Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

I should simplify and clarify my point that the main American principle I refer to is that even the citizens we detest and despise the most, we should defend their rights to the utmost, to further ensure that our own rights remain inviolate. Once someone becomes marginalized and deemed an "exception", those with evil intent will push the bounds to go after the rest of us.

---

I'm all for defending the rights of the despised.

But we have a practical legal issue at hand, which is the interplay of a defendant's right to free speech; language by the defendant that has the capacity to intimidate witnesses and taint their testimony; and past history by the defendant of using inflammatory speech to incite a violent riot and then sitting on his hands for hours while the US Capitol was attacked.

There is zero legal precedent for this. We are in completely uncharted territory.

---

typically gag orders are used to help defend the accused, I don't know any other time where they were used to silence the accused. That's troubling to me.

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

The left is fine with a police state as it pertains to conservatives. Civ has no problems with the violence that has occurred as a result of lies told by prosecutors/politicians in multiple police/BLM trials, that have turned out to be complete lies (Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, George Floyd just to name a few). TDS just accentuates it in this instance. Civ would be fine with no trial at all. He is already guilty of whatever charges the prosecutors toss at him. Look no further than the BS rape claims civ still stands behind with zero evidence. Wait, zero substantive evidence.

The left looked admirably at Canada and how they handled dissenters during Covid, and look to rule more like Trudeau. They love the police state.

---

More weak hypocrisy police whataboutisms.

You're welcome to bring up the BLM protests again when anyone associated with them becomes President, loses reelection, incites a violent protest riot, is put on trial for attempting to overturn said free election, and then tries to intimidate witnesses and the court before his trial. At that point I welcome you to try to draw a line between some nonexistent leftist boogeyman's speech and the BLM protests. Be my guest.

As it stands, this court and any higher appeals courts will be tasked with the obvious weighing of Trump's right to Free Speech vs. the need to protect witnesses and their testimony in his trial.

There is literally zero chance BLM protests are brought up during the gag order legal deliberations. Any such attempt would obviously get laughed out of court.

---

Civ, have you ever watch the Jan 6th Trump speech?

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

I should simplify and clarify my point that the main American principle I refer to is that even the citizens we detest and despise the most, we should defend their rights to the utmost, to further ensure that our own rights remain inviolate. Once someone becomes marginalized and deemed an "exception", those with evil intent will push the bounds to go after the rest of us.

---

I'm all for defending the rights of the despised.

But we have a practical legal issue at hand, which is the interplay of a defendant's right to free speech; language by the defendant that has the capacity to intimidate witnesses and taint their testimony; and past history by the defendant of using inflammatory speech to incite a violent riot and then sitting on his hands for hours while the US Capitol was attacked.

There is zero legal precedent for this. We are in completely uncharted territory.

---

typically gag orders are used to help defend the accused, I don't know any other time where they were used to silence the accused. That's troubling to me.

---

Witness intimidation should trouble you too, no? And protecting the jury trial process also?

It's not an arbitrary silencing of the accused. It's a limited order in direct response to Trump's past and present public attacks.

I understand the civil libertarian take on this but believe it's not as simple as unquestioned deference to the First Amendment no matter the capacity of the defendant's speech to intimidate witnesses and taint the trial process.

How are competing First Amendment infringements and steps to protect witnesses, the court, and the trial process weighed?

There should be a heavy burden on the court to demonstrate need (potentially met by Trump's past and present conduct) and discretion (potentially met by the limited nature of the gag).

This will be fascinating to watch play out legally given the stakes, visibility, and lack of past precedent.

If a Smapty talks in the woods, but no one requotes it, does it exist or make a sound?

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

The left is fine with a police state as it pertains to conservatives. Civ has no problems with the violence that has occurred as a result of lies told by prosecutors/politicians in multiple police/BLM trials, that have turned out to be complete lies (Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, George Floyd just to name a few). TDS just accentuates it in this instance. Civ would be fine with no trial at all. He is already guilty of whatever charges the prosecutors toss at him. Look no further than the BS rape claims civ still stands behind with zero evidence. Wait, zero substantive evidence.

The left looked admirably at Canada and how they handled dissenters during Covid, and look to rule more like Trudeau. They love the police state.

---

More weak hypocrisy police whataboutisms.

You're welcome to bring up the BLM protests again when anyone associated with them becomes President, loses reelection, incites a violent protest riot, is put on trial for attempting to overturn said free election, and then tries to intimidate witnesses and the court before his trial. At that point I welcome you to try to draw a line between some nonexistent leftist boogeyman's speech and the BLM protests. Be my guest.

As it stands, this court and any higher appeals courts will be tasked with the obvious weighing of Trump's right to Free Speech vs. the need to protect witnesses and their testimony in his trial.

There is literally zero chance BLM protests are brought up during the gag order legal deliberations. Any such attempt would obviously get laughed out of court.

---

More just bringing up your, and the left's, selective TDS outrage, including this judge. You give zero ****s about witness intimidation or jury intimidation. This is your standard TDS bull***** You're definitely the hypocrite.

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

I should simplify and clarify my point that the main American principle I refer to is that even the citizens we detest and despise the most, we should defend their rights to the utmost, to further ensure that our own rights remain inviolate. Once someone becomes marginalized and deemed an "exception", those with evil intent will push the bounds to go after the rest of us.

---

I'm all for defending the rights of the despised.

But we have a practical legal issue at hand, which is the interplay of a defendant's right to free speech; language by the defendant that has the capacity to intimidate witnesses and taint their testimony; and past history by the defendant of using inflammatory speech to incite a violent riot and then sitting on his hands for hours while the US Capitol was attacked.

There is zero legal precedent for this. We are in completely uncharted territory.

---

Again you state propaganda as fact.

- inflammatory speech to incite a riot. Propaganda
- sitting on hands for hours while Capitol was attacked. Propaganda

Language by the defendant that has the capacity to intimidate witnesses and taint their testimony? Lol. I would certainly want someone as objective as civ determining what "intimidates" or "taints". Utter nonsense.

TDS propaganda should not be allowed in the court.

Kgar2121 said:

---

If a Smapty talks in the woods, but no one requotes it, does it exist or make a sound?

---

For someone who is "ignored", you guys sure can't stop thinking about me. Maybe you could ignore harder?

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

I should simplify and clarify my point that the main American principle I refer to is that even the citizens we detest and despise the most, we should defend their rights to the utmost, to further ensure that our own rights remain inviolate. Once someone becomes marginalized and deemed an "exception", those with evil intent will push the bounds to go after the rest of us.

---

I'm all for defending the rights of the despised.

But we have a practical legal issue at hand, which is the interplay of a defendant's right to free speech; language by the defendant that has the capacity to intimidate witnesses and taint their testimony; and past history by the defendant of using inflammatory speech to incite a violent riot and then sitting on his hands for hours while the US Capitol was attacked.

There is zero legal precedent for this. We are in completely uncharted territory.

---

typically gag orders are used to help defend the accused, I don't know any other time where they were used to silence the accused. That's troubling to me.

---

Witness intimidation should trouble you too, no? And protecting the jury trial process also?

It's not an arbitrary silencing of the accused. It's a limited order in direct response to Trump's past and present public attacks.

I understand the civil libertarian take on this but believe it's not as simple as unquestioned deference to the First Amendment no matter the capacity of the defendant's speech to intimidate witnesses and taint the trial process.

How are competing First Amendment infringements and steps to protect witnesses, the court, and the trial process weighed?

There should be a heavy burden on the court to demonstrate need (potentially met by Trump's past and present conduct) and discretion (potentially met by the limited nature of the gag).

This will be fascinating to watch play out legally given the stakes, visibility, and lack of past precedent.

---

There is a judicial process well established for witness intimidation and protection of the jury process. If Trump decides he is going to do that (which he hasn't), then the court can deal with it. Preemptively putting a gag order on the defendant who has the presumption of innocence is a bad precedent. If the defendant was anyone but Donald Trump, a gag order would have never existed.

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

I should simplify and clarify my point that the main American principle I refer to is that even the citizens we detest and despise the most, we should defend their rights to the utmost, to further ensure that our own rights remain inviolate. Once someone becomes marginalized and deemed an "exception", those with evil intent will push the bounds to go after the rest of us.

---

I'm all for defending the rights of the despised.

But we have a practical legal issue at hand, which is the interplay of a defendant's right to free speech; language by the defendant that has the capacity to intimidate witnesses and taint their testimony; and past history by the defendant of using inflammatory speech to incite a violent riot and then sitting on his hands for hours while the US Capitol was attacked.

There is zero legal precedent for this. We are in completely uncharted territory.

---

typically gag orders are used to help defend the accused, I don't know any other time where they were used to silence the accused. That's troubling to me.

---

Witness intimidation should trouble you too, no? And protecting the jury trial process also?

It's not an arbitrary silencing of the accused. It's a limited order in direct response to Trump's past and present public attacks.

I understand the civil libertarian take on this but believe it's not as simple as unquestioned deference to the First Amendment no matter the capacity of the defendant's speech to intimidate witnesses and taint the trial process.

How are competing First Amendment infringements and steps to protect witnesses, the court, and the trial process weighed?

There should be a heavy burden on the court to demonstrate need (potentially met by Trump's past and present conduct) and discretion (potentially met by the limited nature of the gag).

This will be fascinating to watch play out legally given the stakes, visibility, and lack of past precedent.

---

There is a judicial process well established for witness intimidation and protection of the jury process. If Trump decides he is going to do that (which he hasn't), then the court can deal with it. Preemptively putting a gag order on the defendant who has the presumption of innocence is a bad precedent. If the defendant was anyone but Donald Trump, a gag order would have never existed.

---

Man, you have it entirely backwards. Trump has been given WAY more latitude than the average defendant only because of who he is... you don't normally get 10 warnings. And do you think he'll be jailed when he inevitably breaks the gag order? Doubtful, though anyone else would be.

Incidentally, gag orders are by definition preemptive (as in preventing any further damage), and are completely constitutional. Sorry Libertarian friends, the 1st and 2nd Amendment aren't even close to absolute, especially when you're a defendant.

caryking said:

---

Most of these cases happened when Trump was President. The President has clear immunity from the judicial system for his actions, until...

The house should bring up the charges and the Senate should convict the President for his actions. Once that is done, then outside courts can try the President for what he's done. Basically, the Senates remedy is removal of office, then the courts can act on the President.

In summary, most of these "outrageous" charges are unconstitutional within the process...

The only "outrageous" charge that can move forward is the NY business charges.

---

If anything you just said was true, why do you suppose Ford bothered to pardon Nixon after he resigned?

Hint: You have no idea what you're talking about. A President is immune from indictment while in office, but they most certainly can be indicted for those crimes after they get out. Impeachment is just a mechanism for getting them out of office sooner. Mitch McConnell even justified not convicting Trump, saying it wasn't the "final forum of American justice".

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

I should simplify and clarify my point that the main American principle I refer to is that even the citizens we detest and despise the most, we should defend their rights to the utmost, to further ensure that our own rights remain inviolate. Once someone becomes marginalized and deemed an "exception", those with evil intent will push the bounds to go after the rest of us.

---

I'm all for defending the rights of the despised.

But we have a practical legal issue at hand, which is the interplay of a defendant's right to free speech; language by the defendant that has the capacity to intimidate witnesses and taint their testimony; and past history by the defendant of using inflammatory speech to incite a violent riot and then sitting on his hands for hours while the US Capitol was attacked.

There is zero legal precedent for this. We are in completely uncharted territory.

---

typically gag orders are used to help defend the accused, I don't know any other time where they were used to silence the accused. That's troubling to me.

---

Witness intimidation should trouble you too, no? And protecting the jury trial process also?

It's not an arbitrary silencing of the accused. It's a limited order in direct response to Trump's past and present public attacks.

I understand the civil libertarian take on this but believe it's not as simple as unquestioned deference to the First Amendment no matter the capacity of the defendant's speech to intimidate witnesses and taint the trial process.

How are competing First Amendment infringements and steps to protect witnesses, the court, and the trial process weighed?

There should be a heavy burden on the court to demonstrate need (potentially met by Trump's past and present conduct) and discretion (potentially met by the limited nature of the gag).

This will be fascinating to watch play out legally given the stakes, visibility, and lack of past precedent.

---

There is a judicial process well established for witness intimidation and protection of the jury process. If Trump decides he is going to do that (which he hasn't), then the court can deal with it. Preemptively putting a gag order on the defendant who has the presumption of innocence is a bad precedent. If the defendant was anyone but Donald Trump, a gag order would have never existed.

---

Are you saying Trump hasn't to-date had the intent to intimidate witnesses? I *think* we'd all agree intent is immaterial when determining the prudence and legality of a gag. It doesn't matter whether he's trying to intimidate. It only matters whether his attacks have the capacity to. It doesn't really matter why he's doing it, only that he is.

So are you saying no impartial arbiter of justice would find that his attacks on witnesses and the court has had or could have an intimidating effect?

The prior restraint piece of a gag order (although in this case it would also be justified based on Trump's past speech, not just attempting to head off future intimidating speech) is both why a heavy burden is on the court to demonstrate why such an order is needed, and also why Trump's gag order is narrow and limited.

And in the case of this gag order, I think Trump has given the court all the ammo they'd need to defend a gag on appeal. They can just pull up his Truth Social account and start reading from it in open court.

Jesus, civ is further left than the ACLU. Worst pretindependent ever.

TDS "trumps" all.

Civilized said:

---

Quick crowdsourced question - is Trump appealing both his gag orders or just the DC case?

On the DC case it seems like this is the crux of the issue:

"Chutkan's order bars Trump and other parties in the case from making public statements about Smith, the defense counsel, members of the court or any of their staffers.

They are also prohibited from targeting 'any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of their testimony.'"

I could see "any reasonably foreseeable witness" being argued as being too broad.

As for the first part, that seems fairly narrow and akin to the NY gag that (I don't think) Trump is appealing.

---

As shocking as it is, since Trump's superpower is dragging out legal proceedings until they no longer matter, it appears that he's only appealing the DC gag order. And yeah, it's the "targeting" portion that some claim is too broad.

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Quick crowdsourced question - is Trump appealing both his gag orders or just the DC case?

On the DC case it seems like this is the crux of the issue:

"Chutkan's order bars Trump and other parties in the case from making public statements about Smith, the defense counsel, members of the court or any of their staffers.

They are also prohibited from targeting 'any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of their testimony.'"

I could see "any reasonably foreseeable witness" being argued as being too broad.

As for the first part, that seems fairly narrow and akin to the NY gag that (I don't think) Trump is appealing.

---

As shocking as it is, since Trump's superpower is dragging out legal proceedings until they no longer matter, it appears that he's only appealing the DC gag order. And yeah, it's the "targeting" portion that some claim is too broad.

---

Ha! Yeah he's the undisputed king of perpetual litigation, and of mouthing off. He's a walking gag order appeal just waiting to happen.

I thought for sure he must be appealing the New York gag order also, which was why I asked the question. I found it almost unbelievable that he wouldn't be given how unpalatable he likely finds having adults in the room making him play by rules, but couldn't find any references to him doing so online. Figured that I was just missing it somehow.

Curtailing the scope of the DC gag to mimic that of the NY gag is probably legally supportable and leaves intact the most important protections of witnesses and the court and by extension the trial process.

Civilized said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Quick crowdsourced question - is Trump appealing both his gag orders or just the DC case?

On the DC case it seems like this is the crux of the issue:

"Chutkan's order bars Trump and other parties in the case from making public statements about Smith, the defense counsel, members of the court or any of their staffers.

They are also prohibited from targeting 'any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of their testimony.'"

I could see "any reasonably foreseeable witness" being argued as being too broad.

As for the first part, that seems fairly narrow and akin to the NY gag that (I don't think) Trump is appealing.

---

As shocking as it is, since Trump's superpower is dragging out legal proceedings until they no longer matter, it appears that he's only appealing the DC gag order. And yeah, it's the "targeting" portion that some claim is too broad.

---

Ha! Yeah he's the undisputed king of perpetual litigation, and of mouthing off. He's a walking gag order appeal just waiting to happen.

I thought for sure he must be appealing the New York gag order also, which was why I asked the question. I found it almost unbelievable that he wouldn't be given how unpalatable he likely finds having adults in the room making him play by rules, but couldn't find any references to him doing so online. Figured that I was just missing it somehow.

Curtailing the scope of the DC gag to mimic that of the NY gag is probably legally supportable and leaves intact the most important protections of witnesses and the court and by extension the trial process.

---

Yeah, I guess the question then is how you actually prevent Trump from intimidating witnesses, knowing full well that his every utterance incites the crowd who were literally calling in death threats on Republican congressmen last week during the Jim Jordan votes.

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Quick crowdsourced question - is Trump appealing both his gag orders or just the DC case?

On the DC case it seems like this is the crux of the issue:

"Chutkan's order bars Trump and other parties in the case from making public statements about Smith, the defense counsel, members of the court or any of their staffers.

They are also prohibited from targeting 'any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of their testimony.'"

I could see "any reasonably foreseeable witness" being argued as being too broad.

As for the first part, that seems fairly narrow and akin to the NY gag that (I don't think) Trump is appealing.

---

As shocking as it is, since Trump's superpower is dragging out legal proceedings until they no longer matter, it appears that he's only appealing the DC gag order. And yeah, it's the "targeting" portion that some claim is too broad.

---

Ha! Yeah he's the undisputed king of perpetual litigation, and of mouthing off. He's a walking gag order appeal just waiting to happen.

I thought for sure he must be appealing the New York gag order also, which was why I asked the question. I found it almost unbelievable that he wouldn't be given how unpalatable he likely finds having adults in the room making him play by rules, but couldn't find any references to him doing so online. Figured that I was just missing it somehow.

Curtailing the scope of the DC gag to mimic that of the NY gag is probably legally supportable and leaves intact the most important protections of witnesses and the court and by extension the trial process.

---

Yeah, I guess the question then is how you actually prevent Trump from intimidating witnesses, knowing full well that his every utterance incites the crowd who were literally calling in death threats on Republican congressmen last week during the Jim Jordan votes.

---

Trump is a habitual line-stepper so I have no doubt he'll push the envelope but I think the best and most legally supportable thing you can do is make the gag narrow and specific such that it will survive appeal, and pop him the second he crosses the line, like the NY judge is clearly not shy about doing.

Civilized said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

I'm glad to see the liberals having dialogue…. I'm serious about that. We may not agree; however, it's good to see.

---

I'm not so sure Civ is a liberal... he certainly doesn't sound like he's a fan of Biden.

---

That's how pretindependants roll Smapty.

---

Smapty saying you're not a liberal just emphasizes what a moron he is.

Happy birthday to this tweet that continues to age like fine milk. https://t.co/rcTSWGHqmB

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) October 26, 2023