Is Trump being charged with election interference in this case? How does New York have jurisdiction to charge this in a state court? Can you show me the statute?
Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records, a Class E felony. You demonstrate your laziness every day. You can't even look up the charge. You want to drone on and on about a case you say is unfair when don't even understand what the charges are.
It should be noted that everyone who worked for the Trump Org down to Accounts Payable is testifying ‘Trump did it’. The only question is whether or not Trump has a ringer on the jury, because the only question that ought to apply now is how much time in the clink he’s going to serve.
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
I should say that Stormy Daniels salacious details about when she had sex with Trump back in 2006 were not relevant to the hush money payments and whether it was to help with the Trump campaign or hide it from Melania. But the judge allowed her to testify about it because the purpose of this show trial is to defame Donald Trump and get out as many embarrassing details as possible whether it's pertinent to charges (which nobody really knows what the charges are). But even this doesn't make sense because Donald Trump is made of mud. Throwing more mud at him isn't going to change the minds of working class voters on issues like how they feel about working extra hours now and 10 to 12 years longer to pay for more welfare, Ukrainian welfare, and illegal immigration. It didn't change the minds of rust belt voters in 2016 and it won't change their minds in 2024. The left knows this, so why are they so intent on doing so much damage to the reputation of the US justice system? Perhaps that's the point. That's what they really want, not to destroy Trump, but to destroy America and move on from an outdated document written by racist white men.
In fact, the judge did something unusual by instructing her to limit her testimony even though Trump's attorneys did not object. In other words, he intervened on Trump's behalf. It is the role of the attorneys to object to questions or testimony and that of the judge to rule on the objections. No objections -- no ruling.
Trump's strategy is not to defend against the charges -- it is to attack the legitimacy of the court. Given that he is represented by very competent lawyers in this trial, I am certain that they made a deliberate decision not to object. Their motion for a mistrial is disingenuous, given their failure to object to testimony. But it does give Trump and his cult another excuse to attack the legitimacy of the judge, the prosecutors, and the judiciary.
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Due to the sprawling gag order, the candidate was not—and is not—legally permitted to defend his honor and contest her lurid, legally irrelevant claims.
Question for Res Ipsa, what exactly is the legal justification for this gag order? Why is it illegal for Trump to say, "She's lying," on Truth Social?
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
When you're on trial you're not allowed to attack or intimidate witnesses, and this principle is as old as our system of jurisprudence. Why you think Trump should get special treatment is a stunning admission that you really don't care about the rule of law. If Trump wants to attack her then let him testify in court under oath like she was willing to do. If you're not willing to say what you have to say under oath then it is worthless.
"I am not an American ... In my view premarital sex should be illegal ...(there are) mentally challenged people with special needs like myself- Ajax18
When you're on trial you're not allowed to attack or intimidate witnesses, and this principle is as old as our system of jurisprudence. Why you think Trump should get special treatment is a stunning admission that you really don't care about the rule of law. If Trump wants to attack her then let him testify in court under oath like she was willing to do. If you're not willing to say what you have to say under oath then it is worthless.
When you say attack, what you mean is that you're not allowed to criticize witnesses. I didn't know this. I knew you weren't allowed to physically intimidate and threaten witnesses the way mobsters do but I didn't know you can't criticize witnesses or even point out jury members politics, race, gender, etc. I figured if you weren't putting them in physical danger than the constitution gave you freedom of speech. That's a very interesting precedent. So if a black man is on trial and the jury is all white, the judge could impose a gag order on the defense that prohibits the defendant and his attorneys from revealing this to public, right?
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Due to the sprawling gag order, the candidate was not—and is not—legally permitted to defend his honor and contest her lurid, legally irrelevant claims.
Question for Res Ipsa, what exactly is the legal justification for this gag order? Why is it illegal for Trump to say, "She's lying," on Truth Social?
It's a balancing act between the first and sixth amendments and also goes to the integrity of the court system. On the one hand the defendant has a free speech right but on the other hand, the defendant cannot use his free speech in this case to blow up the case prior to the jury having its chance to weigh in and make a determination. There is a process involved and free speech shouldn't be used as a weapon by either side to short circuit the process. Trump's attorneys should lay out the case in such a way so as to preserve appealable issues, like the validity of the charges brought, the competency of the jury, the determinations made by the judge, etc. Let the process proceed without unnecessary drama.
Gag orders are discretionary orders for the judge to make. An appellate court could find that the judge in this case abused his discretion in making such an order. However, I don't think it will in this case. Trump is bent on trying the case in the media for political gain. The charges against him may be a stretch legally, however, allowing Trump to blow up the case at this point is adding to the circus instead of toning down the circus atmosphere. Judges don't like that and so I believe the gag order would stand.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
Question for Res Ipsa, what exactly is the legal justification for this gag order? Why is it illegal for Trump to say, "She's lying," on Truth Social?
It's a balancing act between the first and sixth amendments and also goes to the integrity of the court system. On the one hand the defendant has a free speech right but on the other hand, the defendant cannot use his free speech in this case to blow up the case prior to the jury having its chance to weigh in and make a determination. There is a process involved and free speech shouldn't be used as a weapon by either side to short circuit the process. Trump's attorneys should lay out the case in such a way so as to preserve appealable issues, like the validity of the charges brought, the competency of the jury, the determinations made by the judge, etc. Let the process proceed without unnecessary drama.
Gag orders are discretionary orders for the judge to make. An appellate court could find that the judge in this case abused his discretion in making such an order. However, I don't think it will in this case. Trump is bent on trying the case in the media for political gain. The charges against him may be a stretch legally, however, allowing Trump to blow up the case at this point is adding to the circus instead of toning down the circus atmosphere. Judges don't like that and so I believe the gag order would stand.
Thanks for your response. I understand your reasoning, I think this case has indicted the state of New York for weaponizing the justice department against your political opponents. You can't get a fair trial in New York as a Republican. None of this was ever an issue in New York until Trump ran for President.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Question for Res Ipsa, what exactly is the legal justification for this gag order? Why is it illegal for Trump to say, "She's lying," on Truth Social?
It's a balancing act between the first and sixth amendments and also goes to the integrity of the court system. On the one hand the defendant has a free speech right but on the other hand, the defendant cannot use his free speech in this case to blow up the case prior to the jury having its chance to weigh in and make a determination. There is a process involved and free speech shouldn't be used as a weapon by either side to short circuit the process. Trump's attorneys should lay out the case in such a way so as to preserve appealable issues, like the validity of the charges brought, the competency of the jury, the determinations made by the judge, etc. Let the process proceed without unnecessary drama.
Gag orders are discretionary orders for the judge to make. An appellate court could find that the judge in this case abused his discretion in making such an order. However, I don't think it will in this case. Trump is bent on trying the case in the media for political gain. The charges against him may be a stretch legally, however, allowing Trump to blow up the case at this point is adding to the circus instead of toning down the circus atmosphere. Judges don't like that and so I believe the gag order would stand.
Thanks, Dr. Exiled. I have nothing to add.
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
The defendant cannot use his free speech in this case to blow up the case prior to the jury having its chance to weigh in and make a determination.
I guess my question is what do you mean by blowing up the case? How does the public knowing the race, gender, politics, etc. of the jury change how the jurors are going to decide the case. And since this case involves a candidate for president, why shouldn't the American public have a right to know the race, gender, and politics of the judge and jury that made Donald Trump a convicted felon?
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
