signed testimony, because her verbal (current testimony) shined in your eyes...

---

I'm not trying the case, Cary. It doesn't matter to me. The judge and jury will decide what matters.

The state had sufficient evidence to charge. Stormy is central to their case. They're going to try to bolster her credibility for the jury. The defense will lean on what they have, which will include the statement.

The number of people that believe he didn't **** Stormy Daniels is very, very low I'd guess, with or without a signed statement to the contrary. So if you're saying she signed the statement, ergo she didn't have some undoubtedly terrible secks with the mini-Commander-in-Chief, I don't think that's going to be enough to convince a jury this whole thing didn't happen and the hush money payment was actually for something else.

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Redwolf said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Civilized said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

What's unconstitutional about the gag order?

---

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.

---

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.

---

What did he allow that's such a disgrace?

---

Come on, like you don't know what has been going on with this case.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I'm not pretending anything.

I'm asking y'all questions so you'll support your claims.

I'm disagreeing that the judge did a 'disgraceful' job yesterday.

The judge objected several times to try to keep Stormy's testimony relevant, and said as much. People can quibble with some specifics but there was nothing 'disgraceful' about the job he did. He was clearly tuned into trying to keep the testimony relevant.

It's hilarious that y'all get your panties all wadded up about a judge's handling of Trump's case, but not Trump's ridiculous conduct that leads to these cases.

---

The case is about how the transaction was recorded in the books. There is no dispute a payment was made. Anything outside that scope is a deliberate side show and is irrelevant to the charges.

---

This isn't a simple review of bookkeeping.

The 'why' matters because one of the charges against him is "conspiracy to promote election." That's a felony in NY.

The state is alleging Trump, Cohen, et. al. conspired to cover up or bury dirt against Trump so it wouldn't harm his election campaign.

Motive is relevant.

They're establishing why he needed to falsify the business records. He needed to make the hush money payment to avoid a salacious affair hitting the papers leading up to the election and potentially harming his 2016 electoral prospects. Then he covered up the hush money payment later by falsifying the records.

---

News flash, it's not illegal to bury a story, with or without a payment. Why do you think the Feds decided not to bring charges?

---

And if it is illegal in NY, that's likely an unconstitutional law.

---

It's not illegal in NY either.

---

You guys seem to struggle with multifaceted problems.

Most presidents have taken classified documents.

But, no other presidents have been unable or unwilling to return them once asked to do so a bunch of times. That's obstruction, and is quite possibly criminal.

Similarly, hush money payments are not illegal.

But, conspiring to promote Trump's election by falsifying business records to cover up the payments quite possibly is illegal according to New York State law.

Whether or not the feds bring charges is not the state's concern. Different laws.

We'll see how well the state makes their case, but it's abundantly clear this goes beyond simply evaluating the legality of a hush money payment. At issue is the cover-up and conspiracy.

---

It cracks me up how the "state's rights" folks are so quick to crap on states when Trump regularly breaks state laws. I mean state laws don't really count, right?

#Sieve, its downhill from here my friend. A storm is brewing, you might be best to come inside and get out of the weather. It's gonna be devasting to your side, #Sieve.

The sad part of all this, for you #Sieve, is that your side will burn it all down rather than lose power. How, and how many innocents are hurt, is yet to be seen. Do you really want to be associated with that side of the coin?

Is the Georgia case falling apart?

Georgia Appeals Court Agrees to Review Fani Willis Disqualification Ruling

The Georgia Court of Appeals has agreed to review the decision a trial court judge issued that allowed Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to stay on the high-profile case against former President Donald Trump so long as she took a special prosecutor off the case to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

"Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED," reads the May 8 order.

Should Ms. Willis and her office be removed from the case, a state board would need to appoint a new prosecutor to take it on.

If the case is handed to another team, charges could be dropped or added, requiring additional litigation, or prosecutors may even choose to drop the case entirely.

The judge had not set a trial date in Georgia. Judge McAfee has also said that it is likely the case will be severed, trying the 15 defendants in two or three groups.

Prosecutors say the case will take three to five months each time, as they have been charged under RICO and the entire case will need to be presented each time to prove a conspiracy.

barelypure said:

---

So to get around the gag order Trump is now reading excerpts published by CNN, the Today Show and Good Morning America. He's also repeating what various legal scholars have said about the case. It will be interesting what Judge Merchan does next.

---

That's not "getting around the gag order." The gag doesn't cover normal speech about the case. He can do that all he wants.

He just can't intimidate or threaten court staff or their families or witnesses or jurors.