Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Statistikhengst, Jun 10, 2023.
Without context, all you are doing is parroting what your right-wing overlords want you to say.
Here Jack Smith's proposed partial gag-order on Donald Trump:
The document is 19 pages long and exactly as I have thought over weeks now, Jack Smith threw back into Trump's face all of the threatening statements that he (Trump) has been making on his Truth Social thingy or in interviews.
I cannot imagine that Trump's attorneys are too stupid to have not told him yet that everything he says and does since his multiple indictments can and will be used against him in a court of law. Some of his attorneys used to have stellar reputations. So, I have to assume that Trump is trumping and just doing whatever he damned well pleases, which is going to contibute to him getting even longer jail sentences.
Jack Smith's motion also recommends that both sides be prohibited from polling DCers with jury questions without clearing the questions with the court. This means that most likely, Trump has already done something very untoward in DC and Smith caught wind of it, cuz a criminal has got to criminal, you know.
I see that Lauro submitted a reply on 09/17, but it is not downloadable yet.
Likely, Judge Chutkin will set a hearing date in the very near future and it is entirely likely, due to the gravity of the offenses that Trump is committing, that she will require him to be physically present at the hearing. Trump should consider himself very lucky that Jack Smith has not put forward a motion yet to revoke his bond and ask the court in DC to put Trump in jail now for the length of the time up until his trial begins. Because, no matter what MAGA freaks may say, any one of these four courts where Trump has been indicted could do this with probable cause and I would say that threatening the judges, their families, the prosecutors, their families and entire communities is MORE than probable cause.
Also, I just want to remind once again that the behavior coming out of this disgraced former US-President is very akin to the behavior of a mob boss when he is indicted and waiting trial.
It's just plain old sad.
This is a weak filing by Jack Smith. I focused earlier on the reasoning surrounding the recusing thing, but his argument for the partial gag order is equally as sad. He cites very few examples which could actually be qualified as intimidation, and even less examples that were relevant and germane to the trial.
Example #1: The jury note surrounding the 1/6 defendant. No where in that incident is the defendant involved or even mentioned. Where's the nexus that should tie into the filing? There isn't any. Apparently, mere association with the defendant's name is enough to include him in the filing for this gag order.
He also cites numerous pre-trial posts as evidence, but these cannot be submitted as evidence because again, it lacks germane value to the trial in question. Then there's the issue with witnesses, which is a whole another sad story. It's clear from the way Prosecution has written this, that prosecution has failed to submit a witness list. Given this, and given the prosecution's irrational demands having failed this, the defendant apparently is supposed to treat every person in the US as a potential/reason to believe witness.
That's an irrational ask of the defense, and it's equally an irrational ask of the court to fulfill it. If the prosecution wants witness protection,it can do what it does in every other criminal case: Submit the list.
Trump's own actions or inactions,does not prevent the prosecution from moving forward with its motion.
Then, once again, we must contend with the word intimidation and understand the breadth of its meaning: It's not "This person has said something awful to me". It's expressed words or actions that undermine the physical or emotional safety and well being of individuals. Criticism, by itself, does not apply here.
The fact that others would take those venomous words and act on them? Not the defendant's responsibility. And even the courts agree with that much. Furthermore, whether Special Counsel likes it or not, the government is a public position. The government itself attached that argument to its novel "public deserves a super speedy trial" that this court so graciously granted it, even though the 6th Amendment refers to the defendant not the American Public.
Having attached itself to the novel legal theory, public officials are not immune from criticism. And criticism of said officials, including prosecutors cannot be said to be prejudiced to the affairs of the court. After all, the defendant by nature bares the brunt of the prosecution's not only criticism, but very attacks on the character of the defendant during and even in pre-trial motions.
What's good for the goose, is good for the grander. If the prosecution is now immune from criticism, so too should the defendant be immune from critical and inflammatory statements about the defendant.
The gag order will be imposed because Trump is engaging in stochastic terrorism. The words he is writing and speaking are - deliberately - causing others to commit violent acts in his name. That is exactly the definition of stochastic terrorism. So, your argument, insomuch as it was somehow an argument, is very, very flimsy.
No defendant ever before in the history of jurisprudence in the USA has gotten so much preferential treatment as Donald Trump. It's time to start treating him for what he is: a criminal defendant up on 91 counts. This means that anything he says or does since his indictments can and will be used against him.
I strongly recommend that you actually read up on what law is.
Now you're going further than Jack Smith, without again, having proved intimidation much less 'stochastic terrorism'
[So I quickly googled it, lone wolf terrorist attacks]. But again, the defendant's words are not culpable for this. Not just this defendant, ANY criminal defendant. We would have to reverse decades of US legal opinion and apply guilt by association to hold Trump accountable for the actions of others.
Philosophically, prosecution arguments[and the argument of the left] essentially is stripping the criminals of their own moral compass and responsibility by heaping all of that responsibility on the defendant. The prosecution also asserts a motive, which the prosecution cannot prove and has not shown.
We cannot accept this flimsy premise by the prosecution for a gag order in this case. At best, the court could only partially grant the government's motion to protect witnesses, whenever it gets around to actually filing the list. But the idea of 'reasonably believe' to be a witness is unfair to the defendant for the same reason its unfair to assert motive without proof. He's not a mindreader.
Well, as soon as the gag order goes through, and it will, we can talk again. I always am amazed at people who defend the indefensible. If Trump even had a couple of brain cells, he would be keeping his mouth shut, because - and I repeat myself, EVERYTHING he says and does following his many indictments can and WILL be used against him in a court of law.
And yes, stochastic terrorism is a real thing.
I'm sure it is, but by its definition it is caused by a lone wolf, not by another individual. I too, would shut up. But the thing is, incitement is a very narrowly defined outlook[and that's the only thing that can logically be at play here] and Trump's words can be inflammatory, but not necessarily incitement[because Trump's words lack the definitive action statement,to be inciting]
Prosecution is aware of this legal hole in the argument, so they work around it and call it intimidation. The court should not buy this crap. Trump is no more intimidating than any other criminal defendant that has been indicted and brought into the justice system. To accept this argument, lowers the bar for intimidation.
Separate names with a comma.