Until now indeed.
We now have a dangerous situation, where a crime boss is powerful enough to incite mobs to violence, and where he merely has to say “won’t someone do something to stop this terrible jury from hurting me! Whatever it takes, Mkay?”
Any Trump jury that is NOT anonymous will know that a death threat is in their future.
I have faith in the law enforcement/legal personnel tasked with protecting these people. They will know how to handle it. Goodness knows, the threat is a well known factor.
The specifics of how best to handle all the security aspects are carefully planned in advance of the trial by the judge, lawyers and security personnel. Nothing will be left to chance.
ETA: You can bet there are already ongoing discussions going on about it by the judges and the resources available to them.
How much do you want to bet that there are still death threats against people that someone thinks are jurors?
Nothing can completely eliminate this shit under the circumstances, but I’ll bet the threats will be substantially extinguished by the steps the judge and law enforcement take.
If I were a potential juror, I don’t think I’d be willing to take that risk. I don’t for a minute believe that the info wouldn’t get leaked by one of his supporters.
The Republicans in the House are thinking of making it so.
“Therefore, the Committee on the Judiciary, as a part of its broad authority to develop criminal justice legislation, must now consider whether to draft legislation that would, if enacted, insulate current and former presidents from such improper state and local prosecutions,” they said.
Of course, it could never pass the (current) Senate, but this sort of thing is just more proof that there is a contingent of the Republican Party that will do anything to protect their orange messiah.
There will be a lot of concern such as you express among prospective jurors. But there will be a jury if it goes to trial. I’m less certain a trial will happen in the Stormy Daniels case. But I’m pretty sure there will be trials for the Mar-A-Lago documents case and the January 6th case.
“Tear him for his bad verdicts!”
They might as well just try to enact legislation that makes Trump KING. It amounts to pretty much the same thing.
At the expense of sounding paranoid, how many of them are Trump supporters?
I wasn’t suggesting Bragg himself baited him, moreso the parties responsible for national security did so, thus my reference to “TPTB”. I was suggesting that all of the pending charges by NY, GA, and Federal, are being coordinated due to many possible outcomes.
Tks for the “welcome back”.
(Posts shortened to narrow the subject matter)
Another possibility, put forth by John Dean, is that Bragg was asked to hold off temporarily by one of the other prosecutors working on cases that might be ready to go. Pure speculation, but it makes a certain kind of sense.
“He knows his isn’t the strongest, most presidential-type case that is going to be presented against Trump. And he might have been asked to delay, and drag his feet a little while, because some of these other cases might be ripe for action.
Your experience in this field is very valuable, @Aspenglow. But it makes me wonder something about gag orders:
In the event that Trump’s cases do have gag orders, he can’t discuss them. But can he say anything about there being a gag order? For instance, if he’s campaigning, can he say something to the effect of, “well, we all know it’s a witch hunt, but I can’t say anything about it?”
You sound a little paranoid. 
Seriously, though, there is a problem with this in the FBI/DOJ. It’s well documented and one of the many things Merrick Garland has had to work to remediate while simultaneously prosecuting a lawless former president and all his henchmen and a lot of other things I won’t bother to discuss in this thread.
I read awhile ago how some of the US attorneys involved in the Mar-A-Lago documents case were arguing strenuously for Garland to take Trump’s word for it when he submitted the certification signed by Evan Corcoran last May that all classified materials had been returned. Garland didn’t, the lawful search took place and we see how that turned out.
This I seriously doubt. I mean, there is likely some informal coordination for the sake of national security, but the predicate event for Trump’s freakout was Bragg inviting him to testify before the grand jury. No other law enforcement agency has any control over that invitation. Only Bragg.
That’s why I assumed you meant Bragg when you referenced “TPTB.” The FBI might have asked Bragg to give them a heads-up when the invitation was imminent, but there wouldn’t be any more coordination than that, I don’t think.
That’s kind of you to say. I’m glad you’ve found my posts helpful. I can only share what many years at the state level of working inside courtrooms has taught me and there are often differences in how various judicial entities handle their cases, but at least I can give you an overview.
The fact of a gag order is a matter of public record. It will be stated in open court and everyone will know exactly what the limits are of the judge’s order. Woe to those who try to skirt it.
Obviously how that’s interpreted would be up to the judge presiding over the case. In my experience, though, that would be over the line. Trump would be characterizing the proceedings, so I think it’s a violation of the order. Don’t talk about it means, don’t talk about it.
Reporters who covered Trump’s rhetoric at his Waco rally yesterday noted he was more subdued in his language. I suspect his attorney had a stern discussion with him and warned him of the likely consequences for his campaign rantings.
Trump has already given the trial judges in all his cases a lot of ammunition for crafting at least partial gag orders. I’ve seen them issued in cases with far less at risk. Prosecutors have rights, too, including the right to try their cases to juries as untainted as possible and without terrified jurors, parties and staff.
Trump has the right to run for president. He doesn’t have the right to run a terror campaign.
Impossible. One of his tics is that whenever he says he can’t say something, he then immediately says it, because he wants to impress you with all this cool stuff he knows.
One good example of this was an interview he was giving where he was boasting about a military plane that he naturally gave himself all the credit for, and his exact words were “I can’t tell you which one it is, but it’s the F-35.”
I also appreciate all of the information you’ve given. The downside of dealing with the pool of slime which is Trump is that it’s so easy and plausible to answer “But what if he did?”to everything, which is neither helpful or fun. I do like the idea of him being rebuked by his lawyer.
My thought, re: baiting of Trump.
I don’t think he was specifically ‘baited’ - more likely Bragg had a call with Trump attorneys and said 'The Grand Jury is due back with its decision on Monday, you might want to prepare your client just in case we need to do something on Tuesday". (or words to that general affect)
“I’m not supposed to say I’d love it if the judge got strangled so I won’t but let’s just say that I have some very colorful thoughts that I’m supposed to keep to myself, which I’m going to comply with, okay?”
You are a lawyer, and I’m not. But I think that, without preventing him from running – which would be undemocratic – he can’t be stopped from uttering dog whistles that will amount to the same. So maybe he won’t attack the prosecutor by name, but I can’t see him being gagged from saying something like this (which he said yesterday):
Trump, is better, than given credit for here, at walking up to lines and giving the impression of having gone over them, without there being proof.
As I have said many times in this thread and lots of others, I am not a lawyer. I just have a lot of experience working in a courtroom as a judge’s assistant and am very familiar with legal procedure.