We also need to disarm the MAGA voting block, which will just keep electing nut jobs if we just toss him in jail for hate speech. Lets toss him jail for January 6th and bankrupt him for fraud for all to see.
I think we will see him on house arrest and limited social media before this is over. And then see him removed from several state ballots. Locking him up now is too good for him.
It will happen. It just takes time.
I get the feeling lots of people in this country are only just noticing how long it takes to bring complex cases involving precedent-setting issues to completion within our justice system. None of this is new or novel.
In my non-lawyer opinion, a full gag order is overdue. On the other hand, there’s this from a Washington Post article this week:
“But the bombastic diatribes are also giving prosecutors new material that could be used at trial to prove elements of the criminal charges against the former president. If special counsel Jack Smith succeeds in his quest for a gag order on Trump, prosecutors could lose one of their best sources of incriminating information — Trump’s mouth.”
Gift link: https://wapo.st/3MaFafd
Don’t impede on his right to not have the ability to remain silent.
Yes, maybe true, but we have seen the problem with that. He is a chaos tornado, and in ten minutes he can cause so much damage that the justice system will take decades to sort it out.
When an arsonist sets fire to a house, first we put out the fire, then we catch the arsonist AND STOP HIM FROM STARTING MORE FIRES.
He’s like the dinosaur in Jurassic Park - he’s testing the fence, probing to see how far he can go before getting shocked. If he probes a little here and there, to no consequence, then he can nudge a little more the next day, until the Judge swats him on the nose with a newspaper. Evidently, we have not reached that point yet.
What precedent setting issues?
If it were you or me doing this the judge would have no patience. This is nothing new. Former president is all they got and I do not see how that applies in this case…it certainly shouldn’t.
Did you read the post I cited earlier in the thread? I explained it there.
Carving out special speech rights for people who are running for president certainly would be new legal precedent set with respect to our First Amendment rights.
I did read it. And I agree with you that this is the reality.
I disagree, though, that this should be the reality. Trump has no less or more rights than you or I do.
If you or I were in this position a judge would not be cautious in dealing with such shenanigans.
Running for office confers no special rights. It would be crazy to think that if I were indicted for a crime and in court I could improve my lot by running for political office.
This shows there are different rules in the courts. Trump is getting special treatment. I understand why but it still sucks and is wrong IMO.
I share @Aspenglow’s concern that we can’t trust this hyperpoliticized Supreme Court if it’s given an opportunity to wade into this morass.
Have you got a lot of experience with gag orders and judges? Because I do. And I can tell you that judges are in fact cautious in handing out sanctions for violating gag orders. A graduated approach is not uncommon. Remember Paul Manafort? He got a graduated approach for violating his conditions of release, too.
I will say again, for maybe the 10th time, that as much as you and others want to pretend Trump’s cases are like anyone else’s, they’re not.
He’s a former president. He’s a current leading Republican candidate. His rights to run as a candidate cannot be curtailed by carelessly and broadly imposing gag orders that may affect his free speech rights. If you read the actual orders, you’ll see that judges are ruling very narrowly, so Trump’s rights to say whatever dipshit thing he wants won’t be expanded by a Supreme Court that might be willing to consider doing so. If it is clear that the trial court exercised restraint in imposing the gag order, the current standard will be upheld and not overruled.
I agree with this, and I am reasonably confident that even this SCOTUS will agree with it, too. But if judges try to control Trump’s speech too closely, the rulings I’m afraid of may favor Trump – and they’ll be written in stone for a long, long time. That would not be good for the country.
We’ll know soon. Trump has already appealed Judge Chutkan’s gag order. As I knew he would.
And that’s another thing you might want to consider: How many people who are subjected to the terms of a gag order have the resources to appeal a judge’s ruling on one? Or have so many people who are willing to believe his rights are being violated merely for being subjected to one? I can only think of one.
Exactly.
withdrawn
Regarding the thread title question, Trump will make gag orders a topic at every rally. I suspect he will keep making the same kind of smears but, because of the gag orders, keep it ambiguous are to which judge or prosecutor or witness he is referring to. Maybe he will ask the crowd to shout out the name of the person he is smearing. If in great fear of jail, he could reply to the shouts something like — not quite, but I hear some good guesses.
Does this mean gag orders are good or bad? I suppose – slightly good. With the emphasis on slightly.
Can we just dispense with the “Enough rope” analogy? He has been collecting “rope” his entire life, and this "rope’ doesn’t seem to be magically making a noose and slipping itself around his neck all by itself.
And, he’ll continue to lie about the gag orders at every Rally, telling the faithful that they are not letting him campaign (while he is in front of them campaigning) and they are letting him fight the corrupt, socialist (insert names not in the gag order here), because he’s not allowed to mention (insert names not in the gag order here). While he actually insults them in the rally.
The crowd loves this kind of shit.
Don’t forget he’s the victim here, so please make a donation to his legal fund.
Wouldn’t that be a line of rope stores?
Whatever it’s called, it’s all about stringing along the rubes.
Which would promptly go bankrupt, no doubt.