What Reason Would A Gag Order Be Placed On Trump?

[Harpy Eagle]

We count on judge's to uphold our rights, not to trample them as Merchan is trying to do. I'm glad Trump is not rolling over for him. He not only has a right to speak, the voters have a right to hear, and one Canadian-looking New York judge doesn't have the power to take those rights away.

The gag order was upheld by the Fed Court of Appeals.

Should we all just start to ignore any rule/law we do not like?

 

[konradv]

The overwhelming majority of defendants follow their lawyer's advice to not talk about the case. Even if they are convinced that the case is unfair and improperly motivated, they stay quiet because their lawyers tell them that is the best way to win an acquital.

So people get the idea that it is somehow illegal for a defendant to speak out, instead of letting his "mouthpiece" do the talking. Lots of lawyers would like it to be illegal, so they could make more money speaking for their clients.

It isn't.

It is not only not illegal to speak out when government is unfair and corrupt, doing so is a right enshrined in the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights. People thinking it is illegal because it is rarely done is a perfect example of rights being weakened by not being exercised.

I can fully understand why the judge would want to silence Trump from talking about how the judge's family profits from promoting Democrat politicians, and I can understand why Michael Cohen likes being free to slandar Trump and would prefer Trump not be allowed to respond. But that isn't the country we are. Not yet anyway.

We count on judge's to uphold our rights, not to trample them as Merchan is trying to do. I'm glad Trump is not rolling over for him. He not only has a right to speak, the voters have a right to hear, and one Canadian-looking New York judge doesn't have the power to take those rights away.

It IS illegal to try to intimidate witnesses and jurors. Quit lying.

 

[konradv]

Well in some cases it's worth the risk. The American Revolution was illegal but if it didn't happen we would all still be underneath a British monarchy right now.

OK, just don’t pretend you’re loyal Americans.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The gag order was upheld by the Fed Court of Appeals.

Should we all just start to ignore any rule/law we do not like?

If it conflicts with the constitution we should.

 

[Curried Goats]

If it conflicts with the constitution we should.

Well then I guess we all eagerly await to see how much the constitution really means to you.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If it conflicts with the constitution we should.

According to the SCOTUS gag orders do not conflict with the constitution. Should we ignore them as well?

Personally I think that speed limits conflict with the constitution, so I am going to ignore them.

A lot of people think paying taxes conflicts with the constitution, should they all be allowed to ignore taxes and not pay?

Is this the world you want to live in where each individual decides for themselves which laws to follow based on their own understanding of what conflicts with the constitution?

 

[Seymour Flops]

According to the SCOTUS gag orders do not conflict with the constitution. Should we ignore them as well?

Personally I think that speed limits conflict with the constitution, so I am going to ignore them.

A lot of people think paying taxes conflicts with the constitution, should they all be allowed to ignore taxes and not pay?

Is this the world you want to live in where each individual decides for themselves which laws to follow based on their own understanding of what conflicts with the constitution?

I want to live in country in which the clear meaning of “free speech” is understood, and something called a “gag order” is clearly not allowed.

 

[Care4all]

Nothing screams trustworthy more than atheist democrats swearing an oath to God to tell the truth.

Well, as far as witnesses go they were all (atheist?) REPUBLICANS on the stand testifying under oath....

 

[JoeB131]

Other than to silence him so he won't expose all of the liberals trying to imprison him for nothing. I asked this question in another thread but I wanted to also make a new thread about it to give more people the chance to answer it. (People on the left mostly.) So, anybody got anything?


Edit: (Because I can) Bonus question: Why are they even holding a criminal trial for Trump supposedly cheating on his wife anyways?

He's not on trial for cheating on the Slovenian Prostitute with American Prostitutes.

He's on trial for falsifying business records to hide illegal campaign expenditures.

The same reason John Edwards was put on trial in 2012.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I want to live in country in which the clear meaning of “free speech” is understood, and something called a “gag order” is clearly not allowed.

Again, the SCOTUS does not agree with you.

Should we all get to decide which SCOTUS rulings to go along with and which we can freely ignore?

Why should slander laws be allowed?

Why should libel laws be allowed?

 

[JoeB131]

Any other defendant wouldn't have been gagged over this and quite frankly, wouldn't have even been CHARGED in the first place.

They would have been allowed to defend themselves when their witness was allowed to attack them as much as they wanted.

Any other defendant would listen to his lawyers and keep his mouth shut.

The only comparable case was that of John Edwards. he used campaign funds to pay off a mistress and then tried to hide it. He was put on trial for it. (Acquitted on one count, the other three ended in hung juries.)

 

[JoeB131]

If it conflicts with the constitution we should.

There is no conflict.

Trump outing jurors and intimidating witnesses is against the law.

 

[Care4all]

What law did he break?.... salacious rumors are not a crime... paying for silence is done every day.... I still can't get an answer to what the freaking crime is....

The money for the hush money payment, to hide Trump's Stormy tryst after the Access Hollywood tape hit the public right before the election, was not recorded as a campaign finance expense. Hush money is fine, even by campaigns, if you report the finances and records accordingly under the law. That was the underlying crime, that falsifying the business records was done for

The 34 counts are for falsifying business records at the Trump org. to pay Cohen back.

 

[JoeB131]

The money for the hush money payment, to hide Trump's Stormy tryst after the Access Hollywood tape hit the public right before the election, was not recorded as a campaign finance expense. Hush money is fine, even by campaigns, if you report the finances and records accordingly under the law. That was the underlying crime, that falsifying the business records was done for

The 34 counts are for falsifying business records at the Trump org.

Republicans had no problem with this when John Edwards was charged for essentially the same thing.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Again, the SCOTUS does not agree with you.

Should we all get to decide which SCOTUS rulings to go along with and which we can freely ignore?

You agree with every single Supreme Court decision? You agree with both Roe and Dobbs?

The Supreme Court has never yet ruled on a case of a front running presidential candidate, being subjected to phony indictments by a partisan prosecutor from the party in power,, and gagged by a partisan judge from the party empower.

That may happen in the extremely unlikely event the Canadian judge tries to put Trump in jail. They rule that a presidential candidate has free speech rights. Will you agree with that ruling.

Why should slander laws be allowed?

Why should libel laws be allowed?

False comparison. I am very skeptical of slander and libel laws for similar reasons. But since it is a false comparison, I invite you to start another threat about slander and liable, and I will happily debate you on it.

You are far more eloquent in your defense of the primacy of government over the individual than you ever were when you claim to be libertarian.

 

[Care4all]

Republicans had no problem with this when John Edwards was charged for essentially the same thing.

Trump org was quite a bit more in unlawful doings than Edwards imo...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You agree with every single Supreme Court decision? You agree with both Roe and Dobbs?

agreeing with and ignoring it are two very different things. We can all disagree, that does not give us the right/power to ignore.

The Supreme Court has never yet ruled on a case of a front running presidential candidate, being subjected to phony indictments by a partisan prosecutor from the party in power,, and gagged by a partisan judge from the party empower.

The law does not give a fuck if someone is a presidential candidate. Do you know the other name for a presidential candidate? Private citizen, no different than you or I.

False comparison. I am very skeptical of slander and libel laws for similar reasons. But since it is a false comparison, I invite you to start another threat about slander and liable, and I will happily debate you on it.

They all limit our freedom of speech.

You are far more eloquent in your defense of the primacy of government over the individual than you ever were when you claim to be libertarian.

Libertarians do not ignore laws they do not agree with. Libertarians thinks taxes are wrong, but they still pay them.

 

[Dragonlady]

He commented at some point that she was affiliated with the people going after him

She volunteered for a Democratic candidates. The Democrats aren't going after Trump, the LAW and the PEOPLE are indicting him.

The witnesses are all his staffers, friends, business associates and people who trusted Trump.

REPUBLICANS.

 

[Dragonlady]

Trump org was quite a bit more in unlawful doings than Edwards imo...

Yes, Edwards paid off his mistress. There was no vast conspiracy to cover up anything, or to lie about his opposition using a national newspaper.

Last but not least, Edwards wasn't stupid enough to try to claim the expenses as business expenses for tax purposes.

 

[konradv]

If it conflicts with the constitution we should.

But it doesn’t. Freedom of Speech isn’t absolute.