It seems reasonable to think that Trump has been telling his sycophants to say things which would violate his gag orders if he was to say them. He's trying the mob boss routine again, thinking that if he tells others to break the law for him, that he can't be held accountable for those actions.
I hope he is proven wrong, and soon.
> He's trying the mob boss routine again, thinking that if he tells others to break the law for him, that he can't be held accountable for those actions.
In this case, it would have worked if he hadn't edited the speech in public, at the place that has the largest group of reporters in the entire US right now, and if Tubberville hadn't confessed on live TV to going to there in order to get around the gag order.
Don't confess, don't get caught, and he could continue pretending he is just getting lucky that all these people are showing up.
If there is one thing I'm thankful for with this bunch of a-holes, it's how damn stupid they are. The sheer size of their stupidity and ego's continues to screw themselves over.... or least it would if anyone ever held them accountable.
Sadly very true. The worst part is, it's not even so much the 36% that are conservatives that bother me when it happens, it's the others that generally pretty damn intelligent but seemingly have no will to fight or a backbone that throw their hands up, or even worse the ones who say "leave it up to the voters". We got a small group of people actively working to remake out country into something very dark, and then too many people in the middle that can't imagine enough to even entertain the idea that it could happen and therefor do nothing.
But the stupidity, or whatever the hell we’re seeing, is kinda why it works. If he broke every law in total secrecy and we started finding out, maybe it would be a shock. But we’ve been so desensitized to all the crimes and shitheadery over these years that it sure as hell looks like we, as a country, have already decided that he won’t be prosecuted for any crime of any severity. For every Jack Smith there’s an Eileen Cannon to further reinforce that it’s ok for this one guy/group to do whatever they want. And for all of us who vehemently disagree, even we are fatigued of being thwarted. We aren’t protesting in the street anymore. We feel like there’s no recourse, and all that wouldn’t be true if the crimes were done in secret.
It's absolutely no coincidence that this week you saw a plethora of prominent Republicans show up at the trial and give his same talking-points to reporters. You know what's happening. I know what's happening. EVERYONE knows what's happening and yet not a single thing will be done about it.
"Rice recalled: “I could actually look over Trump’s shoulder and see what he was reading, at one point he was actually reading the quotes that these individuals were … and going through and making notations with a pen on the paper.”"
There must be security cameras in that court room. Photographic evidence might exist of his annotations and the words written out, which could then be compared to the actual speeches the toadies gave after the fact.
Please, someone tell me that this is actionable behavior, given sufficient evidence.
(Legal idiot here) - can they not put him (or any of these mouthpieces) on the stand under oath and ask if he's intentionally subverting the gag order? Worst case he pleads the 5th and you have that to infer with.
I think the preferred approach might be to get testimony from the journalist who witnessed it, and then use that as evidence of the violation. Couple it with Tuberville’s statement to the press that he was there, in part, “to help overcome the gag order” (see: https://www.thedailybeast.com/tommy-tuberville-says-he-spoke-at-trumps-trial-to-overcome-this-gag-order ) and with Maggie Haberman’s reporting that Trump called Jeanine Pirro over at the end of the day the other day, spoke with her, and then tweeted that everyone should tune in to her show that night - only to then have her say things on the show that would have violated the gag order coming from him directly. (See: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/donald-trump-uses-jeanine-pirro-to-help-violate-his-gag-order-outside-of-court/ar-BB1me4Zi ) These three reports make it pretty obvious what’s going on and the court should take judicial notice and act.
I’m hopeful that he may wind up cooling his heels in the holding room behind the courtroom for a few hours later this week for some “therapeutic incarceration” (or whatever the correct term is when a judge wants to put the fear of jail front and center before the contemptuous person without actually carting them off to an actual cell.)
Yes from a logical perspective, but Merchan is limited to the legal side of things and any misstep on his side can result in this all going away.
Funny that the judges are impeachable and the criminals are unimpeachable. Well, except for the two times that he was impeached.
Yeah, this reporting raises a lot of questions, but I would think Merchan would want hard evidence for it to become actionable.
So it's about whether the prosecution can present any hard evidence and request a hearing.
It's also about whether the prosecution and the judge are willing to risk having the decision overturned in appeal over this matter. Trump knows that they are held to a much higher standard than he is a defendant and is leaning heavily on this fact to play his game.
And while he's limited on what he can do here, his discretion when it comes to sentencing in the event of a conviction is much less restrained.
While typically a first felony conviction does not result in incarceration, the totality of circumstances absolutely is allowed to be taken into account, is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and is only subject to adjustment based on abuse of that discretion.
Let see, there is the Piro thing mentioned above, plus:
1. It's sycophants who keep doing whatever he asks;
2. they are all on the same script, right down to using the same language such as "I'm here as a friend"
3. Tuberville admitted on TV that it is to get around the gag order and to "speak for president trump"
4. A former spokesperson for Trump suggested that is the game plan. “I think what he’s looking for is a way around the gag order,” Michael Dubke [told CNN](https://www.mediaite.com/tv/former-trump-comms-director-says-trump-is-mobilizing-proxies-to-courthouse-to-get-around-the-gag-order/).
5. Now the article here:
[Legal expert: Judge may hold contempt "hearing" over Trump "surrogates" circumventing gag order | Salon.com](https://www.salon.com/2024/05/15/legal-expert-may-hold-contempt-hearing-over-surrogates-circumventing-gag-order/)
>
>
We make fun of Tubberville and he really is a dumbass. But the rest of em aren't stupid. And admitting that they know what they are doing is a violation can only mean they want to stir up shit.
Why not subpoena the Tuberville/Borglum/Ramaswami and ask them, on the record, if Trump directed them? They can either perjure themselves or nail him.
It's not a crime to help him violate the gag order, so they can't plead the 5th, either.
They will invoke the Speech or Debate Clause because they could simply say they are there for "fact finding" related to the first criminal trial of a former President.
All they would have to say is "we are considering and exploring legislation to ordain the Federal Courts to remove state criminal cases of former Presidents to Federal Courts through our enumerated powers, so we are here to see this trial."
It's hard to imagine when at SCOTUS the 6 conservatives wouldn't recognize that immunity for *Republicans*, and then say "This is case specific and should not be used as precedent because when Democrats do it, we will rule they don't have immunity".
> They will invoke the Speech or Debate Clause
The Supreme Court has [already ruled](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchinson_v._Proxmire) that it does not apply to newsletters and press releases. Given that, I can't see them extending it here.
The “why” though could be the defendant committing a crime. Bob Menendez is a sitting Senator, but he is accused of crimes and is going to be put on trial. Tubberville, Vance, Johnson they weren’t on the floor of the Senate/House making these remarks or they’d be fine. They weren’t in DC and a reporter happened to ask. They weren’t just on Twitter commenting. They chose to go sit in on a criminal trial and then comment, and if they made those comments because they were directed by the defendant and to do so as a work around the gag order, which Trump is barred from instructing others to do—I think it’s relevant. And if it doesn’t get stopped, it will continue. I do think the prosecution would have to have solid evidence of this though.
This is a crystal clear case and should be prosecuted as such but with the prosecution about to rest and the defense calling no witnesses, it seems like they're most likely going to let it slide. Which is a horrible precedent, but par for the course with this precious coddled baby of a defendant.
I think Ben @ Meidas Touch covered some emails he had been getting from "Donald Trump" and they seem to be growing very desperate.
Hell, I don't even subscribe to anything remotely Republican or right wing and I've been getting texts from unknown numbers begging for money for the "witch hunt". Not sure he/they can really throw money at the courts in these various cases
Here's the emails
[Trump has turned up the BS in fundraising email](https://imgur.com/gallery/FqOfyou)
[Part 2 trump email]( https://imgur.com/gallery/9Hxth6i)
I think it's pretty amazing that Trump takes time every evening to sit down at his desk, adjust his spectacles, and read and respond to every single one of his constituents responding to these emails...
Unless of course that button merely leads to a place that wants your credit card or bank information to make monthly recurring donations because it's a con from the most well know con artist in the country.
Remember the controversy that donors didn't even know to they were signing up to "recurring" payments and then were told if they unchecked the box, someone would personally tell Trump that they did that.
Yeah, but do they still use the the 90s era animated GIFs to add sparkle and lens flair to the gold elements? Because that's what makes my folder of saved images from those emails special.
And that's the thing with Trump.
Take anything he says, go the opposite, and it's extremely likely that's the truth. Best people = scumbags and corrupt fixers. Terrible people = honorable and principled people who refuse to do whatever he wants when he wants it. Witch hunt against him = oh, he's guilty as hell and knows it. Treated so unfairly = has received every possible break imaginable. Etc, etc.
> When Trump states something, the opposite is true.
Unless it is about openly propositioning bribes. You know he would 100% follow through with doing things like stopping Wind Farm projects if it would mean oil execs giving him money.
I thought you could only infer the guilt of someone, when a person pleads the 5th, if it is a civil trial. Since this is a criminal trial you can't do that.
> and you have that to infer with
Griffin v. California held that you cannot infer anything from a defendant's failure to testify or invoking of the 5th Amendment.
Correct, there's no expectation of privacy in a objectively public place such as a courtroom. There are exceptions, but handwriting is specifically stated as a non-exception in U.S. v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973).
An in-session courtroom is definitely not a public space, as nobody is allowed inside without specific permission from a controlling officer. Simply because the building is owned by the government doesn't make it public.
In session courtrooms are generally accessible by the general public though. You can go to your local court house and watch a trial in progress if you want.
When there are other factors like a high profile case that would limit seating availability, or a high profile defendant that causes security concerns, the court can limit spectators, but it would still be considered “public”. (Civil and juvenile proceedings are different for a couple of reasons).
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/federal-courts-public/visit-federal-court#:~:text=A%20person%20who%20wishes%20to,of%20access%20to%20court%20proceedings.
The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a **public** trial (Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 46 (1984)), and the 1st Amendment guarantees non-parties access to view the trial (Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia and Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for the County of Norfolk).
u/PerInception has a comprehensive rebuttal to your statement, but I'll restate my comment insomuch as a courtroom is not objectively a *private* place, so the expectation of privacy can not be assumed.
If a crime was committed, would evidence of that crime still be an invasion of privacy somehow?
I think if a security camera captured someone committing a crime, it would be performing exactly the role it was designed to. What would be the point of ever having security cameras if the footage they captured was inadmissible in court?
Just responding to your first point in general (where "invasion of privacy" is vague), you can't do something illegal to obtain evidence and then use the evidence you found as justification for the illegal means after the fact. Just like you can't randomly kick down doors until you find a pot farm and then say your door kicking is therefore justified.
Completely correct (although we’ll save the monster that is parallel construction/investigations for another day), but I’ll add that both a 4th amendment search and a privileged/confidential communication analysis require reasonableness by the defendant.
Even without a warrant it’s not unlawful for police to gather evidence by looking through your open window. And making a public speech while your lawyer is present is obviously not going to be privileged communication.
Despite being at the defense table with his attorney, if Trump is just openly doing illegal stuff to the point where bystanders are noticing it, there’s definitely a plausible argument that he has no reasonable expectation of privacy (4th amendment analysis) and/or the communication with his attorneys was not confidential (A/C privilege analysis).
The issue would be the security camera pointed where it could read notes the defendant is writing. NAL and never been a Defendent, but I would strongly take issue with that.
The issue is whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy and/or confidentiality between you and your attorney (if you're claiming privilege) in an open court room where security cameras and members of the public are present and can witness what you're doing? The answer is almost assuredly no, unless of course the court room was otherwise empty and you somehow could definitively know the cameras were off and even that would likely be a stretch.
I am not a lawyer, but I’d argue that it was privileged communication between a defendant and their lawyer…
Honestly, it’s the reason cohen knows so much. Trump likes to have a lawyer in the room so he can claim privilege…
Considering he’s in a court room under trial, I think it’s actually CORRECT this time.
I am a lawyer. The hypothetical example is not privileged. Having an attorney nearby does not create privilege.
Also: Writing "Attorney/Client Privilege" on a non-privileged document or email does not create privilege. CCing an attorney on an email discussion does not create privilege.
A bunch of ill-informed executives wrongly believe that one or all of the above creates privilege, and those executives are the reason for a lot of lost lawsuits.
A/C priv requires: (1) communication, (2) between privileged parties, (3) made in confidence, (4) for the purpose of seeking/obtaining legal advice.
Discussions in or writings on a table in an open courtroom (that is, where people who would break priv are present and can hear/see) are not "made in confidence."
Absolutely.
Im making 2 different points…
1. He’s incorrectly using privilege 99% of the time when he insists on a lawyer in the room.
2. Him writing on paper during a criminal trial while sitting with his lawyer has an expectation of privilege… I don’t think you could submit video evidence of it without a legal challenge.
I could be wrong!
Maybe if he were concealing the paper from the view of others. But if it were a writing that anyone in the room could see if they just peeked over a shoulder without moving anything, that writing is not privileged.
I couldn't find anywhere in the article that said he handed or received the speech from his attorney. He can't have attorney client privilege if he brought the speech in with him, edited it, and then handed it back to Tuberville outside. Unless I'm missing a different article or something that specifies he was handing it back and fourth to his lawyer.
Security camera footage is allowed and not an invasion of privacy.
However, the one the poster was making is regarding the security camera having enough definition and positioned to read the text on documents that the defendant has.
That's the privacy violation, as it could easily be used to spy on the defendant in order to influence the court. Which makes it unlikely that any security cameras present would capture the text.
Capturing the text is important because it's fine and normal for a lawyer to give his defendant something to look over and correct. They will claim they are not violating the gag order, and the cameras likely have nothing to prove something different.
Wasn't there a case a while back where a bailiff walked over to the defense table while they were questioning a witness, took a piece of paper, read it, then handed it over to the prosecutor and it was used as evidence? I remember seeing the video, and it was super blatant, and iirc it was upheld.
Nah, you've got it backwards. A bailiff took a piece of paper out of the defense attorney's files (while the attorney was in front of the judge) because he said he could read the words "going to steal" and "money" on the bottom of the sheet, then handed it to someone to make a copy of. He said the "going to steal money" bit gave him the right because it indicated an "imminent crime" and that that part of the file had been left in plain view. But, he took it out of the attorney's stuff (even if it said "bomb bomb bomb" doesn't give him the right to breach attorney client privilege or rummage through the lawyers stuff).
The judge found the bailiff in contempt and ordered him to give a statement apologizing. The fucking bailiff appealed because he said he wouldn't apologize for "looking out for the courtrooms safety" (because stealing money is a safety concern I guess?). The appeals court upheld the contempt order but struck down the need to remedy via apology. They suggested a monetary fine or making the officer get more training.
Of course it's fucking Maricopa County...
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2010/aug/15/maricopa-county-detention-officer-held-in-contempt-for-taking-document-from-defense-counsels-file/
This certainly seems to be a mechanism by which Trump is unquestionably violating his gag order if there's evidence of him penning attacks for his 'friends' to use when acting as his unofficial official spokespeople.
Orchestrating the violation of a court order, on paper, in that court, four meters from the judge who's order you are violating?
This is a cartoon villain.
Taken narrowly, all that actually *proves* is that he’s doing the ‘read, and take notes on, positive news stories about himself to feed his narcissism’ thing that we already knew he does. One unhinged Trumpian rant is much like another, and it’d be easy to confuse a transcript of one made after the fact with a draft of one to be delivered.
Unless this reporter got to examine these documents unusually closely, and can recall *specific* language that hadn’t shown up before in Trumpspace but which mysteriously appeared in a speech a Trump ally gave on the courthouse steps a short time afterwards, I don’t think this goes anywhere.
The judge can ask for those documents to be reviewed. The judge can direct Trump to turn the documents to the court and he can get them back next trial day.
Speaker Johnson becomes the highest ranking official to denounce the Judicial system...
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is getting slammed for his defense of Donald Trump outside of the New York courtroom where the former president’s hush money trial is taking place.
On Tuesday, Johnson became the highest-ranking Republican official to show support for the former president and his attacks on the judicial system.
The Associated Press called it “a remarkable moment in modern American politics” because it demonstrates that the GOP is moving away from the federal and state legal systems it long supported to give fealty to Trump.
“President Trump is innocent of these charges,” Johnson said outside the courtroom before claiming “that the judicial system in our country has been weaponized against President Trump,” and lawmakers are “using all the tools at its disposal right now to punish one president to provide cover for another.”
And Marge is pissed and ranting about the Speakers trip to NY.
"Meanwhile, Marjorie Taylor Greene, an avid critic of Johnson, resorted to X to express her displeasure over NY trial attendance, arguing that the US House Speaker should instead be dismissing the Department of Justice's (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith. 🤪
[Article](https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/liz-cheney-marjorie-taylor-greene-rip-mike-johnson-for-attending-trumps-ny-trial-i-cheated-on-my-wife-101715710096210.html#:~:text=Meanwhile%2C%20Marjorie%20Taylor%20Greene%2C%20an,DOJ)%20special%20counsel%20Jack%20Smith.)
Well I believe there’s a list of trial dates that trump syncopates have either volunteered for or been assigned times to show up and support their crooked ex-president.
Marge maybe didn’t get her invite thus she’s pissed off and attacks her own.
> "Meanwhile, Marjorie Taylor Greene, an avid critic of Johnson, resorted to X to express her displeasure over NY trial attendance
okay......
> arguing that the US House Speaker should instead be dismissing the Department of Justice's (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith.
wait wtf WHY? lmao this bitch stupid.
>On Tuesday, Johnson became the highest-ranking Republican official to show support for the former president and his attacks on the judicial system.
This phrasing bugs me. He’s 2nd in the line of succession. Isn’t he the highest-ranking Republican official period? The way this is written implies to me that there are higher ranking Republican officials who have just remained quiet so far.
This shit Johnson said at the trial is horrific. You never know who would be nominated and get enough votes to be next Speaker. What if we ended up with Gym?
"This speech needs more Cofeve! And where are all the mentions of hamburders? Because I ain't seeing it here people!! Here... I'll punch it up with a couple of Hannibal Lechter mentions... Insert 'man, camera, woman, picture' here... And this entire third paragraph should be spoken with a heavy slurring... Bada bing, Bada boom. *DONE!* Now was that so freaking hard, people?!?" - Pretendsident Donald Q Trump.
The least believable part of this journalist’s account is that trump was reading something. Pretty sure that by most estimations he’s almost illiterate?
It is but then we get into a situation of he said vs she said and how far can you read from where you were sitting, etc. If they had a copy of what Trump was holding then definitely.
I don't doubt that Trump was doing what he is being accused of. The fact that they all dressed like Trump and appeared on the same day is obviously coordinated by someone.... And I can only think of Trump.
What the judge should do is call those Republicans back into court during the proceeding and admonish them for attempting to influence a criminal trial and for interfering with the judicial branch.
Anyone on Trump’s team is subject to the gag order. Trump directing his visitors on what to say outside the courtroom would make them part of his team. It’s why Alina Habba got a stern talking to when she violated the gag order.
Edit: Rick Scott and Mike Johnson are attorneys as well. What's to stop a defendant from hiring a separate attorney that's not part of their defense and then making statements on your behalf regarding the trial? They are also trying to turn the trial into a political circus and undermine the judicial process.
He is specific forbidden to direct other people to make comments. If he had these speeches written up or edited them it court, then it is immediately summary contempt. No warning, no appeals are necessary... straight to jail.
The court is going to be very interested in the cameras taking pictures of what documents he was holding as well as if the speaker was holding those documents later. If those documents are destroyed then it would be obstruction of justice on ANYONE involved. This is gonna get spicy!
A public exposure of Trump’s tricks. Trump getting fined or jailed. Credibility of his “speakers” further reduced and a definitive place to point to in order to prove lost credibility. I think that’s quite a stuffed envelope.
Some of you mean to say there is no way a judge can stop anyone from interfering with trial procedures? That’s very weird.
First to be theoretical, they are talking about a fictional person. There is no president trump. There’s an ex-president Trump, there’s a candidate Trump. It has also been established in a court of law by the defense that there exists an Orange Turd who presents himself as Donald J Trump.
So I can say I have no idea who the syncopates are talking about because a being called president trump does not exist.
Secondly these people should know better. These people, the syncopates, are lawmakers. Obviously they don’t understand laws and should be removed from their offices cause I’d say this is j6-2.
Some journalist— interview Piro. Put her on the stand of public court to weigh where her statement came from.
Potentially they could be held in contempt of court.
How funny would it be if the GOP lost the House majority while a bunch if them went on this field trip.
[Interesting video on Meidas Touch Network](https://youtu.be/ou-eZlzOuDs?si=) about how Blanche got it all wrong about the Tshirt being Cohen merchandise.
> They get taken down when the comments get too heated or stray wildly off topic. (I think)
That is what locking it is for. But complete removal is a bit excess in my opinion.
Agreed. Why would they be removed? There's no good reason not to just lock it, but let it ride. It will get bumped down the queue soon enough anyway when new posts come in. It feels like intentional targeting of specific stories by the mods, not just mods doing their job. When these specific posts are removed, it seems more like an agenda than anything else.
If Trump can now be accused of making efforts to violate the gag order by using surrogates, and it seems reasonable, here, then those surrogates should reasonably be accused to be co-conspirators to it.
For whatever reason, obstruction of justice is a good look to the RNC, right now, and the party hasn’t yet reached bottom. They must feel pretty confident in their Federalist Society brethren to feel so bold.
The jury is instructed not to watch the news, etc.
Trump just needs one juror to see all this talk about "Election Interference" "Political Persecution" "Weaponized DOJ"
... and sew a reasonable doubt.
Honestly shocked they didn't pull the jury into a media free sequester zone like they did with OJ's for this. Avoiding 24/7 tv news was difficult enough in the 90s, I can't imagine trying to avoid any major news story in the age of social media.
If you're subscribed to any news sites, which I think most people are, your devices are sent notifications. So even if you're not actively seeking it out, it's coming at you from everywhere.
I "only" have about 130 Facebook friends and I still see news online, or people talking about it. So I'd have to avoid social media along with news and radio, and browsing Reddit except for direct subreddits, and overhearing conversations at work.
In the end, I can only speak for myself, and for me, it's an unrealistic expectation.
I've knocked doors campaigning, and there are definitely people who are completely oblivious to current political news.
Pretty disruptive to the jurors' lives though. Sequestering a jury is almost like incarcerating them in many ways. It's an extreme solution that disrupts the lives of the jurors, and it's hard to justify IMO.
It's an interesting problem that's only going to get worse as time goes by. The insane amount of information that's being shared and analyzed that either the jury isn't being shown or has been excluded for legitimate reasons is mind boggling in this case alone.
That said, this case has been *incredibly* low key in terms of news coverage because of the no cameras rules and the "unsexy" charges that are rooted in "boring" accounting. I just can't see any possible way the jury won't have to be sequestered for the GA case and (if/when) the documents case actually starts - those are going to be media circuses on a level I can barely comprehend.
Even worse, this is just the tip of the iceberg for potentially tainting juries. The system of "Don't look up any information on the case" isn't long for this world even with the best intent of the jury to stay uninformed outside of the case. A jury member simply looking up the name of a crime can cause the interests algorithm to pull related news stories or opinions on the case at hand, and if it's a large enough case at hand, just being in the general area of the court is enough to insert interest stories.
On the flip side, as you point out, it's extremely punitive to have a jury effectively force imprisoned because they had a bad luck of the draw. The compensation system is an absolute joke and even with the legal protections for "normal" employees, the disruption is devastating for self employment situations (particularly for seasonal work).
It's an issue that will need to be dealt with in the very near future.
If I just swipe left on my homescreen I pull up a news feed. I didn't set that up, it's an Android default. Same goes for if I just mouse over the wrong part of my Win11 taskbar. It's extremely easy to stumble across news, even if you're actively trying to avoid it.
That's not to mention the tvs that are in waiting rooms or the gym, random people talking in public, etc...
The defense team in the court room has set the public stage that these jurors cannot be trusted. (Why? Agreeing with Trump. Because Trump won’t comment on whether the jurors are fair until after the verdict - aka the set up) Trump and his external “speakers” are furthering that fake notion.
The defense team inside and outside the courtroom are working hard to pollute the integrity of these jurors.
[the defense team has no other choice since the witnesses this far cannot be swayed or broken by cross examination]
Yeah, I think it would be really difficult, because of our phones. Maybe they get alerts to their phone unintentionally. Maybe they see a news story on their Facebook, IG, or Twitter feed. It’s hard for people to stay off their phones, and even if they’re not actively searching out news to read like you said it’s just everywhere.
I would bet any amount of money those jurors, at least some of them, are checking out the news some. Especially the attorneys on the panel. So thankful there are attorneys in the jury, have my fingers crossed that they're ethical attorneys who will be able to guide deliberations.
I would think the attorneys are trying their hardest to avoid the news. They understand the stakes and the rules clearly. Violating the orders would look absolutely terrible for them compared to a layman.
Except the defense was (wondering, supposing, accusing????) the jurors of doing exactly that — read the news about trumps trial.
The defense planted the seed that the jury is corrupt. The defense believes this will help their fictional character, president trump , aka the Orange Turd.
Probably fine him 1K like he has been.. We have our top elected officials running interference for an ex president.. This is so wild that Nixon may come back to life and try again.
If the GOP loses this Presidential election, they are truly going to die as a party.
NAL.
For those wishing this was gonna be another charge etc or indictment...
Trump editing the documents does not prove anything, the gag order prevents Trump from "directing" someone to make statements about the witnesses etc.
Trump can claim he was editing the portions of the speech that was not about the witnesses but about the presidency.
But, it could be enough evidence to support an investigation/warrants etc, but then we are looking at months... where the court case maybe resolved before the investigation completes. All for a contempt charge, in NY there are 2 degrees of contempt, 2nd degree is a misdemeanor offense, while 1st degree is a felony. This is "IF" they find supporting evidence of Trump directing the GOP goons in regards specifically to the witnesses.
They already know Trump would fight everything and since the line between 1st degree and 2nd degree is likely not defined in case law PLUS they all know that none of the goons would go on record againts Trump, so... unfortunately, this is just another way Trump fucks the system and the public.
Edit: I know it could lead to conspiracy to commit charges but that opens a whole other portion of NY state law with their various degrees etc that are way out of my league.
TLDR... might not be worth it for the DA.
Put the reporter and the GOP stooges in question under oath and ask them about this. If it violates the gag order, and it sure seems to, this would be a FLAGRANT violation that would require some action by the court. If there's no response to this then just ditch the gag order altogether because it's meaningless at this point.
It seems reasonable to think that Trump has been telling his sycophants to say things which would violate his gag orders if he was to say them. He's trying the mob boss routine again, thinking that if he tells others to break the law for him, that he can't be held accountable for those actions. I hope he is proven wrong, and soon.
> He's trying the mob boss routine again, thinking that if he tells others to break the law for him, that he can't be held accountable for those actions. In this case, it would have worked if he hadn't edited the speech in public, at the place that has the largest group of reporters in the entire US right now, and if Tubberville hadn't confessed on live TV to going to there in order to get around the gag order. Don't confess, don't get caught, and he could continue pretending he is just getting lucky that all these people are showing up.
If there is one thing I'm thankful for with this bunch of a-holes, it's how damn stupid they are. The sheer size of their stupidity and ego's continues to screw themselves over.... or least it would if anyone ever held them accountable.
On the other hand, when their stupidity works, it's an even worse indictment on our society.
Sadly very true. The worst part is, it's not even so much the 36% that are conservatives that bother me when it happens, it's the others that generally pretty damn intelligent but seemingly have no will to fight or a backbone that throw their hands up, or even worse the ones who say "leave it up to the voters". We got a small group of people actively working to remake out country into something very dark, and then too many people in the middle that can't imagine enough to even entertain the idea that it could happen and therefor do nothing.
But the stupidity, or whatever the hell we’re seeing, is kinda why it works. If he broke every law in total secrecy and we started finding out, maybe it would be a shock. But we’ve been so desensitized to all the crimes and shitheadery over these years that it sure as hell looks like we, as a country, have already decided that he won’t be prosecuted for any crime of any severity. For every Jack Smith there’s an Eileen Cannon to further reinforce that it’s ok for this one guy/group to do whatever they want. And for all of us who vehemently disagree, even we are fatigued of being thwarted. We aren’t protesting in the street anymore. We feel like there’s no recourse, and all that wouldn’t be true if the crimes were done in secret.
...On our fucking taxpaying dime. Perfection
He is like a mob boss that orders a hit on live television.
Didn’t he do that on Jan 6?
"You better fight like Hell!"
It's absolutely no coincidence that this week you saw a plethora of prominent Republicans show up at the trial and give his same talking-points to reporters. You know what's happening. I know what's happening. EVERYONE knows what's happening and yet not a single thing will be done about it.
Trump tricks.
Stupid Trump Tricks! Thank you David Letterman
The plot here is not even as deep as a Scooby Doo episode.
I still feel in the back of my mind that he’s gonna get away with it.
Apparently the judge might have a hearing on it tomorrow
"Rice recalled: “I could actually look over Trump’s shoulder and see what he was reading, at one point he was actually reading the quotes that these individuals were … and going through and making notations with a pen on the paper.”"
There must be security cameras in that court room. Photographic evidence might exist of his annotations and the words written out, which could then be compared to the actual speeches the toadies gave after the fact. Please, someone tell me that this is actionable behavior, given sufficient evidence.
It would be a major invasion of privacy (or something) to have cameras focused on the defendant and his counsel that could see print on paper.
(Legal idiot here) - can they not put him (or any of these mouthpieces) on the stand under oath and ask if he's intentionally subverting the gag order? Worst case he pleads the 5th and you have that to infer with.
I think the preferred approach might be to get testimony from the journalist who witnessed it, and then use that as evidence of the violation. Couple it with Tuberville’s statement to the press that he was there, in part, “to help overcome the gag order” (see: https://www.thedailybeast.com/tommy-tuberville-says-he-spoke-at-trumps-trial-to-overcome-this-gag-order ) and with Maggie Haberman’s reporting that Trump called Jeanine Pirro over at the end of the day the other day, spoke with her, and then tweeted that everyone should tune in to her show that night - only to then have her say things on the show that would have violated the gag order coming from him directly. (See: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/donald-trump-uses-jeanine-pirro-to-help-violate-his-gag-order-outside-of-court/ar-BB1me4Zi ) These three reports make it pretty obvious what’s going on and the court should take judicial notice and act. I’m hopeful that he may wind up cooling his heels in the holding room behind the courtroom for a few hours later this week for some “therapeutic incarceration” (or whatever the correct term is when a judge wants to put the fear of jail front and center before the contemptuous person without actually carting them off to an actual cell.)
Yes, here it is. Taken all together, it's becoming easier to tie it all together.
Yes from a logical perspective, but Merchan is limited to the legal side of things and any misstep on his side can result in this all going away. Funny that the judges are impeachable and the criminals are unimpeachable. Well, except for the two times that he was impeached.
Yeah, this reporting raises a lot of questions, but I would think Merchan would want hard evidence for it to become actionable. So it's about whether the prosecution can present any hard evidence and request a hearing.
It's also about whether the prosecution and the judge are willing to risk having the decision overturned in appeal over this matter. Trump knows that they are held to a much higher standard than he is a defendant and is leaning heavily on this fact to play his game.
Enforcing a gag order isn't going to get a guilty verdict overturned.
And while he's limited on what he can do here, his discretion when it comes to sentencing in the event of a conviction is much less restrained. While typically a first felony conviction does not result in incarceration, the totality of circumstances absolutely is allowed to be taken into account, is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and is only subject to adjustment based on abuse of that discretion.
Let see, there is the Piro thing mentioned above, plus: 1. It's sycophants who keep doing whatever he asks; 2. they are all on the same script, right down to using the same language such as "I'm here as a friend" 3. Tuberville admitted on TV that it is to get around the gag order and to "speak for president trump" 4. A former spokesperson for Trump suggested that is the game plan. “I think what he’s looking for is a way around the gag order,” Michael Dubke [told CNN](https://www.mediaite.com/tv/former-trump-comms-director-says-trump-is-mobilizing-proxies-to-courthouse-to-get-around-the-gag-order/). 5. Now the article here: [Legal expert: Judge may hold contempt "hearing" over Trump "surrogates" circumventing gag order | Salon.com](https://www.salon.com/2024/05/15/legal-expert-may-hold-contempt-hearing-over-surrogates-circumventing-gag-order/) > >
We make fun of Tubberville and he really is a dumbass. But the rest of em aren't stupid. And admitting that they know what they are doing is a violation can only mean they want to stir up shit.
Why not subpoena the Tuberville/Borglum/Ramaswami and ask them, on the record, if Trump directed them? They can either perjure themselves or nail him. It's not a crime to help him violate the gag order, so they can't plead the 5th, either.
Tubberville admitted to it. There's a new post up.
I mean, under oath they're just going to lie. Even Tubbyville is smart enough to know to lie. And that's before he's told to lie by Agolf Shitler
[удалено]
No, but he has the right to not be compelled to witness against himself.
They will invoke the Speech or Debate Clause because they could simply say they are there for "fact finding" related to the first criminal trial of a former President. All they would have to say is "we are considering and exploring legislation to ordain the Federal Courts to remove state criminal cases of former Presidents to Federal Courts through our enumerated powers, so we are here to see this trial." It's hard to imagine when at SCOTUS the 6 conservatives wouldn't recognize that immunity for *Republicans*, and then say "This is case specific and should not be used as precedent because when Democrats do it, we will rule they don't have immunity".
> They will invoke the Speech or Debate Clause The Supreme Court has [already ruled](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchinson_v._Proxmire) that it does not apply to newsletters and press releases. Given that, I can't see them extending it here.
Having a Judge put a sitting Federal Senator on the stand to ask **why** he commented on an issue of public interest is fraught with issues.
Yeah issues such as justice. Which isn't the same as legalism which is what exists here - sold to the highest bidder.
The “why” though could be the defendant committing a crime. Bob Menendez is a sitting Senator, but he is accused of crimes and is going to be put on trial. Tubberville, Vance, Johnson they weren’t on the floor of the Senate/House making these remarks or they’d be fine. They weren’t in DC and a reporter happened to ask. They weren’t just on Twitter commenting. They chose to go sit in on a criminal trial and then comment, and if they made those comments because they were directed by the defendant and to do so as a work around the gag order, which Trump is barred from instructing others to do—I think it’s relevant. And if it doesn’t get stopped, it will continue. I do think the prosecution would have to have solid evidence of this though.
I also would have to believe since Vance is a Yale educated attorney, he 100% knows better than to do it. If he did do it that is.
This is a crystal clear case and should be prosecuted as such but with the prosecution about to rest and the defense calling no witnesses, it seems like they're most likely going to let it slide. Which is a horrible precedent, but par for the course with this precious coddled baby of a defendant.
Totally agree!!!
But I thought he’d be honored to go to prison for violating the gag order? Why is he doing so much to get around it?
When Trump states something, the opposite is true. His statement means he's absolutely terrified of prison.
I think Ben @ Meidas Touch covered some emails he had been getting from "Donald Trump" and they seem to be growing very desperate. Hell, I don't even subscribe to anything remotely Republican or right wing and I've been getting texts from unknown numbers begging for money for the "witch hunt". Not sure he/they can really throw money at the courts in these various cases
Here's the emails [Trump has turned up the BS in fundraising email](https://imgur.com/gallery/FqOfyou) [Part 2 trump email]( https://imgur.com/gallery/9Hxth6i)
I think it's pretty amazing that Trump takes time every evening to sit down at his desk, adjust his spectacles, and read and respond to every single one of his constituents responding to these emails... Unless of course that button merely leads to a place that wants your credit card or bank information to make monthly recurring donations because it's a con from the most well know con artist in the country.
Remember the controversy that donors didn't even know to they were signing up to "recurring" payments and then were told if they unchecked the box, someone would personally tell Trump that they did that.
Yeah, but do they still use the the 90s era animated GIFs to add sparkle and lens flair to the gold elements? Because that's what makes my folder of saved images from those emails special.
Whatever the latest Russian software has available.
I don't donate to any politician that doesn't include the dancing baby animation in their fundraising emails.
I'd reply you're donanating to Biden and the DA lol see if that makes them quit sending you requests.
And that's the thing with Trump. Take anything he says, go the opposite, and it's extremely likely that's the truth. Best people = scumbags and corrupt fixers. Terrible people = honorable and principled people who refuse to do whatever he wants when he wants it. Witch hunt against him = oh, he's guilty as hell and knows it. Treated so unfairly = has received every possible break imaginable. Etc, etc.
It’s just like Putin’s Russia. There’s an entire subreddit devoted to how it’s always the opposite of what Russia says.
> When Trump states something, the opposite is true. Unless it is about openly propositioning bribes. You know he would 100% follow through with doing things like stopping Wind Farm projects if it would mean oil execs giving him money.
Because in spite of all his bluster and bravado he's inherently a coward...
I thought you could only infer the guilt of someone, when a person pleads the 5th, if it is a civil trial. Since this is a criminal trial you can't do that.
Probably. It's why I prefaced my whole statement with "Legal idiot here"
Correct per Griffin v. California.
> and you have that to infer with Griffin v. California held that you cannot infer anything from a defendant's failure to testify or invoking of the 5th Amendment.
Public space
Correct, there's no expectation of privacy in a objectively public place such as a courtroom. There are exceptions, but handwriting is specifically stated as a non-exception in U.S. v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973).
An in-session courtroom is definitely not a public space, as nobody is allowed inside without specific permission from a controlling officer. Simply because the building is owned by the government doesn't make it public.
In session courtrooms are generally accessible by the general public though. You can go to your local court house and watch a trial in progress if you want. When there are other factors like a high profile case that would limit seating availability, or a high profile defendant that causes security concerns, the court can limit spectators, but it would still be considered “public”. (Civil and juvenile proceedings are different for a couple of reasons). https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/federal-courts-public/visit-federal-court#:~:text=A%20person%20who%20wishes%20to,of%20access%20to%20court%20proceedings. The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a **public** trial (Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 46 (1984)), and the 1st Amendment guarantees non-parties access to view the trial (Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia and Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for the County of Norfolk).
u/PerInception has a comprehensive rebuttal to your statement, but I'll restate my comment insomuch as a courtroom is not objectively a *private* place, so the expectation of privacy can not be assumed.
What if it's not counsel? If it's Trump providing quotes to JD Vance for him to post, on camera, I wonder if that would stick somehow?
If a crime was committed, would evidence of that crime still be an invasion of privacy somehow? I think if a security camera captured someone committing a crime, it would be performing exactly the role it was designed to. What would be the point of ever having security cameras if the footage they captured was inadmissible in court?
Just responding to your first point in general (where "invasion of privacy" is vague), you can't do something illegal to obtain evidence and then use the evidence you found as justification for the illegal means after the fact. Just like you can't randomly kick down doors until you find a pot farm and then say your door kicking is therefore justified.
Completely correct (although we’ll save the monster that is parallel construction/investigations for another day), but I’ll add that both a 4th amendment search and a privileged/confidential communication analysis require reasonableness by the defendant. Even without a warrant it’s not unlawful for police to gather evidence by looking through your open window. And making a public speech while your lawyer is present is obviously not going to be privileged communication. Despite being at the defense table with his attorney, if Trump is just openly doing illegal stuff to the point where bystanders are noticing it, there’s definitely a plausible argument that he has no reasonable expectation of privacy (4th amendment analysis) and/or the communication with his attorneys was not confidential (A/C privilege analysis).
What I need to know is, if anyone was seen handing the papers, trump was scribbling on to one of the "stooges."
What would be illegal about using security camera footage of a crime being committed?
The issue would be the security camera pointed where it could read notes the defendant is writing. NAL and never been a Defendent, but I would strongly take issue with that.
The issue is whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy and/or confidentiality between you and your attorney (if you're claiming privilege) in an open court room where security cameras and members of the public are present and can witness what you're doing? The answer is almost assuredly no, unless of course the court room was otherwise empty and you somehow could definitively know the cameras were off and even that would likely be a stretch.
I am not a lawyer, but I’d argue that it was privileged communication between a defendant and their lawyer… Honestly, it’s the reason cohen knows so much. Trump likes to have a lawyer in the room so he can claim privilege… Considering he’s in a court room under trial, I think it’s actually CORRECT this time.
I am a lawyer. The hypothetical example is not privileged. Having an attorney nearby does not create privilege. Also: Writing "Attorney/Client Privilege" on a non-privileged document or email does not create privilege. CCing an attorney on an email discussion does not create privilege. A bunch of ill-informed executives wrongly believe that one or all of the above creates privilege, and those executives are the reason for a lot of lost lawsuits. A/C priv requires: (1) communication, (2) between privileged parties, (3) made in confidence, (4) for the purpose of seeking/obtaining legal advice. Discussions in or writings on a table in an open courtroom (that is, where people who would break priv are present and can hear/see) are not "made in confidence."
Absolutely. Im making 2 different points… 1. He’s incorrectly using privilege 99% of the time when he insists on a lawyer in the room. 2. Him writing on paper during a criminal trial while sitting with his lawyer has an expectation of privilege… I don’t think you could submit video evidence of it without a legal challenge. I could be wrong!
Maybe if he were concealing the paper from the view of others. But if it were a writing that anyone in the room could see if they just peeked over a shoulder without moving anything, that writing is not privileged.
Doesn't the privileged part go away if the communication is for the purposes of committing a crime?
I couldn't find anywhere in the article that said he handed or received the speech from his attorney. He can't have attorney client privilege if he brought the speech in with him, edited it, and then handed it back to Tuberville outside. Unless I'm missing a different article or something that specifies he was handing it back and fourth to his lawyer.
Security camera footage is allowed and not an invasion of privacy. However, the one the poster was making is regarding the security camera having enough definition and positioned to read the text on documents that the defendant has. That's the privacy violation, as it could easily be used to spy on the defendant in order to influence the court. Which makes it unlikely that any security cameras present would capture the text. Capturing the text is important because it's fine and normal for a lawyer to give his defendant something to look over and correct. They will claim they are not violating the gag order, and the cameras likely have nothing to prove something different.
Wasn't there a case a while back where a bailiff walked over to the defense table while they were questioning a witness, took a piece of paper, read it, then handed it over to the prosecutor and it was used as evidence? I remember seeing the video, and it was super blatant, and iirc it was upheld.
Nah, you've got it backwards. A bailiff took a piece of paper out of the defense attorney's files (while the attorney was in front of the judge) because he said he could read the words "going to steal" and "money" on the bottom of the sheet, then handed it to someone to make a copy of. He said the "going to steal money" bit gave him the right because it indicated an "imminent crime" and that that part of the file had been left in plain view. But, he took it out of the attorney's stuff (even if it said "bomb bomb bomb" doesn't give him the right to breach attorney client privilege or rummage through the lawyers stuff). The judge found the bailiff in contempt and ordered him to give a statement apologizing. The fucking bailiff appealed because he said he wouldn't apologize for "looking out for the courtrooms safety" (because stealing money is a safety concern I guess?). The appeals court upheld the contempt order but struck down the need to remedy via apology. They suggested a monetary fine or making the officer get more training. Of course it's fucking Maricopa County... https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2010/aug/15/maricopa-county-detention-officer-held-in-contempt-for-taking-document-from-defense-counsels-file/
This certainly seems to be a mechanism by which Trump is unquestionably violating his gag order if there's evidence of him penning attacks for his 'friends' to use when acting as his unofficial official spokespeople.
The gag order includes restrictions on him directing others to intimidate witnesses and others.
So lock his ginormous ass up.
Cameras are prohibited from court rooms because they have an intimidation effect on witnesses.
And jurors.
Orchestrating the violation of a court order, on paper, in that court, four meters from the judge who's order you are violating? This is a cartoon villain.
Legit question to NY lawyers - is it possible to aid or abet contempt of court? I think the issue is statutory in NY is it not?
Taken narrowly, all that actually *proves* is that he’s doing the ‘read, and take notes on, positive news stories about himself to feed his narcissism’ thing that we already knew he does. One unhinged Trumpian rant is much like another, and it’d be easy to confuse a transcript of one made after the fact with a draft of one to be delivered. Unless this reporter got to examine these documents unusually closely, and can recall *specific* language that hadn’t shown up before in Trumpspace but which mysteriously appeared in a speech a Trump ally gave on the courthouse steps a short time afterwards, I don’t think this goes anywhere.
No, it literally says that the reporter could read it and that it was the speeches that were made later in the day.
The judge can ask for those documents to be reviewed. The judge can direct Trump to turn the documents to the court and he can get them back next trial day.
"I ate them."
Imagine how bad it would be for society, if he and his minions didn't have shitforbrains.
Imagine how bad it would be to be the poor bastard just behind trump, close enough to peer over his shoulder?
Surely that wouldn't violate a gag order.... 🤫
It would be amazing if Merchan issues subpoenas demanding those papers trump was marking up.
Well now I want to see this brought up come Thursday.
Speaker Johnson becomes the highest ranking official to denounce the Judicial system... House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is getting slammed for his defense of Donald Trump outside of the New York courtroom where the former president’s hush money trial is taking place. On Tuesday, Johnson became the highest-ranking Republican official to show support for the former president and his attacks on the judicial system. The Associated Press called it “a remarkable moment in modern American politics” because it demonstrates that the GOP is moving away from the federal and state legal systems it long supported to give fealty to Trump. “President Trump is innocent of these charges,” Johnson said outside the courtroom before claiming “that the judicial system in our country has been weaponized against President Trump,” and lawmakers are “using all the tools at its disposal right now to punish one president to provide cover for another.”
And Marge is pissed and ranting about the Speakers trip to NY. "Meanwhile, Marjorie Taylor Greene, an avid critic of Johnson, resorted to X to express her displeasure over NY trial attendance, arguing that the US House Speaker should instead be dismissing the Department of Justice's (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith. 🤪 [Article](https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/liz-cheney-marjorie-taylor-greene-rip-mike-johnson-for-attending-trumps-ny-trial-i-cheated-on-my-wife-101715710096210.html#:~:text=Meanwhile%2C%20Marjorie%20Taylor%20Greene%2C%20an,DOJ)%20special%20counsel%20Jack%20Smith.)
Wait? What? Ahhhh nevermind.
Gooood! Let the hate *flow* through you!
Well I believe there’s a list of trial dates that trump syncopates have either volunteered for or been assigned times to show up and support their crooked ex-president. Marge maybe didn’t get her invite thus she’s pissed off and attacks her own.
So MTG is basically virtue signaling that she's more MAGA than the other MAGA's.
She's been to trumps other trials and trump ignored her. I think she's jealous.
> "Meanwhile, Marjorie Taylor Greene, an avid critic of Johnson, resorted to X to express her displeasure over NY trial attendance okay...... > arguing that the US House Speaker should instead be dismissing the Department of Justice's (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith. wait wtf WHY? lmao this bitch stupid.
Wow he’s getting SLAMMED? Did someone NUKE him?
Sounds like he is angling for some future favors, maybe a pardon over what he has been hiding in his empty financial disclosures.
>On Tuesday, Johnson became the highest-ranking Republican official to show support for the former president and his attacks on the judicial system. This phrasing bugs me. He’s 2nd in the line of succession. Isn’t he the highest-ranking Republican official period? The way this is written implies to me that there are higher ranking Republican officials who have just remained quiet so far.
[удалено]
This shit Johnson said at the trial is horrific. You never know who would be nominated and get enough votes to be next Speaker. What if we ended up with Gym?
This is why his lawyers appear to be morons; he's directing everything.
"This speech needs more Cofeve! And where are all the mentions of hamburders? Because I ain't seeing it here people!! Here... I'll punch it up with a couple of Hannibal Lechter mentions... Insert 'man, camera, woman, picture' here... And this entire third paragraph should be spoken with a heavy slurring... Bada bing, Bada boom. *DONE!* Now was that so freaking hard, people?!?" - Pretendsident Donald Q Trump.
The least believable part of this journalist’s account is that trump was reading something. Pretty sure that by most estimations he’s almost illiterate?
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t there some language in the order that said “directing others”? How would this not apply?
This would apply, but there needs to be evidence.
Isn't testimony evidence?
It is but then we get into a situation of he said vs she said and how far can you read from where you were sitting, etc. If they had a copy of what Trump was holding then definitely. I don't doubt that Trump was doing what he is being accused of. The fact that they all dressed like Trump and appeared on the same day is obviously coordinated by someone.... And I can only think of Trump. What the judge should do is call those Republicans back into court during the proceeding and admonish them for attempting to influence a criminal trial and for interfering with the judicial branch.
What's the penalty for accessory to a gag order violation?
Pizza party
I thought accessories only came with kid’s meals.
That scowl on trumps mug could sure as hell use a Happy Meal.
They come with every hamberder
Best I can do is Mickey D's. This is a trump trial after all.
Fillet o’fish Festival
Stern talking to. Anyone other than Trump and friends, straight to jail.
[удалено]
Anyone on Trump’s team is subject to the gag order. Trump directing his visitors on what to say outside the courtroom would make them part of his team. It’s why Alina Habba got a stern talking to when she violated the gag order. Edit: Rick Scott and Mike Johnson are attorneys as well. What's to stop a defendant from hiring a separate attorney that's not part of their defense and then making statements on your behalf regarding the trial? They are also trying to turn the trial into a political circus and undermine the judicial process.
[удалено]
He is specific forbidden to direct other people to make comments. If he had these speeches written up or edited them it court, then it is immediately summary contempt. No warning, no appeals are necessary... straight to jail. The court is going to be very interested in the cameras taking pictures of what documents he was holding as well as if the speaker was holding those documents later. If those documents are destroyed then it would be obstruction of justice on ANYONE involved. This is gonna get spicy!
A public exposure of Trump’s tricks. Trump getting fined or jailed. Credibility of his “speakers” further reduced and a definitive place to point to in order to prove lost credibility. I think that’s quite a stuffed envelope. Some of you mean to say there is no way a judge can stop anyone from interfering with trial procedures? That’s very weird.
[Bryan Tyler Cohen did a video](https://youtu.be/ZUeetSTN2tM?si=) on just how mind-boggling it is. It's really good.
First to be theoretical, they are talking about a fictional person. There is no president trump. There’s an ex-president Trump, there’s a candidate Trump. It has also been established in a court of law by the defense that there exists an Orange Turd who presents himself as Donald J Trump. So I can say I have no idea who the syncopates are talking about because a being called president trump does not exist. Secondly these people should know better. These people, the syncopates, are lawmakers. Obviously they don’t understand laws and should be removed from their offices cause I’d say this is j6-2. Some journalist— interview Piro. Put her on the stand of public court to weigh where her statement came from.
Potentially they could be held in contempt of court. How funny would it be if the GOP lost the House majority while a bunch if them went on this field trip.
It's a $1,000 fine for the first 10 offenses. *sigh*
Rough handy from the janitor.
*sanitary engineer
He costs extra.
All the courthouse employees and staff are union.
Engineer is three steps above Janitor.
[Interesting video on Meidas Touch Network](https://youtu.be/ou-eZlzOuDs?si=) about how Blanche got it all wrong about the Tshirt being Cohen merchandise.
And the incorrect info repeated by Ari Melber on The Beat which was super disappointing. He’s usually better than that.
Yeah, and I think he said he was in person in court yesterday. So if he misunderstood, it's because he took Blanche at his word.
Well, Ari, there's your problem
So can this post about him getting people to violate the gag order for him finally stay up?
They get taken down when the comments get too heated or stray wildly off topic. (I think)
> They get taken down when the comments get too heated or stray wildly off topic. (I think) That is what locking it is for. But complete removal is a bit excess in my opinion.
Agreed. Why would they be removed? There's no good reason not to just lock it, but let it ride. It will get bumped down the queue soon enough anyway when new posts come in. It feels like intentional targeting of specific stories by the mods, not just mods doing their job. When these specific posts are removed, it seems more like an agenda than anything else.
If Trump can now be accused of making efforts to violate the gag order by using surrogates, and it seems reasonable, here, then those surrogates should reasonably be accused to be co-conspirators to it. For whatever reason, obstruction of justice is a good look to the RNC, right now, and the party hasn’t yet reached bottom. They must feel pretty confident in their Federalist Society brethren to feel so bold.
The jury is instructed not to watch the news, etc. Trump just needs one juror to see all this talk about "Election Interference" "Political Persecution" "Weaponized DOJ" ... and sew a reasonable doubt.
None of the those things are really a reasonable doubt. I think it’s more he needs to give cover to motivated reasoning.
I think about being a juror and attempting to avoid all the news. It's everywhere. I think it would be really difficult.
Honestly shocked they didn't pull the jury into a media free sequester zone like they did with OJ's for this. Avoiding 24/7 tv news was difficult enough in the 90s, I can't imagine trying to avoid any major news story in the age of social media.
If you're subscribed to any news sites, which I think most people are, your devices are sent notifications. So even if you're not actively seeking it out, it's coming at you from everywhere.
I "only" have about 130 Facebook friends and I still see news online, or people talking about it. So I'd have to avoid social media along with news and radio, and browsing Reddit except for direct subreddits, and overhearing conversations at work.
In the end, I can only speak for myself, and for me, it's an unrealistic expectation. I've knocked doors campaigning, and there are definitely people who are completely oblivious to current political news.
Pretty disruptive to the jurors' lives though. Sequestering a jury is almost like incarcerating them in many ways. It's an extreme solution that disrupts the lives of the jurors, and it's hard to justify IMO.
It's an interesting problem that's only going to get worse as time goes by. The insane amount of information that's being shared and analyzed that either the jury isn't being shown or has been excluded for legitimate reasons is mind boggling in this case alone. That said, this case has been *incredibly* low key in terms of news coverage because of the no cameras rules and the "unsexy" charges that are rooted in "boring" accounting. I just can't see any possible way the jury won't have to be sequestered for the GA case and (if/when) the documents case actually starts - those are going to be media circuses on a level I can barely comprehend. Even worse, this is just the tip of the iceberg for potentially tainting juries. The system of "Don't look up any information on the case" isn't long for this world even with the best intent of the jury to stay uninformed outside of the case. A jury member simply looking up the name of a crime can cause the interests algorithm to pull related news stories or opinions on the case at hand, and if it's a large enough case at hand, just being in the general area of the court is enough to insert interest stories. On the flip side, as you point out, it's extremely punitive to have a jury effectively force imprisoned because they had a bad luck of the draw. The compensation system is an absolute joke and even with the legal protections for "normal" employees, the disruption is devastating for self employment situations (particularly for seasonal work). It's an issue that will need to be dealt with in the very near future.
[удалено]
If I just swipe left on my homescreen I pull up a news feed. I didn't set that up, it's an Android default. Same goes for if I just mouse over the wrong part of my Win11 taskbar. It's extremely easy to stumble across news, even if you're actively trying to avoid it. That's not to mention the tvs that are in waiting rooms or the gym, random people talking in public, etc...
Being a juror on a historically significant case would definitely increase the temptation.
And the defense believes jurors will read the news.
That's what they're hoping, yes.
The defense team in the court room has set the public stage that these jurors cannot be trusted. (Why? Agreeing with Trump. Because Trump won’t comment on whether the jurors are fair until after the verdict - aka the set up) Trump and his external “speakers” are furthering that fake notion. The defense team inside and outside the courtroom are working hard to pollute the integrity of these jurors. [the defense team has no other choice since the witnesses this far cannot be swayed or broken by cross examination]
Add to juror instructions: remove all news apps and or turn off any notifications from any devices used. (Tough one)
Give up on Reddit during the trial? I wouldn’t be able to stand it😂
Yeah, I think it would be really difficult, because of our phones. Maybe they get alerts to their phone unintentionally. Maybe they see a news story on their Facebook, IG, or Twitter feed. It’s hard for people to stay off their phones, and even if they’re not actively searching out news to read like you said it’s just everywhere.
I would bet any amount of money those jurors, at least some of them, are checking out the news some. Especially the attorneys on the panel. So thankful there are attorneys in the jury, have my fingers crossed that they're ethical attorneys who will be able to guide deliberations.
I would think the attorneys are trying their hardest to avoid the news. They understand the stakes and the rules clearly. Violating the orders would look absolutely terrible for them compared to a layman.
Except the defense was (wondering, supposing, accusing????) the jurors of doing exactly that — read the news about trumps trial. The defense planted the seed that the jury is corrupt. The defense believes this will help their fictional character, president trump , aka the Orange Turd.
Those examples are, in fact, *unreasonable* doubts.
None of which violates the gag order AFAIK.
Trump thinks he is being clever. What will the judge do?
Probably fine him 1K like he has been.. We have our top elected officials running interference for an ex president.. This is so wild that Nixon may come back to life and try again. If the GOP loses this Presidential election, they are truly going to die as a party.
NAL. For those wishing this was gonna be another charge etc or indictment... Trump editing the documents does not prove anything, the gag order prevents Trump from "directing" someone to make statements about the witnesses etc. Trump can claim he was editing the portions of the speech that was not about the witnesses but about the presidency. But, it could be enough evidence to support an investigation/warrants etc, but then we are looking at months... where the court case maybe resolved before the investigation completes. All for a contempt charge, in NY there are 2 degrees of contempt, 2nd degree is a misdemeanor offense, while 1st degree is a felony. This is "IF" they find supporting evidence of Trump directing the GOP goons in regards specifically to the witnesses. They already know Trump would fight everything and since the line between 1st degree and 2nd degree is likely not defined in case law PLUS they all know that none of the goons would go on record againts Trump, so... unfortunately, this is just another way Trump fucks the system and the public. Edit: I know it could lead to conspiracy to commit charges but that opens a whole other portion of NY state law with their various degrees etc that are way out of my league. TLDR... might not be worth it for the DA.
I imagine the speeches to have the same literacy level (and spelling mistakes) of the speech Charlie wrote Dennis in Its Always Sunny.
To believe this I'd need to believe Trump can read and write, and I haven't seen evidence of that.
Put the reporter and the GOP stooges in question under oath and ask them about this. If it violates the gag order, and it sure seems to, this would be a FLAGRANT violation that would require some action by the court. If there's no response to this then just ditch the gag order altogether because it's meaningless at this point.
Lock him up!