Great quote from the judge regarding trump’s demand for her to recuse herself from the case because he accused her of making statements about him in other cases:
“The court expressly declined to state who, if anyone, it thought should still face charges,” she wrote. “It is the defense, not the court, who has assumed that the defendant belongs in that undefined group.”
HA!
October 16 will be the hearing on the “gag” order.
There have been several | articles about yesterday’s filing from the Special Counsel’s Office replying to Trump’s opposition to the “gag order” ruling. So I tracked down the actual filing. (You’re welcome.)
Here’s a section regarding his Truth Social post saying Gen. Milley should have been executed:
he defendant should not be permitted to obtain the benefits of his incendiary public statements and then avoid accountability by having others—whose messages he knows will receive markedly less attention than his own—feign retraction.9 Likewise, no other criminal defendant would be permitted to issue public statements insinuating that a known witness in his case should be executed; this defendant should not be, either.
And here’s footnote #9 that talks about his supposed gun purchase:
The defendant recently was caught potentially violating his conditions of release, and tried to walk that back in similar fashion. In particular, on September 25, the defendant’s campaign spokesman posted a video of the defendant in the Palmetto State Armory, a Federal Firearms Licensee in Summerville, South Carolina. The video posted by the spokesman showed the defendant holding a Glock pistol with the defendant’s likeness etched into it. The defendant stated, “I’ve got to buy one,” and posed for pictures with the FFL owners. The defendant’s spokesman captioned the video Tweet with the representation that the defendant had purchased the pistol, exclaiming, “President Trump purchases a @GLOCKInc in South Carolina!” The spokesman subsequently deleted the post and retracted his statement, saying that the defendant “did not purchase or take possession of the firearm” (a claim directly contradicted by the video showing the defendant possessing the pistol). See Fox News, Trump campaign walks back claim former president purchased Glock amid questions about legality (Sept. 25, 2023), Trump campaign walks back claim former president purchased Glock amid questions about legality (accessed Sept. 26, 2023). Despite his spokesperson’s retraction, the Defendant then re-posted a video of the incident posted by one of his followers with the caption, “MY PRESIDENT Trump just bought a Golden Glock before his rally in South Carolina after being arrested 4 TIMES in a year.”
The defendant either purchased a gun in violation of the law and his conditions of release, or seeks to benefit from his supporters’ mistaken belief that he did so. It would be a separate federal crime, and thus a violation of the defendant’s conditions of release, for him to purchase a gun while this felony indictment is pending. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(n).
I once had a case where a client had his guns taken away from him due to one of those red flag laws (in red state Florida, and under a ron desantis administration); he had made some stupid drunk in claim on 911 about shooting the lawn maintenance people who were getting grass clippings all over his car.
Immediately after the risk protection order was served on him, and his guns confiscated, he went to a gun dealer to try to purchase a new gun.
He never completed the purchase. His name was identified as ineligible when he completed the background form. He never left the store with a gun, but he did hold it while he was looking at it. And that was captured on a surveillance camera.
That act, holding a weapon when he was not authorized, resulted in a felony charge.
donald trump committed a very probable crime when he posed with a gun at an armory.
Did the armory commit a crime?
If they gave or sold the gun to Trump, yes. Statute here:
Thank you. I hope they get charged. (If they weren’t just blowing smoke up our asses.)
To clarify: was it the act of holding the gun or the act of applying to purchase it that resulted in the charge? And was he convicted on that charge?
He wasn’t charged federally. He received a state (Florida) gun charge for possession, which arose merely by the fact that he was handling the gun in the store.
He was offered a diversion program that would have led to a dismissal, but he didn’t want to stop drinking, so instead he did 3 weeks in jail in exchange for a reduced misdemeanor conviction.
(My point was just that it’s not out of bounds for a prohibited person to get in legal jeopardy for merely browsing for a gun)
Heck, I’ve proofread plenty of federal court hearings where defendants being released on bond pretrial are warned that they can’t be around firearms at all, not even if someone else brought a gun into where they’re living.
Assuming that the gun was unloaded, and there was no attempt to borrow or purchase the weapon, that seems to me a bit extreme.
What concerns me more is this:
Normally, I lean towards the defense side of things, even with Trump. But this crosses a big line.
I wish that they weren’t delaying the gag order hearing until Oct. 16. The message of this delay is that talking about a witness dying, in any way, isn’t that different from normal trash talk.
I don’t know what’s up with that, either. All of the various jurisdictions (Florida excepted) have been Johnny-on-the-spot with all of the various motions, often in just a couple days. I don’t see any reason at all to delay this motion. The prosecution is asking for a very narrow, specific, and standard limited gag order.
You’re right. But this is not an uncommon thing with judges. If they know a case is likely to go up on appeal for, well, everything, they bend over backward to show they gave the defendant every opportunity to argue every facet of their case. Since the First Amendment is going to figure big in this case (rightly or wrongly), the judge is letting Trump have his say.
She had to give the parties sufficient time to brief the issues, so that’s why Trump gets two (ish) weeks.
Fair enough. That’s a good reason. But I’m still going to mumble under my breath and kick rocks in frustration. 
Me, too.
Look at it this way: It gives Trump two more weeks of rope to hang himself with.
You mean one of those “two weeks” deals that Trump was always talking about is actually going to be true??
It won’t matter if there’s no noose at the end.
That’s not talking about a witness “dying”. That’s calling for a witness to be murdered.
There is a gigantic gulf there. One that should not be minimized by even accidental choices of neutral terminology.
Here’s what Trump said:
Truth Social (first time I ever linked there!)
So Trump did not exactly call for the witness to be murdered. He did bring up DEATH! in a way where the literal threat is both obvious and arguable. The fact that you criticized my anti-Trump post, leading to a disagreement among DJT adversaries, while any gag order remains weeks away, is perhaps a sign of his attention-getting working.