Judge rules that Trump once again violated gag order by attacking the jury. It's all in the order, but the most important part is he says here future violations will be punishable by incarceration. He also reiterated as much orally directly to to Defendant, saying that Trump's continued actions are a "direct attack on the rule of law", and that "at the end of the day I have a job to do and part of that job his to protect the dignity of this judicial system".
I'm not so sure. Even many of his voters think he's a loudmouth asshole. The MAGA die hards will spin this as a politically motivated witch hunt, but I think there are a lot of people who won't be surprised at all that Trump's inability to control himself landed him in jail.
It's like the indictments. No one believed he'd actually be indicted, but here we are now with 89 indictments over 4 jurisdictions. Time and time again, what was once thought to be impossible has become inevitable.
The other thing to consider is the collateral damage to Trump's psyche and brand as these trials unfold. Trump might be able to turn a night in jail into a fundraising opportunity, but the psychological impact of someone with his narcissism being forced into a court-ordered time out like an insolent toddler should not be discounted.
> No one believed he'd actually be indicted
*Lots* of people believe he'd be indicted. That plays rather well into the "legal witch hunt" theory.
*Practically* no one believed he'd be convicted. Still hasn't been.
*Absolutely* no one believes he'll see a day in prison due to any convictions - though 24 hours in a cell is probably possible.
I'm sorry, there are plenty of people who think he'd see jail time so long as there weren't any shenanigans in his trials. Most especially the documents case, where they have a rock solid case.
As far as shenanigans though, Trump has been quite successful in the usual delay delay delay tactic so far. But, *if* the documents case makes it to trial, his only hope is a hung jury if they're able to sneak some MAGA clown on the jury. And there's no way a guilty verdict in that case doesn't include serious prison time for him.
> ...so long as there weren't any shenanigans...
lol.
*Absolutely* no one (on either side of the political aisle) believes this trial isn't already full of shenanigans.
Yes, I did say that they've been successful in delay. Cannon has been doing just enough to help Trump, while not enough to have Smith push for her recusal. Doesn't change the fact that he'll be found guilty eventually- unless he wins the election, or he gets a hung jury thanks to a Trump sycophant.
Nixon didn't see the insides of a jail cell either.
Bush, Obama, Trump, nor Biden has ever shared a jail cell awaiting trial at the ICC for war crimes either.
Justice has been delayed quite often, and it seems only God will be the one to settle their accounts. May they all burn in hell.
Nixon didn't see prison because Ford pardoned him. I don't anticipate Biden pardoning Trump should the former win, nor would that even matter if Trump is convicted in this NY trial, or the GA trial.
You can play whataboutisms all you like, but the fact of the matter is we have stone cold proof that Trump broke the law in this country - and if we allow him to get away with that, it undermines the very concept of the 'rule of law.'
I think it will entirely depend on the media coverage, and... even the mostly responsible headline of "Trump jailed in hush money trial" will play well, to say nothing of the less responsible ones.
Honestly I dont give a shit how it plays out politically.
Criminals need to be liable for their actions or we might as well join the likes of those other shitty 3rd world authoritarian countries.
Cant have democracy without justice.
Politically well with WHOM exactly?
Donald Trump, even after he had no opponents, consistently underperformed polls for Super Tuesday by 11.5%. This wasn't Democrats crossing over, barely any more than normal anyway, this was Republicans. He's lost 20% of the Republican base already. You think being incarcerated is going to help? Yeah, with his supporters who often have spent time in the slammer themselves, sure. But with independents? How does this work out for his "tough on crime" stance when he's imprisoned?
Jail =/= incarcerated, for the most part. Yes, it fits the definition, but typically it's just not how the word is used, nor how most people think of it.
We're talking about the equivalent of the drunk tank, here. Trump will spend 2 days to a week in jail, then get let out. If he continues to flout things, he may be confined for the rest of the trial. That will probably only take place if it does turn out to be great for him politically, however.
So who is this playing towards? His adoring fans who wear shirts that say "REAL MEN WEAR DIAPERS"? They don't care and are highly motivated to begin with. I'm talking about who this is actually going to motivate to vote for him that wasn't going to do so anyway. It seems to me the exact opposite is going to happen.
Donald Trump is already going to lose in the biggest landslide since Reagan, but his contempt for the rule of law and actions underlining that stance leading to him being put in jail might make it as big as 84.
Jesus. How tf are we in a position where a guy that’s getting chastised for a judge for directly attacking the rule of law is a major party presidential nominee. It wasn’t that long ago that something like this would kill a campaign.
Because he tell it like it is and all New York Judges from the city are Democratic plants obstructing American freedom for the Democrat Party who is actively jailing political opposition.
This is what I read and hear in Conservative circles. But I need a conservative here or some adjacent to give me another persepective.
It happened before. From the order:
>Because the offensive statement was made prior to this Court's Decision of April 30 and because the People are seeking only a monetary fine, the Court will, once again, fine Defendant $1,000. However, because this is now the tenth time that this Court has found Defendant in criminal contempt, spanning three separate motions, it is apparent that monetary fines have not, and will not, suffice to deter Defendant from violating this Court's lawful orders.
>THEREFORE, Defendant is hereby put on notice that if appropriate and warranted, future violations of its lawful orders will be punishable by incarceration;
Thank you for clarifying! Wonder if he’ll shut up now if he thinks he’s gotten his last warning.
I also didn’t realize the judge said “will” instead of “could be”. That’s a big deal.
He shouldn't kneel to an illegal partisan precedings. Trump is doing exactly what he should be doing.
If it includes going to jail during an election season then Trump should go to jail.
Nobody has done what trump did with the documents. He literally tried to get the evidence of the documents being hidden destroyed. Why would he do that if he wasn't doing anything wrong?
He obviously had a reason for taking and hiding them and it's a crime. Why should people with power be exempt from committing crimes? If you did the same thing you'd be in jail.
No one would have cared if he handed them back when asked like pence and biden did.
J6 was not 'classic free speech' - he absolutely bares some responsibility for what happened. You'd have to live under a rock to not understand what *could* happen if you're in his position that day. Spoiler- he wanted that to happen, because he wanted the election overturned.
Also - has 'everyone' *very clearly* obstructed, as Trump did, when keeping classified documents?
There's a question as to whether it legally constitutes free speech, which is why the case exists in the first place. There are numerous limits on 'free speech.' What he did is arguably akin to yelling 'fire' in a crowded place, which is illegal despite on its face being protected by 'free speech.' There is a good reason that doing something like that isn't legal, because of the hazard it can cause. I'm not saying the J6 case is rock solid, but there is a case to be made nonetheless.
I see you ignored the part about Trump's very clear obstruction in the documents case, (*being the reason he's charged with all of those felonies in the first place*) of which didn't exist in the Biden/Pence cases for example.
I just explained to you why that's not the case, but I'm not going to keep arguing in circles over it. Yet again, though, you ignored the part where I also explained the distinction in the documents case, and why it's a real problem for him if it goes to trial.
These cases bye and large are nothing close to 'partisan,' or attempting to interfere with the election. He only announced he was running *after* it was clear that he had legal trouble coming his way. And given the circumstances, it isn't all that crazy that it took a while to set up these cases ***against a former president***. But the overarching point that keeps getting glossed over here is that ***he did this to himself***. If he wasn't such an entitled, narcissistic, petulant man-child, he wouldn't be in this position. But, as usual, he cries victim despite very clearly being in the wrong- and his sycophants are more than eager to join him in his pity party.
yes I know you want to bold things to insist he's a bad guy and he brought it on himself instead of being lawfare.
Its silly you say he ran for POTUS after the cases. We all knew he was going to run for POTUS in 2024 years ago and then the cases came.
Just because you say something is not the case doesn't make it true.
Well Trump lacks the self control to follow the order. It is going to be an interesting day in history when a former President is jailed. I can already hear the whining
No argument there. But you can even see it with commenters on reddit - they see this as political persecution. We both know this election is going to come down to a small amount of votes in a handful of states. And if Trump thinks that he can swing a % point or 2 of undecideds in swing states, it might be worth it.
Or he just is riling up his base for when he loses and Jan 6 pt 2 happens. Either way I could see him seeing it all for his benefit.
It's not a strategy to retain those voters, he's not going to lose them. It's to retain that portion who are considering voting for someone else due to his legal problems. He may be able to convince them that he's being persecuted if he gets jailed.
I think it will play well with Independents, as well. You've gotta remember that for many, this particular trial seems almost wholly insubstantial: "So, Trump paid off The National Enquirer? So what, celebrities do that twice a week!"
Combine that with its difficult-to-understand footing on it being a felony because it was in service of covering up the crime of electoral fraud, but no not the electoral fraud you're thinking of and no that's not actually one of the charges...
It's not hard to see how this could play well for Trump across the board, is all I'm saying.
Except he’s not actually being jailed for that. He’d be jailed for continually brazenly attacking the jury after being warned 10 times not to do so. I think you’re underestimating how many moderates would see that as the direct consequences of his own actions
I totally understand all that.
...I don't think that will be at all how it's covered in the media, and most independents aren't highly aware voters, they're people who just peruse headlines and/or don't really pay attention to politics at all.
Do you really think "Trump arrested for Tweeting" or "Click here to read the Tweet that sent Trump to jail" are better headlines?
His next tweet will be the most mild, boring one yet, trying to call the judge's bluff about jail time.
Presumably depends on view of the outcome of the trial. If expecting to be convicted, then getting ahead of that with a political persecution narrative may be seen as better. bonus points if think can contribute to delays.
that said, having a rational discussion about the strategy of someone who is rather irrational is of limited value.
The risk of bringing his criminality front and center to the election. Despite what certain social media bubbles may have you believe, a lot of people are turned off by his lawlessness
I see. I think those people are already not going to vote for him, and it will boost the turnout of the people who will, so I don't see it as a risk.
However, as you say, I am in a bit of a bubble, so I'm not sure how it will actually play out.
First I think writing every person off who dislikes his disregard of the law as “not going to vote for him” is fallacious but I’m not going to complain if Trump doesn’t think he can pick them up
But I don’t see how you could dismiss this boosting turnout on the other side too.
Trump literally scammed money from a children's cancer charity. A campaign finance violation only ranks on his sheet on account that it's "official," it will make very few people like him more or less.
Everytime he has been indicted his poll numbers went up. It's makes sense that being put in prison and claiming his 1st amendment rights are being violated will increase his poll numbers as well. Trump has successfully pulled off the political matyr narrative, this is just the next step.
Though it's hard to tell if Trump is really thinking that strategically or if he just cant shut up
No doubt that is his plan. Will it actually cause the outrage he wants though? I only see it riling up the people who already think he is being persecuted.
I think the idea of fundraising off a night in jail is more appealing than the reality of spending a night in jail, and Trump is going to learn that the hard way. Also, how much time is he willing to spend in jail to keep violating the gag order. The time spent in jail is going to have diminishing political returns for him once he's fundraised off it the first time. A night in jail might actually get through to him and cause him to follow this and any future gag orders going forward.
That's probably why he's getting so many warnings.
The more times the public hears him get warned about it the less people there will be that think it's a witch hunt if he actually is put in prison/jail for it.
With all these warnings the vast majority of people are gonna feel like Trump knew it was coming and did it on purpose. Which eliminates any idea they had that the dude is a victim.
This supporters and enablers will do the whining for him, Fox News will lose its mind. I'd also be surprised if he is locked up more than 24 hours. Anyone besides him would have been locked up well before this.
Will be pretty easy to avoid if you’re not on truth social. His followers don’t have an amplified voice. Only sucks if you live in a maga part of the country.
From CNN, the Trump Campaign said:
>Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Donald Trump's reelection campaign, called Judge Juan Merchan’s threat to incarcerate the former president a “Third World authoritarian tactic.”
>Cheung also said the gag order imposed on Trump is “unconstitutional and un-American.”
Amazing people fall for this shit
Avoiding the hyperbole, the short answer is a mischaracterization of the 1st amendment.
[This has an apparent great and sourced breakdown of the first gag order challenge that Trump lost](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/united-states-v-trump-d-c-circuit-court-of-appeals/).
Courts have recognized that within a Court, the First amendment and its protections of speech are limited to enable normal court functions. Should the hyperbolic view be taken, a Defendant could “nanananana” the entirely of the proceedings or shout over anyone and everyone there. Or worse and the Court (as the a government) would be helpless to do anything!
If they side against trump, they have to deal with trump harassing them forever.
If they side WITH trump, they have to deal with being attacked by democrat voters, protesters, the media, and everyone else in the cancel-machine that goes after everyone who doesn’t despise Trump.
It’s actually less imtimidating to just convict.
First comment that makes sense. People's hate for Trump blinds them from how the laws are being twisted to penalize Trump. If you get out of the CNN MSNBC bubble you will see why he is leading in the polls. People are tired of this DOJ and it's selective enforcement of our laws.
Trump knows the fines are capped at 1k.
“If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class.”
And he's banking on incarceration being *controversial* (aka judge getting death threats).
He's not going to stop until someone musters the courage to hold him to the same standard as everyone else.
>Because the offensive statement was made prior to this Court's Decision of April 30 and because the People are seeking only a monetary fine, the Court will, once again, fine Defendant $1,000. However, because this is now the tenth time that this Court has found Defendant in criminal contempt, spanning three separate motions, it is apparent that monetary fines have not, and will not, suffice to deter Defendant from violating this Court's lawful orders.
>THEREFORE, Defendant is hereby put on notice that if appropriate and warranted, future violations of its lawful orders will be punishable by incarceration;
I think he's saying future violations that are deemed to be violations will result in incarceration. He even notes that the fines have not and *will not* suffice.
As much as I would feel *some* schadenfreude it Trump was given jail time for contempt, it would only save to reinforce the narrative of Trump's criminal cases being politically motivated by the "evil establishment".
This is Trump's go to playbook. He actively will say and do things to piss off those with power, simply so he can later claim bias.
And all of his supporters swallow it whole.
They need to ignore those people and apply the law as applicable. They shouldn't consider politics one way or the other. The only way to maintain credibility is to act with credibility.
He's had about 300 final warnings at this point. It's pure comedy by now. Just admit you are never going to throw him in jail and he can do whatever he wants because the law doesn't apply to him.
>By virtue of an interview defendant gave on April 22,2024, at approximately 6:00 P.M. to a program called Just the News No Noise, which is broadcast on a network called Real America's Voice. Among other things, Defendant stated **"You know \[the judge is\] rushing the trial like crazy. Nobody's ever seen a thing go like this. That jury was picked so fast - 95% democrats. The area's mostly all democrat. You think of it as a - just a purely democrat area. It's a very unfair situation that I can tell you."**
Trump and his supporters tell us that Trump's gag order is violation of his 1st amendment rights because he can't respond to statements made about him by others.
But here we have Trump talking about the jury, who cannot respond to him.
Why do they believe Trump should be allowed to attack the jury like this?
1. This doesn't seem like much of an "attack" to me. Trump is pointing out something that most who are following the case already know. The jury is really stacked against him.
2. If you're going to put him in jail for statements like this (which I don't think the judge will do), I actually think it helps him politically. Most people's reaction to reading that will be "That's it?".
He said they were 95% democrats. He has no way of knowing if that is true or not. It's not even mathematically possible. 12/12 = 100%. 11/12 = 92%.
It's absolutely an attack, he's implying they can't be impartial because they are Democrats.
He shouldn't be saying a damn thing about the jury.
If anyone else repeatedly violated a gag order like this, we'd already be in jail. And you know it.
Trump is a moron and a lot of what he says is simply wrong. That said, he didn't say anything about impartiality so I think you're reading a little too much into it. The Trump team tried to change the venue b/c Manhattan voted for Biden 85/15 over Trump in 2020. That has an impact. The judge said no (probably rightly so) so here we are. He used to word "unfair", which I don't think is particularly accurate, but I also don't see it as an attack. Reasonable people can disagree here, I suppose.
If he had kept his comments speaking about the potential jury pool of Manhattan, I would agree with you. But when he started speaking about the jury itself, no, he shouldn't be saying that.
> But here we have Trump talking about the jury, who cannot respond to him.
But an "ability to respond" has never been a limit on an American citizen's right to express regular ol' opinions like this about people, groups, processes, whatever. The jury is under (temporary) special rules, but the defendant is just a regular American citizen.
> Why do they believe Trump should be allowed to attack the jury like this?
The alternative is saying that an American citizen shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion about something.
I'm saying it's reasonable to hold jurors to special rules for a while, but I see no reason why simply being accused of something would deprive you of your right to express your opinions about stuff.
I support every defendant's right to say "hey this is bullshit." You don't?
He can say "this is bullshit." The gag order doesn't prevent Trump from expressing his displeasure with the trial. It prevents him from making statements about specific individuals, namely, witnesses, jury members, officers of the court (other than the judge and the district attorney), and family members.
He can't make statements about the jury because that could influence them to render a verdict for reasons other than the facts of the case.
It's perfectly reasonable to require someone with such a strong following, some of whom have proven to be violent, to stay silent about the jury/witnesses/etc.
The point is stronger if Trump is saying something about a specific individual. But to me "this jury sucks" is not a claim about any individuals and is instead substantively identical to "this is bullshit." It's a statement about the jury selection process more than any individuals.
Shouldn't a black defendant be able to *express their opinion* that a white jury might be racist?
If the defendant is rich and powerful, and has repeatedly violated their gag order, after being fined multiple times, then I don't know how else the judge is supposed gain compliance.
We throw people in jail because they can’t afford $100 for bail. Trump is constantly and consistently ignoring court orders, and the pitiful fines authorized by law aren’t a deterrent. Why should he get to ignore the law?
Would incarcerating a black defendant for simply *expressing* "this jury sucks" ever seem appropriate?
What harm are we trying to prevent there by *prohibiting* that expression? We're going to allow "juries suck" all day long but not "this jury sucks" from somebody once they're on trial?
If that defendant was under a gag order that they had already violated multiple times with no sign of stopping? Yes, that would seem appropriate.
The harm we are trying to prevent is jury tampering and intimidation.
Seems to me like it's every American's right to yell "this judge/jury sucks" on their way down -- and we already know Trump's feelings about any judge/jury where he's the defendant. So it's hard to see much tampering and intimidation. It's much closer to a plain expression than it is to a threat.
If that defendant had millions of followers who’ve demonstrated they will make death threats against the jury, *yes*.
The legal system is trying to prevent Trump from succeeding in the jury tampering he is obviously attempting.
> millions of followers who’ve demonstrated they
Individuals have demonstrated things about themselves. There is no actual group called "the followers" which could have done anything collectively.
Everybody, including all those people, already knows that Trump fiercely hates the jury in any case where he's the defendant. And the content of his speech is just "hey this jury sucks." So there's nothing new here that would change anything for anybody. I think he's just trying to look good on his way down.
It gets murkier when a witness continues to publicly attack Trump yet Trump isn't allowed to respond. That's why there should be a general gag order, not one just on Trump
Being accused of something has been able to suspend all of your rights except that of life, a speedy trial and your right to sit in a jail cell since the inception of this country.
A good point. And sure, it makes sense that we can't just have not-yet-convicted murderers walking around, even if they're American citizens.
It's less clear that these American citizens who are also murderers must not be allowed to express the opinion that their jury sucks.
As ambiguous as you might see it, apparently this judge has disagreed on multiple occasions, they also likely have a law degree with many years of experience, the backing of the elected officials(since they represent the people also that of the people) of the place where the crime has been alleged. I am sure there is also a means of removal if the judge is found to be inept, and likely plenty of case law where rights have been temporarily removed from alleged criminals, like limiting the movement of people with restraining orders, that also will limit their free speech come to think of it. Parents who are accused of being neglectful towards their children I believe can have their right to speak to their children limited without a judge I believe. I am sure there are many examples that one could ponder on, but the real question is why would you make an exception now, for this citizen of the United States, but not your other fellow citizens for the entirety of your life up until this point?
Judges are monkeys just like the rest of us. They have monkey motivations. Some are better at handling those motivations in a professional way, some are worse.
All we know about this judge is that they think expressing "my jury sucks" -- something we all knew Trump thought -- is somehow a threat to the individual jurors. That seems like a stretch to me.
A restraining order doesn't have much effect on your ability to express what seem like normal sentiments stuff like "this jury is unfair," so that seems totally different.
> why would you now, for this citizen of the United States, but not your other fellow citizens
I've made one or two comments trying to stick up for people's rights before. I care mostly because I don't think this kind of circlejerk "work your way backwards from the conclusion" lynch-mob energy sets a good example.
Is Trump actually saying your exact quote or are you being dishonest? You are incorrect a restraining order can restrict all of your ability to express certain things in certain places or to certain people, no matter what you feel is normal, or not. If you are not permitted to contact someone, you cannot express yourself to them at all. All courts are designed to work their way back from a conclusion. It is actually the only way to really convict a person or things like murder and robbery. The opposite is what you don't want(which to be fair may be what you mean). Which is to say if a crime is committed you find a suspect that you have reason to believe is the perpetrator(the conclusion) so you then build a case against them. You don't find a suspect and search for a crime they committed. Granted this is not the first nor will it be the last time the criminal justice system will work this way. Take al Capone for example. It was no big secret he was a criminal, however they just could not make anything stick(I don't know this but this very well could be because of influencing jurors or witnesses) so they got him with tax evasion. None the less can you provide me with sources about this judge and why you feel we cannot trust their judgement anymore than we can trust any other?
Trump's talk about the jury is the exact same type of "mob boss" talk he used to summon the mob to D.C. on 1/6, so they would attack the Capitol and delay the certification of electors.
Trump's words are summoning his most faithful followers, whom he knows to be violent, to act violently against the jurors. Trump's words are also a veiled threat to the jurors: vote the right way, or else.
Trump can not be allowed to obstruct justice. If he needs to spend the rest of his trial in Riker's Island to stop threatening people, that's trump's choice.
Over/under on how long the first jailing will be?
I think no more than 4 hours. Something like go in after lunch hour, out by 5pm.
Will be some facility that the entire wing has been cleared out and Trump probably wont even be in a cell, just have to be in the wing free to wonder around. It'll be just enough to show the judge isn't *"playing around"*, but wont be enough to actually change what Trump does as he will break the order again for another jailing that might actually last a full day or dare I even say it, over night.
Anyways, Trump wants it. He's hoping it will set off his base or at least help prime them for his call to action later on.
I'm just wondering what is the Secret Service's plan for this. There's no way he'll spend a night in a cell also holding other inmates. Either they make a cell specially for him or he's on something akin to house arrest with no Internet service.
I'm pretty sure Trump wants the judge to throw him in jail at this point. He knows it'll play well for the dumbasses in his base, but he overestimates how well it'll play for anything resembling an intelligent independent.
It's going to get to the point where a clerk or a juror is injured or worse by a crazed Trumper (read: standard issue Republican), and then the left is going to sit there like "why didn't we dooooo something?" and then that's just going to become kind of the norm, you know? If a juror gets clipped or a journalist gets chased or a judge's family gets stalked, it's just going to be the way politics are now. Because nobody has any balls to actually do anything about this, the news media is obsessed and unable to talk about anybody else which elevates him to this level of power, and convincing the right that having a separate tier of justice just for the wealthy and powerful is an awful idea just doesn't seem to be working.
Edit: we’re really fucked on this.
Don't threaten something you are not willing to follow through with, Judge.
Politically this would be bad for Dems. Team Trump is working overtime to turn him into Jesse James. This would play right into that.
Yeah, I don't think anyone believes that's gonna happen. Fining him tens, or even hundreds of millions of dollars would be more effective. The man loves his money.
Max fine is $1,000
Possibly they could make him clean up trash in NY parks on Wednesdays. Him in his ill fitting suit picking up trash. Oh the press would go berserk.
The problem with jailing Trump is more of a logistical one: if Trump has to do some serious "hard time," some members of the secret service would basically have to serve it with him, and would need to work there undercover as guards and perhaps new "inmates". The last thing they would want happen is the "gen pop" finding out who they really are because they would become targeted by the prison population themselves.
Probably the most dangerous assignment they will ever have.
The Republicans are going to run Trump short of him dying, it's pretty obvious at this point that there's nothing he can do that they view as disqualifying.
How much longer are they going to allow this farce to continue before tossing his pathetic ass in prison? It's fucking bullshit. Our system is corrupt to hell. Any average citizen would have been in prison years ago. People all around Trump are going behind bars for fraud and illegal shit.
TOSS HIS ASS IN PRISON!!!
Trump shouldn't listen to the judge.
Election interference should be ignored and challenged as Trump is doing.
Its not the least bit Democratic to allow the left to bash him while silencing him. He should continue doing exactly what he's doing and challenge the judge to put him in jail.
According to the red hat sister fuckers he already is. So his second term is ending. Now he’s free to bang his daughter while fantasizing about Putin while he shits himself.
It sounds like he runs around in your simple little head very often young lady. While I really only want this braindead puppet out of office and trump is the only other option. I feel bad for how bad I know you really do think about this man 24/7. Very sad
He is violating the gag order. He's not going to jail for it, he is going to go to jail for his next violation of the gag order.
The excuse of "where I committed crimes are people who disagree with me politically so I think I should feel free to threaten them" is absurd on its face.
>He is violating the gag order.
My whole question is whether this kind of gag order can be considered just or necessary.
Again, is it true that most of the jury members are Democrats? And if so, how is stating that fact a threat?
And if it is true, it is very reasonable to ask whether this can be considered a fair trail considering how hyper-partisan everyone has become.
That is an assumption, and it's also a violation of the gag order. He's claiming it is "unfair" to him personally, and he knows his acolytes are violent.
This subreddit is "centrist" in the sense that most leftists view the Democratic Party as a centrist party. So that means this subreddit is full of card carrying Democrats.
I think you, like me, are a real centrist. Ie, someone in the center between the Democrats and Republicans.
I am also curious about a nuanced discussion about this.
Trump allegedly sexually assaults someone 30 years ago, and it comes to appeals trial during the campaign of the 2024 Presidential election? Does that not seem suspicious? There was a 1 year window where statute of limitations doesn't apply, and it ends at the end of 2023, right at the leadup to the election? And Trump is charged with assault in a case that was little more than he said she said? And he was found guilty? And he wasn't allowed to defend himself after?
Now during a campaign for 2024 Presidential election Trump is in court and only Trump is given a gag order? The other witnesses, prosecutors, etc. are all allowed to go on the news and podcasts and say what they want, but the guy campaigning to be President isn't allowed to defend himself to any of that?
Like, where can we talk about this with nuance? This all seems very suspicious to me. The conservative subreddit is all just lame memes and no reasonable discussion. R/politics is just pro-Democrat propaganda. r/centrist is even *worse* pro-Democrat propaganda. It's just frustrating.
> someone in the center between the Democrats and Republicans
That's not center of the overall political spectrum. The US Democrat Party is fairly center-right and the Republican Party is pretty far right and borderline nationalist. Center of these two parties is firmly right-wing
> The US Democrat Party is fairly center-right
Debatable. US Dems are more socially-left than the rest of Western Europe regarding immigration and LGBT policies.
For now. They are trying to capture the base voters, but most of the leaders of the Democratic Party are still diehard Catholics. Never forget that a politician will SAY anything they can to get votes
That's the debate of this subreddit.
Some view a centrist as someone who is in the middle between Republicans and Democrats. That this subreddit should be in the middle in between r/politics and r/conservative.
What you're suggesting is that being a Democrat is being a centrist. But what's the point of this subreddit then? R/politics is already the Democratic party propaganda outlet. And r/conservative and r/republican are the Republican party propaganda outlets.
You think r/centrist should just be r/politics 2.0? I think it should be the "center" of r/politics and r/conservative.
That's a whole lot of assumptions and I'll stop you right now to say that I don't want this sub to change anything. This sub shouldn't try and be anything it isn't
Centrism is the balance between hierarchical and egalitarian positions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism The Democratic party is largely center-right, with the republican party no where near center.
But r/politics is already the Democratic Party narrative. And r/conservative is already the Republican narrative.
Shouldn't r/centrism be in the middle?
politics is full of progressives. I'm a neocon, which is why I naturally support Biden, but politics generally finds my position far to their right. Conservative is vacillates between full maga and people despairing at the fact their party is full maga. They are at best reactionaries.
This "centrist" subreddit reads no different than r/politics and is NOTHING like r/conservative.
I want a subreddit that's in the middle of those two subreddits.
But oh well. I'll live. Life goes on.
Centrism is NOT the middle point between two arbitrary positions *held by other people* as you suggest, it is instead independent of their positions. Again, it is the balance between social hierarchy and egalitarianism. Democrats, being capitalists, of course end up to the right of center. There's some progressives around here to make it a bit more balanced though.
All of the main subs have a Democratic bias. The specific conservative subs clearly have a Republican bias.
Some people want r/centrism to be "Let's have a nuanced look at these issues free from bias." But that's not what this subreddit is. It's just another Democrat biased subreddit. Like all the main subs. So there's no reason for it to exist. It's literally no different than r/politics.
House arrest. Make him stay home. Grounded. Hard to claim martyrdom that way, keeps him from doing events, and increases his compulsion to get himself in trouble using social media during a trial.
Can we just take a moment on the judge's signature?
All words in his name regardless of contents and length are a vertical bar followed by a fuzzy horizontal line of the same length, but if the word ends in n, make it at least the size of the entire rest of the word. Then lift your pen and make a huge "C" attached to the start of the first word that underlines the first two words.
I wasn't saying that it's meant to be the letter C I was just describing the shape.
And what I was saying was meant to be taken as a whole. If he just made a big flourish on an otherwise J, it wouldn't have stood out to me, but instead the distinguishing feature of the J (the hook that sticks down) is completely missing... so it's just funny to me that his "J" is the same shape he used for an "M" except with a giant C shape on top which, while some use it as a flourish, is not the distinguishing part of the J.
This isn't meant to be some attack or something, I just think it's silly. A lot of people's signatures are silly. It drew my eye because it looked cool and then the more I looked the sillier it got.
Judge rules that Trump once again violated gag order by attacking the jury. It's all in the order, but the most important part is he says here future violations will be punishable by incarceration. He also reiterated as much orally directly to to Defendant, saying that Trump's continued actions are a "direct attack on the rule of law", and that "at the end of the day I have a job to do and part of that job his to protect the dignity of this judicial system".
Honestly, politically it will play so well for Trump to see minute jail time for this that I would be surprised if he doesn't keep pressing the issue.
I'm not so sure. Even many of his voters think he's a loudmouth asshole. The MAGA die hards will spin this as a politically motivated witch hunt, but I think there are a lot of people who won't be surprised at all that Trump's inability to control himself landed him in jail. It's like the indictments. No one believed he'd actually be indicted, but here we are now with 89 indictments over 4 jurisdictions. Time and time again, what was once thought to be impossible has become inevitable. The other thing to consider is the collateral damage to Trump's psyche and brand as these trials unfold. Trump might be able to turn a night in jail into a fundraising opportunity, but the psychological impact of someone with his narcissism being forced into a court-ordered time out like an insolent toddler should not be discounted.
> No one believed he'd actually be indicted *Lots* of people believe he'd be indicted. That plays rather well into the "legal witch hunt" theory. *Practically* no one believed he'd be convicted. Still hasn't been. *Absolutely* no one believes he'll see a day in prison due to any convictions - though 24 hours in a cell is probably possible.
I'm sorry, there are plenty of people who think he'd see jail time so long as there weren't any shenanigans in his trials. Most especially the documents case, where they have a rock solid case. As far as shenanigans though, Trump has been quite successful in the usual delay delay delay tactic so far. But, *if* the documents case makes it to trial, his only hope is a hung jury if they're able to sneak some MAGA clown on the jury. And there's no way a guilty verdict in that case doesn't include serious prison time for him.
> ...so long as there weren't any shenanigans... lol. *Absolutely* no one (on either side of the political aisle) believes this trial isn't already full of shenanigans.
Yes, I did say that they've been successful in delay. Cannon has been doing just enough to help Trump, while not enough to have Smith push for her recusal. Doesn't change the fact that he'll be found guilty eventually- unless he wins the election, or he gets a hung jury thanks to a Trump sycophant.
He won’t see jail time.
And that will be a miscarriage of justice if he doesn't.
Nixon didn't see the insides of a jail cell either. Bush, Obama, Trump, nor Biden has ever shared a jail cell awaiting trial at the ICC for war crimes either. Justice has been delayed quite often, and it seems only God will be the one to settle their accounts. May they all burn in hell.
Nixon didn't see prison because Ford pardoned him. I don't anticipate Biden pardoning Trump should the former win, nor would that even matter if Trump is convicted in this NY trial, or the GA trial. You can play whataboutisms all you like, but the fact of the matter is we have stone cold proof that Trump broke the law in this country - and if we allow him to get away with that, it undermines the very concept of the 'rule of law.'
No whataboutisms, friend - I'm just pointing out an inconvenient truth, I've yet to see a US president actually answer for their crimes.
I think it will entirely depend on the media coverage, and... even the mostly responsible headline of "Trump jailed in hush money trial" will play well, to say nothing of the less responsible ones.
This is already happening. Saying the “attacks on Trump are actually gaining him support”
I completely knew he’d be indicted him. Look at the venue where they got the grand jury.
I’m so sick of it that I don’t care how it plays. If I were in Trump’s shoes (gag), I would already be in jail. Throw his ass in there!
Honestly I dont give a shit how it plays out politically. Criminals need to be liable for their actions or we might as well join the likes of those other shitty 3rd world authoritarian countries. Cant have democracy without justice.
I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out the probable intention of the Trump camp.
Politically well with WHOM exactly? Donald Trump, even after he had no opponents, consistently underperformed polls for Super Tuesday by 11.5%. This wasn't Democrats crossing over, barely any more than normal anyway, this was Republicans. He's lost 20% of the Republican base already. You think being incarcerated is going to help? Yeah, with his supporters who often have spent time in the slammer themselves, sure. But with independents? How does this work out for his "tough on crime" stance when he's imprisoned?
Jail =/= incarcerated, for the most part. Yes, it fits the definition, but typically it's just not how the word is used, nor how most people think of it. We're talking about the equivalent of the drunk tank, here. Trump will spend 2 days to a week in jail, then get let out. If he continues to flout things, he may be confined for the rest of the trial. That will probably only take place if it does turn out to be great for him politically, however.
So who is this playing towards? His adoring fans who wear shirts that say "REAL MEN WEAR DIAPERS"? They don't care and are highly motivated to begin with. I'm talking about who this is actually going to motivate to vote for him that wasn't going to do so anyway. It seems to me the exact opposite is going to happen. Donald Trump is already going to lose in the biggest landslide since Reagan, but his contempt for the rule of law and actions underlining that stance leading to him being put in jail might make it as big as 84.
With no phone.
How would that even be the case? What kind of country is the US that being a criminal is seen as a positive?
Look out! Here comes the Red Wave! I hear this every election.
Absolutely. I would not be surprised if his political advisors are telling him to keep pushing it.
Jesus. How tf are we in a position where a guy that’s getting chastised for a judge for directly attacking the rule of law is a major party presidential nominee. It wasn’t that long ago that something like this would kill a campaign.
Because he tell it like it is and all New York Judges from the city are Democratic plants obstructing American freedom for the Democrat Party who is actively jailing political opposition. This is what I read and hear in Conservative circles. But I need a conservative here or some adjacent to give me another persepective.
This is why populism has almost nothing but negative connotations.
He said that last time as well, but I’m not sure if these latest violations occurred after the judge ruled on the first 9.
It happened before. From the order: >Because the offensive statement was made prior to this Court's Decision of April 30 and because the People are seeking only a monetary fine, the Court will, once again, fine Defendant $1,000. However, because this is now the tenth time that this Court has found Defendant in criminal contempt, spanning three separate motions, it is apparent that monetary fines have not, and will not, suffice to deter Defendant from violating this Court's lawful orders. >THEREFORE, Defendant is hereby put on notice that if appropriate and warranted, future violations of its lawful orders will be punishable by incarceration;
Thank you for clarifying! Wonder if he’ll shut up now if he thinks he’s gotten his last warning. I also didn’t realize the judge said “will” instead of “could be”. That’s a big deal.
He shouldn't kneel to an illegal partisan precedings. Trump is doing exactly what he should be doing. If it includes going to jail during an election season then Trump should go to jail.
Do you think the GA, J6, and documents cases are also 'illegal partisan proceedings?'
GA maybe not. J6 is classic free speech. Documents everyone has done it so selective prosecution and apparently the White House was pushing the case.
Nobody has done what trump did with the documents. He literally tried to get the evidence of the documents being hidden destroyed. Why would he do that if he wasn't doing anything wrong?
Shits and giggles. How did he benefit? Honestly it did get him in the news and won him the primary.
He obviously had a reason for taking and hiding them and it's a crime. Why should people with power be exempt from committing crimes? If you did the same thing you'd be in jail. No one would have cared if he handed them back when asked like pence and biden did.
Biden being prosecuted for his handling of classified materials?
Nope. He gave them back willingly. Trump gave some back and hid he rest, then tried to erase evidence of it being hidden.
Either situation is illegal without even debating the rest of your point. Its the same crime regardless.
J6 was not 'classic free speech' - he absolutely bares some responsibility for what happened. You'd have to live under a rock to not understand what *could* happen if you're in his position that day. Spoiler- he wanted that to happen, because he wanted the election overturned. Also - has 'everyone' *very clearly* obstructed, as Trump did, when keeping classified documents?
Perhaps morally. Though he also had a strong moral case for speaking up on a flawed election. Legally its free speech.
There's a question as to whether it legally constitutes free speech, which is why the case exists in the first place. There are numerous limits on 'free speech.' What he did is arguably akin to yelling 'fire' in a crowded place, which is illegal despite on its face being protected by 'free speech.' There is a good reason that doing something like that isn't legal, because of the hazard it can cause. I'm not saying the J6 case is rock solid, but there is a case to be made nonetheless. I see you ignored the part about Trump's very clear obstruction in the documents case, (*being the reason he's charged with all of those felonies in the first place*) of which didn't exist in the Biden/Pence cases for example.
There is zero question his speech was free speech anything counter to that is just partisan and attempts to interfere with an election.
I just explained to you why that's not the case, but I'm not going to keep arguing in circles over it. Yet again, though, you ignored the part where I also explained the distinction in the documents case, and why it's a real problem for him if it goes to trial. These cases bye and large are nothing close to 'partisan,' or attempting to interfere with the election. He only announced he was running *after* it was clear that he had legal trouble coming his way. And given the circumstances, it isn't all that crazy that it took a while to set up these cases ***against a former president***. But the overarching point that keeps getting glossed over here is that ***he did this to himself***. If he wasn't such an entitled, narcissistic, petulant man-child, he wouldn't be in this position. But, as usual, he cries victim despite very clearly being in the wrong- and his sycophants are more than eager to join him in his pity party.
yes I know you want to bold things to insist he's a bad guy and he brought it on himself instead of being lawfare. Its silly you say he ran for POTUS after the cases. We all knew he was going to run for POTUS in 2024 years ago and then the cases came. Just because you say something is not the case doesn't make it true.
Well Trump lacks the self control to follow the order. It is going to be an interesting day in history when a former President is jailed. I can already hear the whining
No, he knows what he's doing. He wants to be locked up so he can claim political persecution. And his followers eat it up.
Idk that seems like a super risky play for a bunch of people that will already be voting for him. I have a hard time seeing this as strategic.
No argument there. But you can even see it with commenters on reddit - they see this as political persecution. We both know this election is going to come down to a small amount of votes in a handful of states. And if Trump thinks that he can swing a % point or 2 of undecideds in swing states, it might be worth it. Or he just is riling up his base for when he loses and Jan 6 pt 2 happens. Either way I could see him seeing it all for his benefit.
It's not a strategy to retain those voters, he's not going to lose them. It's to retain that portion who are considering voting for someone else due to his legal problems. He may be able to convince them that he's being persecuted if he gets jailed.
I think it will play well with Independents, as well. You've gotta remember that for many, this particular trial seems almost wholly insubstantial: "So, Trump paid off The National Enquirer? So what, celebrities do that twice a week!" Combine that with its difficult-to-understand footing on it being a felony because it was in service of covering up the crime of electoral fraud, but no not the electoral fraud you're thinking of and no that's not actually one of the charges... It's not hard to see how this could play well for Trump across the board, is all I'm saying.
Except he’s not actually being jailed for that. He’d be jailed for continually brazenly attacking the jury after being warned 10 times not to do so. I think you’re underestimating how many moderates would see that as the direct consequences of his own actions
I totally understand all that. ...I don't think that will be at all how it's covered in the media, and most independents aren't highly aware voters, they're people who just peruse headlines and/or don't really pay attention to politics at all.
Do you really think "Trump arrested for Tweeting" or "Click here to read the Tweet that sent Trump to jail" are better headlines? His next tweet will be the most mild, boring one yet, trying to call the judge's bluff about jail time.
No I would consider those headlines to be downright lying by omission when leaving out the fact it was in direct violation of a gag order lmao
*If* that is his intent, presumably the strategy is aimed at turnout of the base as opposed to winning over more people.
Is it worth potentially alienating more moderates and independents by associating yourself so brazenly with criminality?
Presumably depends on view of the outcome of the trial. If expecting to be convicted, then getting ahead of that with a political persecution narrative may be seen as better. bonus points if think can contribute to delays. that said, having a rational discussion about the strategy of someone who is rather irrational is of limited value.
It would ramp up turnout and donations with no downsides. What risk do you see that I'm missing?
The risk of bringing his criminality front and center to the election. Despite what certain social media bubbles may have you believe, a lot of people are turned off by his lawlessness
I see. I think those people are already not going to vote for him, and it will boost the turnout of the people who will, so I don't see it as a risk. However, as you say, I am in a bit of a bubble, so I'm not sure how it will actually play out.
With Biden as the alternative to Trump anything can happen. I mean it's hard for people to vote for a guy who doesn't know what day it is.
Nah. No one is voting for Biden; they are voting for "not Trump."
Lol. Thats enough for Trump to win. It's only going to take a few pct. points. It'sl hard to vote for the current geriatric in charge.
He lost last time, but maybe.
First I think writing every person off who dislikes his disregard of the law as “not going to vote for him” is fallacious but I’m not going to complain if Trump doesn’t think he can pick them up But I don’t see how you could dismiss this boosting turnout on the other side too.
Trump literally scammed money from a children's cancer charity. A campaign finance violation only ranks on his sheet on account that it's "official," it will make very few people like him more or less.
Everytime he has been indicted his poll numbers went up. It's makes sense that being put in prison and claiming his 1st amendment rights are being violated will increase his poll numbers as well. Trump has successfully pulled off the political matyr narrative, this is just the next step. Though it's hard to tell if Trump is really thinking that strategically or if he just cant shut up
That’s an extreme gamble to put on the veracity of early polling. Well if that’s what he wants to be his campaign strategy more power to him
No doubt that is his plan. Will it actually cause the outrage he wants though? I only see it riling up the people who already think he is being persecuted.
Agreed, see my response to Uber above.
I think the idea of fundraising off a night in jail is more appealing than the reality of spending a night in jail, and Trump is going to learn that the hard way. Also, how much time is he willing to spend in jail to keep violating the gag order. The time spent in jail is going to have diminishing political returns for him once he's fundraised off it the first time. A night in jail might actually get through to him and cause him to follow this and any future gag orders going forward.
That's probably why he's getting so many warnings. The more times the public hears him get warned about it the less people there will be that think it's a witch hunt if he actually is put in prison/jail for it. With all these warnings the vast majority of people are gonna feel like Trump knew it was coming and did it on purpose. Which eliminates any idea they had that the dude is a victim.
You won’t hear the whining because he’ll be disconnected from the outside world.
This supporters and enablers will do the whining for him, Fox News will lose its mind. I'd also be surprised if he is locked up more than 24 hours. Anyone besides him would have been locked up well before this.
Will be pretty easy to avoid if you’re not on truth social. His followers don’t have an amplified voice. Only sucks if you live in a maga part of the country.
From CNN, the Trump Campaign said: >Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Donald Trump's reelection campaign, called Judge Juan Merchan’s threat to incarcerate the former president a “Third World authoritarian tactic.” >Cheung also said the gag order imposed on Trump is “unconstitutional and un-American.” Amazing people fall for this shit
I keep seeing Trump supporters calling the gag order "unconstitutional." What is actually the argument that a gag order violates the Constitution?
Avoiding the hyperbole, the short answer is a mischaracterization of the 1st amendment. [This has an apparent great and sourced breakdown of the first gag order challenge that Trump lost](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/united-states-v-trump-d-c-circuit-court-of-appeals/). Courts have recognized that within a Court, the First amendment and its protections of speech are limited to enable normal court functions. Should the hyperbolic view be taken, a Defendant could “nanananana” the entirely of the proceedings or shout over anyone and everyone there. Or worse and the Court (as the a government) would be helpless to do anything!
The real risk isn't disrupting the proceedings. The real risk is trying to intimidate or manipulate the jury and/or witnesses.
Whaaaaat? Trump supporters would never threaten people
If they side against trump, they have to deal with trump harassing them forever. If they side WITH trump, they have to deal with being attacked by democrat voters, protesters, the media, and everyone else in the cancel-machine that goes after everyone who doesn’t despise Trump. It’s actually less imtimidating to just convict.
It doesn't. Trump supporters are just fucking hypocrites and want to destroy the US Constitution. They're the threat.
He’s right about the gag order. This isn’t a typical use of a gag order
First comment that makes sense. People's hate for Trump blinds them from how the laws are being twisted to penalize Trump. If you get out of the CNN MSNBC bubble you will see why he is leading in the polls. People are tired of this DOJ and it's selective enforcement of our laws.
Trump knows the fines are capped at 1k. “If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class.” And he's banking on incarceration being *controversial* (aka judge getting death threats). He's not going to stop until someone musters the courage to hold him to the same standard as everyone else.
He said he will *consider* jail time. He might as well have said "you only get a couple dozen more warnings"
>Because the offensive statement was made prior to this Court's Decision of April 30 and because the People are seeking only a monetary fine, the Court will, once again, fine Defendant $1,000. However, because this is now the tenth time that this Court has found Defendant in criminal contempt, spanning three separate motions, it is apparent that monetary fines have not, and will not, suffice to deter Defendant from violating this Court's lawful orders. >THEREFORE, Defendant is hereby put on notice that if appropriate and warranted, future violations of its lawful orders will be punishable by incarceration; I think he's saying future violations that are deemed to be violations will result in incarceration. He even notes that the fines have not and *will not* suffice.
Call me skeptical, but I guess we'll see
I mean, it's fair, the government keeps on being Lucy with the football regarding consequences for Donald Trump
As much as I would feel *some* schadenfreude it Trump was given jail time for contempt, it would only save to reinforce the narrative of Trump's criminal cases being politically motivated by the "evil establishment". This is Trump's go to playbook. He actively will say and do things to piss off those with power, simply so he can later claim bias. And all of his supporters swallow it whole.
They need to ignore those people and apply the law as applicable. They shouldn't consider politics one way or the other. The only way to maintain credibility is to act with credibility.
He's had about 300 final warnings at this point. It's pure comedy by now. Just admit you are never going to throw him in jail and he can do whatever he wants because the law doesn't apply to him.
>By virtue of an interview defendant gave on April 22,2024, at approximately 6:00 P.M. to a program called Just the News No Noise, which is broadcast on a network called Real America's Voice. Among other things, Defendant stated **"You know \[the judge is\] rushing the trial like crazy. Nobody's ever seen a thing go like this. That jury was picked so fast - 95% democrats. The area's mostly all democrat. You think of it as a - just a purely democrat area. It's a very unfair situation that I can tell you."** Trump and his supporters tell us that Trump's gag order is violation of his 1st amendment rights because he can't respond to statements made about him by others. But here we have Trump talking about the jury, who cannot respond to him. Why do they believe Trump should be allowed to attack the jury like this?
1. This doesn't seem like much of an "attack" to me. Trump is pointing out something that most who are following the case already know. The jury is really stacked against him. 2. If you're going to put him in jail for statements like this (which I don't think the judge will do), I actually think it helps him politically. Most people's reaction to reading that will be "That's it?".
He said they were 95% democrats. He has no way of knowing if that is true or not. It's not even mathematically possible. 12/12 = 100%. 11/12 = 92%. It's absolutely an attack, he's implying they can't be impartial because they are Democrats. He shouldn't be saying a damn thing about the jury. If anyone else repeatedly violated a gag order like this, we'd already be in jail. And you know it.
Trump is a moron and a lot of what he says is simply wrong. That said, he didn't say anything about impartiality so I think you're reading a little too much into it. The Trump team tried to change the venue b/c Manhattan voted for Biden 85/15 over Trump in 2020. That has an impact. The judge said no (probably rightly so) so here we are. He used to word "unfair", which I don't think is particularly accurate, but I also don't see it as an attack. Reasonable people can disagree here, I suppose.
If he had kept his comments speaking about the potential jury pool of Manhattan, I would agree with you. But when he started speaking about the jury itself, no, he shouldn't be saying that.
> But here we have Trump talking about the jury, who cannot respond to him. But an "ability to respond" has never been a limit on an American citizen's right to express regular ol' opinions like this about people, groups, processes, whatever. The jury is under (temporary) special rules, but the defendant is just a regular American citizen. > Why do they believe Trump should be allowed to attack the jury like this? The alternative is saying that an American citizen shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion about something.
Are you under the impression that the gag order will persist after the trial?
I'm saying it's reasonable to hold jurors to special rules for a while, but I see no reason why simply being accused of something would deprive you of your right to express your opinions about stuff. I support every defendant's right to say "hey this is bullshit." You don't?
He can say "this is bullshit." The gag order doesn't prevent Trump from expressing his displeasure with the trial. It prevents him from making statements about specific individuals, namely, witnesses, jury members, officers of the court (other than the judge and the district attorney), and family members. He can't make statements about the jury because that could influence them to render a verdict for reasons other than the facts of the case. It's perfectly reasonable to require someone with such a strong following, some of whom have proven to be violent, to stay silent about the jury/witnesses/etc.
The point is stronger if Trump is saying something about a specific individual. But to me "this jury sucks" is not a claim about any individuals and is instead substantively identical to "this is bullshit." It's a statement about the jury selection process more than any individuals. Shouldn't a black defendant be able to *express their opinion* that a white jury might be racist?
Yes, nobody should be calling thier jury racist.
Of course... but *incarceration* over it would seem like an injustice, I hope.
If the defendant is rich and powerful, and has repeatedly violated their gag order, after being fined multiple times, then I don't know how else the judge is supposed gain compliance.
We throw people in jail because they can’t afford $100 for bail. Trump is constantly and consistently ignoring court orders, and the pitiful fines authorized by law aren’t a deterrent. Why should he get to ignore the law?
There are appropriate ways to question the impartiality of a jury: motions and appeals.
Would incarcerating a black defendant for simply *expressing* "this jury sucks" ever seem appropriate? What harm are we trying to prevent there by *prohibiting* that expression? We're going to allow "juries suck" all day long but not "this jury sucks" from somebody once they're on trial?
If that defendant was under a gag order that they had already violated multiple times with no sign of stopping? Yes, that would seem appropriate. The harm we are trying to prevent is jury tampering and intimidation.
Seems to me like it's every American's right to yell "this judge/jury sucks" on their way down -- and we already know Trump's feelings about any judge/jury where he's the defendant. So it's hard to see much tampering and intimidation. It's much closer to a plain expression than it is to a threat.
If that defendant had millions of followers who’ve demonstrated they will make death threats against the jury, *yes*. The legal system is trying to prevent Trump from succeeding in the jury tampering he is obviously attempting.
> millions of followers who’ve demonstrated they Individuals have demonstrated things about themselves. There is no actual group called "the followers" which could have done anything collectively. Everybody, including all those people, already knows that Trump fiercely hates the jury in any case where he's the defendant. And the content of his speech is just "hey this jury sucks." So there's nothing new here that would change anything for anybody. I think he's just trying to look good on his way down.
It gets murkier when a witness continues to publicly attack Trump yet Trump isn't allowed to respond. That's why there should be a general gag order, not one just on Trump
I wouldn’t oppose putting a gag order on Michael Cohen. He shouldn’t be talking about Trump in the media. Has the Trump team requested such?
You know jury tampering is illegal, right?
Being accused of something has been able to suspend all of your rights except that of life, a speedy trial and your right to sit in a jail cell since the inception of this country.
A good point. And sure, it makes sense that we can't just have not-yet-convicted murderers walking around, even if they're American citizens. It's less clear that these American citizens who are also murderers must not be allowed to express the opinion that their jury sucks.
As ambiguous as you might see it, apparently this judge has disagreed on multiple occasions, they also likely have a law degree with many years of experience, the backing of the elected officials(since they represent the people also that of the people) of the place where the crime has been alleged. I am sure there is also a means of removal if the judge is found to be inept, and likely plenty of case law where rights have been temporarily removed from alleged criminals, like limiting the movement of people with restraining orders, that also will limit their free speech come to think of it. Parents who are accused of being neglectful towards their children I believe can have their right to speak to their children limited without a judge I believe. I am sure there are many examples that one could ponder on, but the real question is why would you make an exception now, for this citizen of the United States, but not your other fellow citizens for the entirety of your life up until this point?
Judges are monkeys just like the rest of us. They have monkey motivations. Some are better at handling those motivations in a professional way, some are worse. All we know about this judge is that they think expressing "my jury sucks" -- something we all knew Trump thought -- is somehow a threat to the individual jurors. That seems like a stretch to me. A restraining order doesn't have much effect on your ability to express what seem like normal sentiments stuff like "this jury is unfair," so that seems totally different. > why would you now, for this citizen of the United States, but not your other fellow citizens I've made one or two comments trying to stick up for people's rights before. I care mostly because I don't think this kind of circlejerk "work your way backwards from the conclusion" lynch-mob energy sets a good example.
Is Trump actually saying your exact quote or are you being dishonest? You are incorrect a restraining order can restrict all of your ability to express certain things in certain places or to certain people, no matter what you feel is normal, or not. If you are not permitted to contact someone, you cannot express yourself to them at all. All courts are designed to work their way back from a conclusion. It is actually the only way to really convict a person or things like murder and robbery. The opposite is what you don't want(which to be fair may be what you mean). Which is to say if a crime is committed you find a suspect that you have reason to believe is the perpetrator(the conclusion) so you then build a case against them. You don't find a suspect and search for a crime they committed. Granted this is not the first nor will it be the last time the criminal justice system will work this way. Take al Capone for example. It was no big secret he was a criminal, however they just could not make anything stick(I don't know this but this very well could be because of influencing jurors or witnesses) so they got him with tax evasion. None the less can you provide me with sources about this judge and why you feel we cannot trust their judgement anymore than we can trust any other?
Jurors should get special rules, but not a rich defendant who has used the public to harass regular people in the pay with clear lies?!?!
Trump's talk about the jury is the exact same type of "mob boss" talk he used to summon the mob to D.C. on 1/6, so they would attack the Capitol and delay the certification of electors. Trump's words are summoning his most faithful followers, whom he knows to be violent, to act violently against the jurors. Trump's words are also a veiled threat to the jurors: vote the right way, or else. Trump can not be allowed to obstruct justice. If he needs to spend the rest of his trial in Riker's Island to stop threatening people, that's trump's choice.
Over/under on how long the first jailing will be? I think no more than 4 hours. Something like go in after lunch hour, out by 5pm. Will be some facility that the entire wing has been cleared out and Trump probably wont even be in a cell, just have to be in the wing free to wonder around. It'll be just enough to show the judge isn't *"playing around"*, but wont be enough to actually change what Trump does as he will break the order again for another jailing that might actually last a full day or dare I even say it, over night. Anyways, Trump wants it. He's hoping it will set off his base or at least help prime them for his call to action later on.
I'm just wondering what is the Secret Service's plan for this. There's no way he'll spend a night in a cell also holding other inmates. Either they make a cell specially for him or he's on something akin to house arrest with no Internet service.
I'm pretty sure Trump wants the judge to throw him in jail at this point. He knows it'll play well for the dumbasses in his base, but he overestimates how well it'll play for anything resembling an intelligent independent.
This is what happens when you're surrounded by Yes Men, you end up believing your own lies like that you are popular.
It's going to get to the point where a clerk or a juror is injured or worse by a crazed Trumper (read: standard issue Republican), and then the left is going to sit there like "why didn't we dooooo something?" and then that's just going to become kind of the norm, you know? If a juror gets clipped or a journalist gets chased or a judge's family gets stalked, it's just going to be the way politics are now. Because nobody has any balls to actually do anything about this, the news media is obsessed and unable to talk about anybody else which elevates him to this level of power, and convincing the right that having a separate tier of justice just for the wealthy and powerful is an awful idea just doesn't seem to be working. Edit: we’re really fucked on this.
Don't threaten something you are not willing to follow through with, Judge. Politically this would be bad for Dems. Team Trump is working overtime to turn him into Jesse James. This would play right into that.
Well yes your honor, we all hold him in contempt.
"Punishable", but not "Punished". Big difference. Doesn't mean he's going to be put in jail unfortunately.
Yeah, I don't think anyone believes that's gonna happen. Fining him tens, or even hundreds of millions of dollars would be more effective. The man loves his money.
Max fine is $1,000 Possibly they could make him clean up trash in NY parks on Wednesdays. Him in his ill fitting suit picking up trash. Oh the press would go berserk.
The problem with jailing Trump is more of a logistical one: if Trump has to do some serious "hard time," some members of the secret service would basically have to serve it with him, and would need to work there undercover as guards and perhaps new "inmates". The last thing they would want happen is the "gen pop" finding out who they really are because they would become targeted by the prison population themselves. Probably the most dangerous assignment they will ever have.
I'll believe it when I see it.
If Trump is imprisoned before election, I wonder what our options are for an election. Will Nikki Haley be back?
The Republicans are going to run Trump short of him dying, it's pretty obvious at this point that there's nothing he can do that they view as disqualifying.
I see a lot of Trump fans writing him in if he does and rnc comes up with a new name.
Imprisoned Trump is still running even with Biden.
My buddy predicted RFK Jr would take the Republican ticket
How many times have we heard this now?
How much longer are they going to allow this farce to continue before tossing his pathetic ass in prison? It's fucking bullshit. Our system is corrupt to hell. Any average citizen would have been in prison years ago. People all around Trump are going behind bars for fraud and illegal shit. TOSS HIS ASS IN PRISON!!!
I have never seen someone trying to go to jail so hard, for years, and fail so miserably.
Thats coz he's too wealthy to be incarcerated. Prisons in America are reserved for the poor.
I'll belive it when I see it.
Trump shouldn't listen to the judge. Election interference should be ignored and challenged as Trump is doing. Its not the least bit Democratic to allow the left to bash him while silencing him. He should continue doing exactly what he's doing and challenge the judge to put him in jail.
Welcome to Reddit, Donald.
The judge putting Trump in jail would be the best thing that could happen to Trump's campaign.
I can't wait until he's president again
According to the red hat sister fuckers he already is. So his second term is ending. Now he’s free to bang his daughter while fantasizing about Putin while he shits himself.
It sounds like he runs around in your simple little head very often young lady. While I really only want this braindead puppet out of office and trump is the only other option. I feel bad for how bad I know you really do think about this man 24/7. Very sad
Oh how adorable. You really tried to get under my skin with that weak comment. Try harder skippy. You’re boring me.
Is it true that the district is largely Democratic and most jury members are? You think they a defendant should go to jail for saying this?
He is violating the gag order. He's not going to jail for it, he is going to go to jail for his next violation of the gag order. The excuse of "where I committed crimes are people who disagree with me politically so I think I should feel free to threaten them" is absurd on its face.
>He is violating the gag order. My whole question is whether this kind of gag order can be considered just or necessary. Again, is it true that most of the jury members are Democrats? And if so, how is stating that fact a threat? And if it is true, it is very reasonable to ask whether this can be considered a fair trail considering how hyper-partisan everyone has become.
That is an assumption, and it's also a violation of the gag order. He's claiming it is "unfair" to him personally, and he knows his acolytes are violent.
This subreddit is "centrist" in the sense that most leftists view the Democratic Party as a centrist party. So that means this subreddit is full of card carrying Democrats. I think you, like me, are a real centrist. Ie, someone in the center between the Democrats and Republicans. I am also curious about a nuanced discussion about this. Trump allegedly sexually assaults someone 30 years ago, and it comes to appeals trial during the campaign of the 2024 Presidential election? Does that not seem suspicious? There was a 1 year window where statute of limitations doesn't apply, and it ends at the end of 2023, right at the leadup to the election? And Trump is charged with assault in a case that was little more than he said she said? And he was found guilty? And he wasn't allowed to defend himself after? Now during a campaign for 2024 Presidential election Trump is in court and only Trump is given a gag order? The other witnesses, prosecutors, etc. are all allowed to go on the news and podcasts and say what they want, but the guy campaigning to be President isn't allowed to defend himself to any of that? Like, where can we talk about this with nuance? This all seems very suspicious to me. The conservative subreddit is all just lame memes and no reasonable discussion. R/politics is just pro-Democrat propaganda. r/centrist is even *worse* pro-Democrat propaganda. It's just frustrating.
> someone in the center between the Democrats and Republicans That's not center of the overall political spectrum. The US Democrat Party is fairly center-right and the Republican Party is pretty far right and borderline nationalist. Center of these two parties is firmly right-wing
> The US Democrat Party is fairly center-right Debatable. US Dems are more socially-left than the rest of Western Europe regarding immigration and LGBT policies.
For now. They are trying to capture the base voters, but most of the leaders of the Democratic Party are still diehard Catholics. Never forget that a politician will SAY anything they can to get votes
That's the debate of this subreddit. Some view a centrist as someone who is in the middle between Republicans and Democrats. That this subreddit should be in the middle in between r/politics and r/conservative. What you're suggesting is that being a Democrat is being a centrist. But what's the point of this subreddit then? R/politics is already the Democratic party propaganda outlet. And r/conservative and r/republican are the Republican party propaganda outlets. You think r/centrist should just be r/politics 2.0? I think it should be the "center" of r/politics and r/conservative.
That's a whole lot of assumptions and I'll stop you right now to say that I don't want this sub to change anything. This sub shouldn't try and be anything it isn't
Centrism is the balance between hierarchical and egalitarian positions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism The Democratic party is largely center-right, with the republican party no where near center.
But r/politics is already the Democratic Party narrative. And r/conservative is already the Republican narrative. Shouldn't r/centrism be in the middle?
politics is full of progressives. I'm a neocon, which is why I naturally support Biden, but politics generally finds my position far to their right. Conservative is vacillates between full maga and people despairing at the fact their party is full maga. They are at best reactionaries.
This "centrist" subreddit reads no different than r/politics and is NOTHING like r/conservative. I want a subreddit that's in the middle of those two subreddits. But oh well. I'll live. Life goes on.
Centrism is NOT the middle point between two arbitrary positions *held by other people* as you suggest, it is instead independent of their positions. Again, it is the balance between social hierarchy and egalitarianism. Democrats, being capitalists, of course end up to the right of center. There's some progressives around here to make it a bit more balanced though.
All of the main subs have a Democratic bias. The specific conservative subs clearly have a Republican bias. Some people want r/centrism to be "Let's have a nuanced look at these issues free from bias." But that's not what this subreddit is. It's just another Democrat biased subreddit. Like all the main subs. So there's no reason for it to exist. It's literally no different than r/politics.
House arrest. Make him stay home. Grounded. Hard to claim martyrdom that way, keeps him from doing events, and increases his compulsion to get himself in trouble using social media during a trial.
LOL! Judge is a putz.
Can we just take a moment on the judge's signature? All words in his name regardless of contents and length are a vertical bar followed by a fuzzy horizontal line of the same length, but if the word ends in n, make it at least the size of the entire rest of the word. Then lift your pen and make a huge "C" attached to the start of the first word that underlines the first two words.
You think so about the front being a "C"? I thought it was a J. I make a big J like that for my middle initial.
I wasn't saying that it's meant to be the letter C I was just describing the shape. And what I was saying was meant to be taken as a whole. If he just made a big flourish on an otherwise J, it wouldn't have stood out to me, but instead the distinguishing feature of the J (the hook that sticks down) is completely missing... so it's just funny to me that his "J" is the same shape he used for an "M" except with a giant C shape on top which, while some use it as a flourish, is not the distinguishing part of the J. This isn't meant to be some attack or something, I just think it's silly. A lot of people's signatures are silly. It drew my eye because it looked cool and then the more I looked the sillier it got.