DOJ Requests Protective Order After Trump Threat Online

[Lakhota]

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Lakhota]

BREAKING: Trump is hit with devastating news as Judge Tanya Chutkan announces that she will slap him with a protective order in order to stop him from attacking witnesses in his trial for trying to overturn the election by stealing Biden’s win.

But it gets WORSE for Trump…

In a brutal speech, Judge Chutkan declared that, “Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech, but that right is not absolute. In a criminal case such as this one, the defendant’s free speech is subject to the rules.

Without a protective order, a party could release information that could taint the jury pool, intimidate witnesses or others involved in some aspect of the case, or otherwise interfere with the process of justice.”

According to CNN, “Chutkan had a pointed exchange with Trump attorney John Lauro about what the 2024 presidential contender should be allowed to say about the evidence that is turned over to him in the case.

“The fact that he is running a political campaign currently has to yield to the administration of justice,” the judge said. “And if that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say in a political speech, that is just how its going to have to be. The defendant’s desire to conduct a campaign, to respond to political opponents, has to yield!”

At this point, Trump’s lawyer tried to argue that it’s impossible for Trump to continue to grow his presidential campaign without discussing the case, to which Chutkan replied, “The existence of a political campaign is not going to have a bearing” on how she handles the case. “I intend to keep politics out of this.”

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Thunk]

Doesn’t need to be a cell at all. It could be a hotel suite. No leaving, no visitors, no devices, no telephone and no internet.

Do you play with yourself when you fantasize like this?

 

[dudmuck]

This is a threat.

 

[scruffy]

Uh huh. Which is an explicit threat of retaliation, dupe.

Karen ^^^

The DOJ is one big gigantic Karen too.

 

[scruffy]

She'll be overturned in a heartbeat.

Just another leftard dog and pony show, to keep the idiots salivating.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Not so cute. Well, the Judge told him him to reign in his mouth or the trial starts sooner.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Do you play with yourself when you fantasize like this?

Fantasy? No.
Practicality. The idea that Trump would be housed in a jail or prison before trial is the fantasy. The same ends can be reached through different means. Confinement is just that. The venue is not relevant.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Karen ^^^

The DOJ is one big gigantic Karen too.

That’s how most defendants are handled. Trump is no different. It’s you dopes doing the whining.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Do you play with yourself when you fantasize like this?

More homo erotic imagery from the right.
Go figure.

 

[Care4all]

She'll be overturned in a heartbeat.

Just another leftard dog and pony show, to keep the idiots salivating.

Protective orders are common practice. Criminal defendants often have some kind of protective order put on them in cases.

Trump is just getting, equal justice treatment, under the law.

It won't be reversed or overturned imo.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trump, just be quiet.

 

[xyz]

lmao

You mean like "death to America"

lol

I don't believe it was even made public what those imams said, and likely it wasn't in English.

And is it even illegal to say that?

The above is basically the same thing.

Just goes to show how justice is very partial to one group of people.

Trump has gotten away with many threats before. And his terrorists have occasionally committed or tried to commit acts.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

 

[Lakhota]

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Chutkan owns Trump forever.

 

[forkup]

I disagree, I think that the removal attempt of a president is a serious thing, and should not be taken lightly. As such, due diligence should be afforded. But, having said that, one day, the left will be on the receiving end of that kind of “shotgun justice”, and maybe you’ll agree with me then.



Again, disagree.

TIMELINE -Key dates in the U.S. political controversy over Ukraine

Some Democrats are calling for the impeachment of U.S. President Donald Trump over reports that he asked his Ukrainian counterpart to launch an investigation that could damage his Democratic political rival Joe Biden.

www.reuters.com

This says that shokin was in the process of investigating burisma, but the investigation was dormant at the time Biden visited Ukraine. That doesnt mean the investigation was over, it was just dormant. Biden made sure it was over, after hunter joined burisma, Biden had shokin fired.

Please answer this, because nobody else ever does. If bidens focus was to remove a “corrupt prosecutor”, why is it that he only focused on the one country where his son was doing business? I’m sure there is corruption in other countries that we give money to, yet Biden made no demands of those countries.



But Biden did the exact same thing. He didn’t go through the proper channels, he directly made the demand, as trump did. However, that wasn’t my question. My question is show me the proof that trump did it to benefit his campaign. Your theories and common sense doesn’t satisfy the legal requirement of proof. “Because that’s what I think” also doesn’t do it.

This is the bias I was referring to earlier. Biden has shokin fired and you say there is no way that his action was wrong, but trump asks Zelenskyy to find out why Biden had shokin fired, and that can be nothing but nefarious.





Ok, I agree up to this point. You’re right, he asked them to come to a rally, and he asked them to go to the capitol. And you’re right, if he had not asked them to do either of those things, they wouldn’t have happened. The connection you have to make is where trumps calling then to peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard = “go to the capitol and break in, smash windows, try to get into the senate chambers”.



Are you sure? How do you know? That’s a pretty convenient disassociation, considering Schumer was railing against kavanaugh and gorsuch because of their potential vote on roe, and then this guy attempts to get to kavanaughs house, because of roe. What about all the rhetoric from the rest of the dems in congress? They certainly made, and still make a lot of hay because of roe.

You’re trying to say that , trump can tell his rioters to be peaceful, and when they are not, it’s because of trumps words, but when someone makes an attempt on the life of a scotus judge, well, nobody is to blame but the guy himself. Apparently, something got him riled up enough to do what he did.

What about waters, pelosi, Pressley, Harris, all who encouraged the violent riots that caused destruction to cities, and harm to people? Are they responsible for their rhetoric, or is it just the fault of the people who did the violence?



And there my answer. You say the dems didn’t cause it…but by the same token you blame trump for not making a speech for his supporters to stop until too late, I also blame the dems for not allowing the police to do their job to stop it, and then going on tv to encourage the riots to continue.



You’re saying trump isn’t allowed to hold a rally? He isn’t allowed to use rhetoric?

I agree if trump hadn’t held the rally, that none of it would have happened, however, you don’t become morally responsible unless you are calling for action to violence.

Also, if you’re suggesting we’re going to punish people because of their morals….we’re gonna need a new congress…



Who knows. All these allegations of the bidens getting paid tens of millions by the Chinese…if they flesh out, could be a problem for bidens defense of hunters actions. If they are corrupt in china, seems to reason maybe the allegations in Ukraine might be true.




I don’t need to tell myself that, I have the proof to back it up. I’ll even help you out. Search my post history, you’ll find that I’ve never claimed to support trump, in fact I’ve claimed on a few occasions that I don’t support trump. Use search keywords such as “not a fan”, and “don’t support”, and “doesn’t act presidential” and “would liked to have had someone else win”…or something thereabouts, you’ll find that I’ve never been a supporter of trump. Now, I would vote for him if he’s the nominee, but only because I’d prefer a Republican in office.

The bias you detect is not FOR trump, it’s against the left. As I said before, I don’t vote for the person, I vote for the party.




Ok, I’m sure he believes that trump wanted him to do those things…but that’s irrelevant. “I believe” = the “order” came from his own mind. Show me the president actually telling people to do those things, especially when trump told them to be peaceful. It almost sounds like you’re saying that because trump used rhetoric in his speech, and told them to go to the capitol to protest, that that somehow makes him responsible because people got carried away and took matters way too far. Unless trump had a hand in orchestrating the attack and you can prove that his goal that day was for all that to happen, you can’t pin that on him. People are accountable for their own actions. Also, more information is coming out about FBI infiltration, and say what you want about Epps…he IS on video tape telling people “we need to go INTO the capitol”, and you hear others disagreeing with that notion.

Could it be that maybe those people were prodded into that riot? I’m not discounting personal accountability, but, there are reports that it may have been fbi, antifa, and even the police, dressing up as trump supporters to try and goad the crowd.

If you can show me where trump had intended and told the crowd to attack the capitol, then I’d agree with you. Short of that, you charge him for the riot just because he used some harsh words.



No, it was horrible that he wasn’t more proactive, but that doesn’t imply that he intended for it to happen. We don’t know why he waited so long, there are some indications, but only he know what was going on in his head, and only we know what he spoke publicly, or to those close to him.



Well, they were all adults, and apparently trump still thinks the election was stolen. Why? I don’t know, apparently he has admitted he lost…couldn’t tell you why he thinks that.



No no, I don’t mean in 2016, I mean now. If trump had decided not to run in ‘24, I don’t think any of these indictments would have ever seen the light of day.

Also…uh…this response chain is getting waaay too long, that trying to respond on a phone makes it very time consuming…so I may just start combing responses lol.

Just reply to what you want because it is indeed getting way to long.

I disagree, I think that the removal attempt of a president is a serious thing, and should not be taken lightly.

I think trying to go around to will of the voters and try to get the vice-president to stop or at least delay the certification is serious. This was the stated goal, and by itself is impeachable. Again, the whole point of Democracy is that the people choose the president. You would have absolutely no problem recognizing that if Biden would claim in 2024 without providing evidence that the election was stolen and therefor Harris would have the right to unilaterally decide to invalidate the votes.

that kind of “shotgun justice”

That is not "shotgun justice" simply... justice.

This says that shokin was in the process of investigating burisma, but the investigation was dormant at the time Biden visited Ukraine. That doesnt mean the investigation was over, it was just dormant.

Yes, it was dormant, as in not active. You also skipped a few things in your link.

Around that time, Burisma’s founder, a former government official named Mykola Zlochevsky, was under investigation for alleged money laundering by Britain’s Serious Fraud Office.
One of the reasons Britain was pissed at Shokin was this.

Reforming Ukraine After the Revolutions

Two muckraking journalists had contempt for Ukraine’s corrupt political system. So they became politicians.

www.newyorker.com

But when parliament lifted the immunity of Serhiy Klyuyev, a lawmaker and former close associate of Yanukovych who was charged with corruption, the General Prosecutor’s office stalled on issuing an arrest warrant, giving Klyuyev time to slip out of the country. Shokin also hindered the investigation of two men known as the “diamond prosecutors,” high-ranking state prosecutors who were arrested on suspicion of corruption; raids on their homes turned up a Kalashnikov, four hundred thousand dollars, and sixty-five diamonds. Even more discouraging, not a single person suspected of killing protesters on Maidan was brought to trial.
also from your link.

Bloomberg quotes Ukraine’s current top prosecutor as saying he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden or his father.

why is it that he only focused on the one country where his son was doing business?

Who says? Just because only one instance is widely reported that doesn't mean it was the only instance.

But Biden did the exact same thing. He didn’t go through the proper channels, he directly made the demand

NO HE DID NOT, the proper channels for approving loans to friendly countries are whatever means the administration chooses to communicate its desires.
In the case of Trump though this isn't the case. He was, according to you, trying to combat corruption by a US citizen in Ukraine by getting that country to start a criminal investigation into a US citizen. This requires the showing of due process if you want to US courts the honor an extradition. In this case you have a direct request from a US president to another Head of State. Coordinated exclusively through someone who has NO government function. Bypassing all legal process. There is not a judge in the US who would honor such a request and it's likely that making it would have led to criminal or professional charges to at least Guiliani.

Let's apply Occam's razor.

You believe that a CEO of a company hired the son of the US vice-president and convinced him to get a prosecutor fired, who had stopped investigating that CEO. This son then convinced his dad to risk a huge scandal in order to help this CEO. This father then convinced the President of the United States to risk a huge scandal in order to help the CEO in Ukraine. The President of the United States then convinced the EU and some of the most important NGOs in the world to concoct a justification. for this ask. EU hails sacking of Ukraineâs prosecutor Viktor Shokin

I believe Shokin was corrupt. Was holding up investigations and was fired because people both in Ukraine and international law enforcement had a problem with that.

Your theories and common sense doesn’t satisfy the legal requirement of proof. “Because that’s what I think”

Proof in a legal sense is simply what someone brings forward to support what is claimed. This to establish the legal requirement for establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't mean you have to prove something to a point that any claim no matter how incredulous has to be accepted. I brought up the gangster and the store, but it works in any case where criminal intent plays a role.

Again, lets employ Occam's razor.

You believe Trump didn't specifically wanted Ukraine to investigate the son of his main political rival but was rather simply Trying to get Ukraine to investigate corruption. This despite that he fired the ambassedor to Ukraine for that purpose, this despite the fact that the DOJ didn't have probable cause, this despite the fact that he went through his own personal lawyer to do so. This despite that the way this investigation started would defeat any attempt to extradite if a crime would have been established. This despite the fact that the ONLY concerns of corruption that Trump mentioned was Hunter Biden and Crowdstrike an American Company that helped the DNC.

I believe he tried to blackmail Zelinski for his own personal political gain.
.

Are you sure? How do you know?

https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/sites/mdd/files/Roske-Affidavit.pdf

Page 2 point 7

Apparently, something got him riled up enough to do what he did.

Yes page 2 point 7

What about waters, pelosi, Pressley, Harris, all who encouraged the violent riots that caused destruction to cities, and harm to people?

Link please

but by the same token you blame trump for not making a speech for his supporters to stop until too late

I blame him for lying about the election until the point that these people felt that attacking the Capitol was reasonable.

and then going on tv to encourage the riots to continue.

Link please

You’re saying trump isn’t allowed to hold a rally? He isn’t allowed to use rhetoric?

I'm saying that if you hold that rally and if you use that rethoric you carry the moral responsibility.

Also, if you’re suggesting we’re going to punish people because of their morals

I'm suggesting that if people's morals cause them to plot to stay in power by trying to circumvent the choice of the voters they should be punished. Just like I want people punished who commit sexual assault and just like I want people to be punished if they steal and hide classified documents. It's weird that you don't.

Now, I would vote for him if he’s the nominee, but only because I’d prefer a Republican in office.

You would vote for someone who both a judge and a jury said committed sexual assault? Who is accused of 78 felony counts?

Because at least he's not a Democrat? I personally think that's insane.

Unless trump had a hand in orchestrating the attack

He did. He told the lie that caused it, and he asked them to come.

Hitler wasn't at the Wannsee conference. He's still the main person responsible for the Holocaust. Not saying Trump is Hitler, but I am saying that being the one that invents the ideology makes you responsible for what it causes.

I’m not discounting personal accountability, but, there are reports that it may have been fbi, antifa, and even the police, dressing up as trump supporters to try and goad the crowd.

Reports that no matter how non-sensical and how many times debunked you still assert to be valid.

No, it was horrible that he wasn’t more proactive

He was proactive. His action was saying" serves you right" (paraphrasing here). I like these euphemisms you're using (badly).

Well, they were all adults, and apparently trump still thinks the election was stolen. Why? I don’t know, apparently he has admitted he lost…couldn’t tell you why he thinks that.

That's kind of par for the course right? Trump is doing something non-sensical and something that's already proven to have the potential of turning violent. But "I don't know why he's doing it, so I won't give a moral judgement".

"He's either criminal or delusional. But I'll vote for him over any Democrat."