I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets anonymous juries in all his cases, civil and criminal.
Enough Trump trials and there will be a need for “Juries Anonymous”. Some evidence just can’t be unseen.
I hope your vision is a bit blurred here.
Taking what you wrote literally, Trump could be prevented from further in-person campaigning, and hampered in his electronic campaigning, because of something he said at a campaign rally. That would violate basic democratic norms.
These norms you speak of are the things Trump shits on. Or wipes his ass with, it’s hard to keep score.
There are limits to free speech rights. And I’m going to just bet that most judges know the limits of those rights as enshrined in the Constitution better than me. And you.
Trump’s mouth is his own worst enemy. Best to leave it unfettered.
DJT has said enough about the joys of presidency for life to convince me he’s against democracy. But I’m with Elmer_J.Fudd here.
We allowed a Stalinist presidential candidate on the ballot, in my state, in 1940 – when the Hitler-Stalin Pact was current. Earl Browder was convicted of passport fraud during the campaign (on January 22, 1940). Wikipedia says that he exhausted appeals in June 1940, but he didn’t go to jail until after the election (March 1941). And AFAIK as I know (and I hope this was true), Browder could campaign as he wished. This seems to me how things should work in a democracy when a non-law-abiding anti-democratic politician is arrested and/or tried while actively running for office.
Apples and oranges unless Earl Browder was trying to incite violence. Again, there are limits to your Constitutional rights.
You mean, did Browder ever describe an upcoming rally as wild? I don’t know, but he was accused of fomenting violence, and, even though he tried not to say stuff that would get him arrested, his party looked favorably on violent revolution. It seems absurd now due to passage of time. I love this song about that side of American communism:
Reading this terrific 1971 Browder interview today, I think the post-communism Earl Browder would think it a mistake to interfere with Trump running:
Attempting to overthrow Congress and kill the vice president is also a violation of those norms. A bigger one, if I dare say so.
I wonder if that is correct. Wouldn’t that be fraud, meaning that double jeopardy does not apply?
I don’t think so. But I’m not reading what you referenced the same way you are, because in that case, the defendant himself was involved in bribing a judge to throw the trial. It’s not the same thing as a defendant being subjected to or benefiting from a dishonest juror.
I shared procedurally what I’ve seen happen, that’s all. There might be cases where there’s been an exception to double jeopardy, but I’ve not seen or heard of them.
We’re getting pretty far afield from the thread topic – as well as way ahead of ourselves re what trials, if any, will occur – so further discussion on general trial procedures should probably go to another thread.
From what I read going quickly through his wikipedia, he continued to appeal until the SCOTUS upheld the conviction in February 1941, and I didn’t see mention of why he walked free until the appeals were exhausted.
Also, trying to get more info, I did also find this history channel clip which says in the caption:
No, I meant what I said. If Trump were to receive a gag order, it would be of his own doing, It’s not just “something he said at a campaign rally”, it is akin to shouting fire in a crowded building, which is not protected speech under the Constitution. If Trump continues to try to incite violence to help his cause, there are restrictions a Judge can, and should, lawfully impose, because someone is eventually going to get hurt as a result.
I didn’t know that. If I was alive back then, I might that thought – I don’t like communism, but this is a terrible precedent that could be used in the future against a viable candidate.
If so used, would Trump then challenge the Democratic nominee to debate on DJT’s own turf? I guess that would be OK.
But suppose that Trump cannot hold rallies, outside one state, by order of a judge who happenned to be appointed by Barack Obama. In actuality, such restrictions may give Trump an electoral advantage due to a sympathy vote. But no one will know, and the Trumpers will be using it to delegitimize a Democratic victory.
I’m not super worried about this, because I suspect prosecutors and judges will be more hesitant to restrict campaigning than are some of the posters here. Perhaps any trials will be delayed until shortly after the 2024 elections. But if I’m wrong there, Joe Biden would have some hard choices to make about whether to try giving some kind of limited pardon or clemency. Allowing the GOP nominee to be gagged would lose the democrats votes.
So, what you are saying is that if I am charged with a crime, I should be able to get around laws about discussing the case by declaring my candidacy for an office?
These are, so far, State charges - Biden can’t make any choices here.
The Governor of NY could, presumably.
What laws are that?
There are laws, or at least rules, that apply to the prosecution in my state:
But I hope defendants are free to complain about government officials, including prosecutors, and especially free from prior restriants.
Having you be unable to discuss your case, with our mostly free press, for a period of many months, seems to me a problem regardless of whether you are running for office. But, yes, gag orders become even more of a concern when a candidate is being gagged, and the higher the office the gagged individual is running for, the more concerning.
It’s ironic that one possible case against Trump has to do with inpropriety in paying someone to be silent, and that more gagging is apparently part of the remedy. Stormy Daniels shouldn’t be gagged, and neither should Donald Trump. If first amendment grounds aren’t convincing, then don’t do it on grounds of handing DJT an issue.
The gag order isn’t to the defendant, it’s to everyone involved.
Sure, complain, dox, call for violence against them, the Trump usual.
To what end? Is this an attempt to win in the court of public opinion because you can’t win in the court of law?
I feel the exact opposite, in that those running for office should be more restricted in what they can and cannot say, and the higher the office, the more justified.
Is that under the Morrisette definition of irony?
The gagging of Daniels was him breaking the law. If he is under a gag order, it is to prevent him from breaking the law.
First amendment has limits, you can’t use it to threaten or tain a legal proceeding. And I don’t share your concern, ID1 will make an issue out of whatever he chooses to make an issue out of. I don’t agree with allowing criminals to shape the legal system to their whim out of worry of what they will do if we don’t.
If there’s a gag order, Trump is still free to campaign, pontificate, blather, bloviate about anything other than the trial, correct? Not sure I see any undue restrictions on his ability to campaign.