I will confidently say that I believe Meadows flipped more than a year ago.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability
And this would be the fight. UNDER THE UNITED STATES (bolded above).
They will claim that he is the United States. He is not under anyone, so he is above the law.
I of course call BS to that, but I suspect to hear that argument.
Yeah, that’s a judge who is taking exactly none of his shit. The temper tantrum should be epic!
I say the 5. Talks to lawyer… “I say the Fifth” Talks to lawyer… “I Pledge the Fifth. Though I don’t know what furniture polish has to do with this”
I’m chucking to myself, because though Chutkin basically decided mostly with the defense about the scope of the protective order it will most likely really hurt trump in the end. As the saying goes, she gave him just enough rope to hang himself, all the while denying him the opportunity to bleat and whine about how she’s totally against him and in the prosecutor’s pocket. He’ll never, ever be able to stop himself from abusing the leeway he’s been given.
I am so glad she pointed out with crystal clarity that Trump’s choice to run for office amid his many legal entanglements is not her problem.
my favourites were, politics yield to justice, his speech and media post will be scrutinized/monitored by the judge, that running for office is his day job and will be treated thusly by the court.
That was my fave as well.
“The fact that he is running a political campaign currently has to yield to the administration of justice,” the judge said. “And if that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say in a political speech, that is just how it’s going to have to be.”
Just slam to door on all that, “But I’m immune while a candidate” BS.
Funny how one judge’s responses to challenging litigation can inspire such respect, while another judge’s responses… 
Every step of the way, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the one side has the facts and the law on their side, and the other - basically nothing other than petulant whining self-interest. It is wonderful the way the conduct of this proceeding can lay that out so clearly!
Not to be a party pooper, but how exactly can she stop him from saying whatever he likes? She won’t imprison him, and he’ll just refuse to pay any fines, or grift it from his followers. I do like that she’s laying down the facts, but sadly I don’t think it will have any real-world impact on Mr. Trump. I really want to be wrong!
Imprision? No. Detain for contempt until he pays a fine, yes. Just like everyone else. She can order him to physically appear before her bench and send U S Marshalls to enforce her order. The Secret Service can not stop them since it is a lawful order and presenting no harm to Mr. Citizen Trump.
He has the means to pay a fine and she is no contractor or lawyer that he can stiff. She is the government in this case, not him. It’s a lesson I think he will soon learn.
Her past statements on the seriousness of J6 make me think Trump is much deeper into the “finding out” side of FAFO than he yet realizes.
I think the quote posted by @Euphonious_Polemic outlines an effective method:
US judge Tanya Chutkan appears to warn Trump at the end of the hearing.
The more that a party makes inflammatory statements that could intimidate witnesses, the quicker she will want to go to trial to ensure an untainted jury pool.
Yes, that is really genius.
defendant 1 has no idea the world of hurt that could befall him. as many people know when the government wants you to pay, fines, taxes, ill gotten gains, etc, they can and will get the payment.
i’m betting on fines first, then held in contempt until payment, or restrict his movements, ie, he must tell the court exactly where and when he is going anywhere.
the difference between the 2 judges he has are very stark.
Are fines really going to matter to Trump? Even if he pays them, he’ll just consider it a fee to say whatever he wants. He’d probably end up making money if he was hit for fines. He’d use it as a fundraising opportunity and raise 10-100x over the amount of the fine.
Why? If a progression of his actions escalates to the point where the integrity of the process is in jeopardy, why wouldn’t she?
I’m kind of channeling an expert I saw on television who pushed back on the widespread concept that Trump, even if found guilty, could not be imprisoned for practical reasons—e.g., Secret Service protection, the danger of Trump being in contact with a prison population, etc. This pundit pointed out that there are numerous examples of the prison system creating unusual setups for “special” convicts. We’ve put multiple governors in the slammer. And he pointed out that maintaining his SS protection would be a trivially easy accommodation.
So, I’m now inspired to react similarly anytime I hear the suggestion that the system can’t subject Trump to the same standards anyone else is governed by—why? Why the hell not?
I’m also weary of the sentiment that we must consider the reaction of the MAGA nuts, the ammunition we might provide for yet another crazy conspiracy narrative. No we mustn’t. If holding Trump accountable without fear or favor somehow destroys the Republic, it was already lost.
Fines are step one. If he continues to offend, he’ll be locked up pending trial.
Hear hear.
Or is it Here here?
Hear sounds more appropriate, and people will know what I’m trying to say anyway.
“Why not?” Because the rules are different for Trump.
Just like, in war, sometimes the rules are different.
You can bomb an area a mile wide and kill 3000 people with a couple dozen airplanes…and that’s okay. Or you can do exactly the same damage using only one single artillery shell: a tactical nuclear shell.
But that’s not okay, because…the rules are different for nukes…
So…yeah, I mentioned Trump and nukes, in the same sentence. Because the rules are different…for both cases.
I’m not saying that the rules are different for Trump, as if that is a good thing…
I’m just stating a fact. A sad fact.
Trump, the Republican party, and 70 million voters play by different rules.
(Pussy grabbing, Jewish space lasers, etc).
Those just ain’t what the OP wants: “the same standards anyone else is governed by”. .
No, they’re not, not in the justice system.