US special counsel Jack Smith asks judge to place gag order on Donald Trump

[thaibeachlovers]

13 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The solution is for the judge to mandate that Trump run his public releases through his lawyers.

Would that be constitutional? I doubt it.

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

The response joins a battle that promises to be a recurring feature of Trump’s multiple state and federal criminal cases and that highlights challenges facing prosecutors and judges in the historic attempts to prosecute a former American president and active candidate.

Does anyone else see something sinister in the sheer number of cases all brought more or less at the same time?

They had 3 years to bring indictments and did sod all till right at the start of the election season.

Never mind, the people are waking up to it, and apparently more are giving him their support because of it.

[ozimoron]

23 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

Trump fights Jack Smith request for narrow gag order in Jan. 6 case
Prosecutors asked a judge to bar the former president’s ‘inflammatory’ attacks on case participants, citing a threat of violence and intimidation of jurors and others

 

September 25, 2023 at 11:39 p.m. EDT

 

After the government request was made public Sept. 15, Trump called special counsel Jack Smith “a deranged person” who “wants to take away my rights under the First Amendment.” His attorneys struck a more restrained tone in a 25-page court filing in Washington, D.C., writing that the court “should reject this transparent gamesmanship and deny the motion entirely.”

 

“Given the significant First Amendment issues presented by the Motion, President Trump respectfully requests the Court schedule a hearing at the first opportunity,” the filing states.
 

The response joins a battle that promises to be a recurring feature of Trump’s multiple state and federal criminal cases and that highlights challenges facing prosecutors and judges in the historic attempts to prosecute a former American president and active candidate.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/25/trump-gag-order-response/

 

https://archive.ph/zaOGG

 

 

 

Right. Trump's first amendment rights allow him to threaten and intimidate prosecutors, witnesses and grand jurors. By that logic every person who has ever made a verbal threat against anybody should now be exonerated because their first amendment rights were violated. But wait, Trump didn't explicitly advocate violence. That Trump's words might influence some crazy cultist to do the job for him is not his fault. Right?

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Does anyone else see something sinister in the sheer number of cases all brought more or less at the same time?

They had 3 years to bring indictments and did sod all till right at the start of the election season.

Never mind, the people are waking up to it, and apparently more are giving him their support because of it.

Yes, of course. It's obviously the deep state all colluding to get their cases investigated and charges laid in the same time frame. Well, actually they're not. How long has the NY case been ongoing now?

[Danderman123]

30 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Would that be constitutional? I doubt it.

Sure it is.

 

An indicted person can have their speech limited by a judge.

 

Let me ask you this: do you understand that an incarcerated person can have their constitutional rights abridged? 

[Danderman123]

27 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Does anyone else see something sinister in the sheer number of cases all brought more or less at the same time?

They had 3 years to bring indictments and did sod all till right at the start of the election season.

Never mind, the people are waking up to it, and apparently more are giving him their support because of it.

At what point should the prosecutor have charged Trump for his theft of classified documents?

[thaibeachlovers]

36 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Sure it is.

 

An indicted person can have their speech limited by a judge.

 

Let me ask you this: do you understand that an incarcerated person can have their constitutional rights abridged? 

He isn't incarcerated, and he isn't even found guilty of that yet.

[thaibeachlovers]

36 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

At what point should the prosecutor have charged Trump for his theft of classified documents?

At the time he was raided would have been better.

[thaibeachlovers]

39 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Sure it is.

 

An indicted person can have their speech limited by a judge.

 

Let me ask you this: do you understand that an incarcerated person can have their constitutional rights abridged? 

Are you saying a person not found guilty can have their constitutional rights curtailed by a judge?

Perhaps you can show me where in the constitution it says that?

[jerrymahoney]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

But wait,

OK. Per Trump motion:

 

"The Court should reject this transparent gamesmanship and deny the motion entirely."

Smith's team has until Saturday to respond. The judge will then likely set oral arguments on the issue.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-opposes-special-counsels-request-gag-order-jan/story?id=103489896

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He isn't incarcerated, and he isn't even found guilty of that yet.

It is common under the US legal system for criminal defendants to have their speech abridged. If you don't understand why, I will explain

 

 

Are you suggesting that Trump be treated differently from other defendants?

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

At the time he was raided would have been better.

If you recall, there was a judge at the time who issued rulings that slowed the case down, at the requests of Trump's lawyers. If you want to blame someone for the "late" indictment in that case, you can blame Trump.

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you saying a person not found guilty can have their constitutional rights curtailed by a judge?

Perhaps you can show me where in the constitution it says that?

A question for you:

 

What if a Mafia Don were indicted, and he publicly stated that anyone who testifies against him is going to die? You are suggesting that there should be no way from a judge to stop that?

 

The reality is that there are all sorts of allowed restrictions on free speech. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by Danderman123

[heybruce]

19 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Does anyone else see something sinister in the sheer number of cases all brought more or less at the same time?

They had 3 years to bring indictments and did sod all till right at the start of the election season.

Never mind, the people are waking up to it, and apparently more are giving him their support because of it.

Funny.  I'm curious, what date do you consider to be the start of election season?

 

Trump supporters seem to think it is the day any legal action is taken against Trump.  There was criticism about the timing of the Mar-a-Lago raid in the summer of 2022 because Trump was sort of hinting about political plans.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/27/2023 at 7:57 PM, Danderman123 said:

It is common under the US legal system for criminal defendants to have their speech abridged. If you don't understand why, I will explain

 

 

Are you suggesting that Trump be treated differently from other defendants?

If you think Trump is a run of the mill defendant I have a bridge for sale.

Whether he should be treated the same, yes, but the consequences of gagging him are likely to be more unpleasant than letting him speak.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/27/2023 at 8:15 PM, Danderman123 said:

A question for you:

 

What if a Mafia Don were indicted, and he publicly stated that anyone who testifies against him is going to die? You are suggesting that there should be no way from a judge to stop that?

 

The reality is that there are all sorts of allowed restrictions on free speech. 

Obviously I'm not saying the don should be allowed to do that, but has Trump threatened to kill anyone that testifies against him?

Anyway, gagging Trump would make zero difference as others will speak for him if he was.

[Tug]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Obviously I'm not saying the don should be allowed to do that, but has Trump threatened to kill anyone that testifies against him?

Anyway, gagging Trump would make zero difference as others will speak for him if he was.

So you think it’s ok to threaten witnesses and call for the execution if the joint chief of staff?personally I think trump should be held in jail until his cases are adjudicated let the few magganuts come out and get squashed like a roach also in an earlier post you thought it was (sinster) all these cases are being handled now when he was potus they were not going to move on him now he not he’s just a very successful con man in my view it’s trump that’s sinister 

[ozimoron]

On 9/27/2023 at 12:11 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

At the time he was raided would have been better.

In his toilet?

[stevenl]

On 9/27/2023 at 11:06 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Does anyone else see something sinister in the sheer number of cases all brought more or less at the same time?

They had 3 years to bring indictments and did sod all till right at the start of the election season.

Never mind, the people are waking up to it, and apparently more are giving him their support because of it.

Trump: delay, obfuscate, delay, object, delay.

His supporters: why is it taking so long 

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If you think Trump is a run of the mill defendant I have a bridge for sale.

Whether he should be treated the same, yes, but the consequences of gagging him are likely to be more unpleasant than letting him speak.

The consequences of giving the entitled .... special treatment will be far more damaging to the US Justice system than whatever consequences you imagine from shutting him up.

[bendejo]

On 9/27/2023 at 12:12 AM, Danderman123 said:

If you recall, there was a judge at the time who issued rulings that slowed the case down, at the requests of Trump's lawyers. If you want to blame someone for the "late" indictment in that case, you can blame Trump.

Give up on the MAL trial: he has his stooge in place, it will not be settled in this decade.

The DC judge needs to talk to the head of Secret Service to figure out that if she sentences the orange guy to incarceration, what would that entail?

 

I don't understand why a former pres should get gov't security protection for the rest of his life, particularly one who was a national disgrace while in office.  Where's the GOP hand-wringing about wasting hallowed taxpayer money on this?

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/29/2023 at 2:01 PM, stevenl said:

Trump: delay, obfuscate, delay, object, delay.

His supporters: why is it taking so long 

Why did you quote me when you said absolutely nothing relevant to my post? Deflecting much?

[LosLobo]

The twice impeached, fourfold indicted and proven fraudster and rapist mafioso Don is witness tampering again, and Jack Smith today asked yet again for a gag order.

 

Trump’s attack on Milley fuels special counsel’s push for a gag order

 

'Special counsel Jack Smith’s office argued Friday that Donald Trump’s recent attacks on Gen. Mark Milley and one of their own newly appointed prosecutors bolster their case to put a gag order on the former president ahead of his trial in Washington, D.C.

 

In a 22-page filing, senior assistant special counsel Molly Gaston said prosecutors rejected Trump’s claims that their proposed gag order was an attempt to silence him on the campaign trail. Rather, she said, it was an effort to prevent him from trying to make “use of his candidacy as a cover for making prejudicial public statements about this case'.

 

Trump’s attack on Milley fuels special counsel’s push for a gag order - POLITICO

 

 

 

 

Edited September 30, 2023 by LosLobo

[stevenl]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why did you quote me when you said absolutely nothing relevant to my post? Deflecting much?

You were suggesting something sinister about the timing, I was pointing out where the cause lies. Sorry my post was difficult to understand.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/30/2023 at 10:33 PM, stevenl said:

You were suggesting something sinister about the timing, I was pointing out where the cause lies. Sorry my post was difficult to understand.

I absolutely suspect something sinister about the timing, but I can't expand on that due to it being classified as a "conspiracy theory".

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I absolutely suspect something sinister about the timing, but I can't expand on that due to it being classified as a "conspiracy theory".

Yes, it's clear you have unsubstantiated opinions contradicted by the facts.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, stevenl said:

Yes, it's clear you have unsubstantiated opinions contradicted by the facts.

Opinions do not need to be substantiated.

Next.

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Opinions do not need to be substantiated.

Next.

Uninformed opinions can't be substantiated.

Next.

[placeholder]

On 9/27/2023 at 12:06 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Does anyone else see something sinister in the sheer number of cases all brought more or less at the same time?

They had 3 years to bring indictments and did sod all till right at the start of the election season.

Never mind, the people are waking up to it, and apparently more are giving him their support because of it.

Apparently, you don't recall or don't even know that Trump employed teams of lawyers to delay investigations. If Trump had simply complied with investigators requests, instead of going to absurd length to resist them, the trials would already be over.

[Skipalongcassidy]

On 9/27/2023 at 1:57 PM, Danderman123 said:

It is common under the US legal system for criminal defendants to have their speech abridged. If you don't understand why, I will explain

 

 

Are you suggesting that Trump be treated differently from other defendants?

You are so far off base that it is ludicrous... The Supreme Court has held that practically all the criminal procedural guarantees of the Bill of Rights—the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments—are fundamental to state criminal justice systems and that the absence of one or the other particular guarantees denies a suspect or a defendant due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.1 In addition, the Court has held that the Due Process Clause protects against practices and policies that violate precepts of fundamental fairness,2 even if they do not violate specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights.3 The standard query in such cases is whether the challenged practice or policy violates “a fundamental principle of liberty and justice which inheres in the very idea of a free government and is the inalienable right of a citizen of such government.” 4