Civilized said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

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?

---

It's wild man.

They can't say he didn't break laws.

All they've got is "those laws don't count," "he was the President so he shouldn't be charged even though he broke the law," "he needs to campaign so he shouldn't be charged even though he broke the law," or "TDS."

You never hear "He didn't do it."

I hope it becomes obvious when it's not so easy to charge other Presidents with crimes that the reason is that it's very uncommon to crime like Trump.

And if there was ever evidence to indict Biden or any other President, you wouldn't hear word 1 from me about it. Presidents aren't above the law and if they commit crimes they need to pay the price. I don't care what party they're in.

---

Civilized said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

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?

---

It's wild man.

They can't say he didn't break laws.

All they've got is "those laws don't count," "he was the President so he shouldn't be charged even though he broke the law," "he needs to campaign so he shouldn't be charged even though he broke the law," or "TDS."

You never hear "He didn't do it."

I hope it becomes obvious when it's not so easy to charge other Presidents with crimes that the reason is that it's very uncommon to crime like Trump.

And if there was ever evidence to indict Biden or any other President, you wouldn't hear word 1 from me about it. Presidents aren't above the law and if they commit crimes they need to pay the price. I don't care what party they're in.

---

Civilized said:

---

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.

---

BREAKING: President Trump Speaks To Reporters Before A Hearing of The FAKE Trial.

NO CASE! There is no legality for gag order. The appellate courts need to step up and take action against these corrupt judges. That corrupt judge should be disbarred and removed from his… pic.twitter.com/UV6AwSE2Gd

— 🕊 𝓐𝓷𝓷 𝓲𝓼 𝓡𝓲𝓰𝓱𝓽 🕊 𝐗𝐋𝐕 (@Ann_Lilyflower) May 6, 2024

Ncsufist said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

So with what has come out in ga about the 20 election…. I wonder if the attorneys are going to be dropping motions to dismiss based on the fact that the ga state election board has released that there were more fraudulent votes for Biden than the number of votes that he won by. The whole premise was that Trump was trying to change the election results. But that's what in fact we now know occurred but for Biden.

---

"VINDICATED."

Investigator Joseph Rossi unleashes after Fulton County Board finds 2020 election was run ILLEGALLY.

"It has now been factually proven both the HAND AUDIT and the Certified Machine Count were found in violation of Georgia Election Law." 👀pic.twitter.com/D5xTt3orIW

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) May 8, 2024

Where you at Smapty???

You dodge all of the facts when convenient but yap on when you think you have a point.

Come on comrade.. show up or STFU.

---

"Georgia election officials determined mistakes in 2020 by county election workers would not have changed the outcome." VINDICATED!!1

https://georgiarecorder.com/2024/05/07/georgia-oversight-panel-ruminates-on-2020-election-hiccups-as-2024-showdowns-loom/

---

When asked if they had the ballots and scans of ballots they said no. They do not have the ability to go back and actually count what they have… because they don't have anything. That's why nothing will change.

---

BigBarryWood said:

---

Sounds a lot like the mueller investigation. We don't have anything but if we investigate him we can find something.

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

BigBarryWood said:

---

Sounds a lot like the mueller investigation. We don't have anything but if we investigate him we can find something.

---

Uh huh. Except there was so much smoke (more like a volcano) that a REPUBLICAN appointed Mueller to investigate. The alternate reality you guys live in really is a wonder to behold.

---

PackProwl63 said:

---

If Trump is found guilty it will be because Soros has offshore accounts of millions in the jurors names !!

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

BigBarryWood said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

barelypure said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

BigBarryWood said:

---

Sounds a lot like the mueller investigation. We don't have anything but if we investigate him we can find something.

---

Uh huh. Except there was so much smoke (more like a volcano) that a REPUBLICAN appointed Mueller to investigate. The alternate reality you guys live in really is a wonder to behold.

---

https://www.bustle.com/p/is-robert-mueller-a-democrat-republican-his-appointment-was-lauded-by-both-parties-58693

If Mueller is registered today as a Republican, Democrat, or Independent, it is not clear. The last time this was known was in 2001. As he was considered for FBI director by the Bush administration, the Washington Post reported that he was a registered Republican. In the same report, though, it was noted that he is considered by most to be "apolitical," and that he had a history of pushing Democrats for temporary openings, even under a Republican president.

Mueller was also appointed by Obama and it's hard to believe someone as partisan as Dear Leader would appoint a Republican for anything higher than dog catcher and maybe not even then.

Just like Tucker Carlson was a registered Democrat. You're putting too much emphasis in how a person is registered rather than what their ideology might be.

---

I said a Republican, namely the deputy attorney general in Trump's DOJ, appointed Mueller. Turns out Mueller didn't even bother to investigate 95% of the massive red flags, and instead mostly just documented endless instances of obstruction of justice (you know, innocent people stuff) and kicked the them over to congress to deal with. By the time conservative spin masters were done, OMG TRUMP WAS EXONERATED. Anyhoo, that's another conversation.

Anyway, if you'd care to spend five minutes googling you might discover that Dems appoint Republicans to high ranking positions, especially in the DOJ, all the time. It's Republicans that would never appoint a Dem in a million years. Because you're nuts.

---

Didn't investigate 95%. Good lord.

---

I'd be happy to give you an extensive list of the many W T F questions that never got looked into... literally every time you opened one of the Trump Admin's closets a Russian oligarch popped out... but I imagine you don't really care.

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

BigBarryWood said:

---

Sounds a lot like the mueller investigation. We don't have anything but if we investigate him we can find something.

---

Uh huh. Except there was so much smoke (more like a volcano) that a REPUBLICAN appointed Mueller to investigate. The alternate reality you guys live in really is a wonder to behold.

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Deleted call records. While not as bad it's still bad. This sounds more like it's from their presentation and not the actual records. Should have just been redacted and not removed

---