...Special Counsel Jack Smith's filings late last night....

[Chillicothe]

On Wednesday night ---last night ----Smith's team filed a motion with the court asking that a more robust gag order be installed against the disgraced former president, Don Trump.

His latest pronouncements ---in front of cameras, in interviews, and on social media ----have caused alarm among judges and prosecutors. In fact, just yesterday, Don Trump was again fined for violating a 'don't-target-my-staff' warning by a judge.

In other words, Smith's filing last night is sort of a 'ba-da-bing'.....a one-two punch .....signaling that the justice community is not going to tolerate a defendant who threatens, or attempts to intimidate court staffs, prosecutorial staffs, .....or most importantly, witnesses.

If you really want to know what my avatar thinks on this ------ well, we think it is a good thing to exercise more discipline in court matters.

Don Trump is being treated with kid gloves by the prosecutors and the courts. No other defendant could get away with such behavior as dissing judges, judges' staff, or prosecutors, witnesses.

Justice needs to treat all the defendants equally and not give highly preferential treatment to any one. So, the various judges involved in the 91 criminal charges against the former president need to exercise proper but stringent control on all the participants...... including Don Trump.




This was reported this morning:

"Special counsel Jack Smith argued in new court filings Wednesday that recent comments by Donald Trump show not only that a federal gag order should be reimposed, but that the court should weigh stricter sanctions, including sending him to jail, if he keeps talking about witnesses in his case.
In recent weeks, Trump’s public statements attacking prosecutors, court personnel and others have raised alarms among judges who worry that such verbal broadsides might inspire someone to commit violence against the subjects of Trump’s wrath.

Without the court’s order, prosecutors wrote, there is an “immediate risk” that witnesses’ testimony “could be influenced or deterred by the defendant’s documented pattern of targeting.”

“Otherwise, ………..the defendant will continue to threaten the integrity of these proceedings and put trial participants at risk,” the 32-page filing argues."

 

[SeaMajor7]

Stalinists gonna Stalin

 

[Seymour Flops]

We knew the Democrats would do something to try to distract from the Republican victory yesterday.

 

[The Duke]

This is my shocked face:

 

[Chillicothe]

"Stalinists gonna Stalin"

I have no friggin' idea what that means.

Can the prolific poster Sea7 articulately explain himself?

 

[The Duke]

I surely wouldn't want to be those corrupt lawyers and judges.

 

[SeaMajor7]

I have no friggin' idea what that means.

Can the prolific poster Sea7 articulately explain himself?

Yea you do, as does EVERYONE!!!!!!
"Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime."
Now you can go fornicate yourself.

 

[Chillicothe]

"We knew the Democrats would do something to try to distract from the Republican victory yesterday."

--------------------------------------------------------------


I don't know what that means vis-a-vis this desire by the people within our judicial proceedings to protect themselves, their staffs, and importantly, the witnesses involved in important proceedings.

Democrats, Republicans, seem irrelevant here. After all, threats and intimidation has been alleged against both Dems and Republicans.
So let's not overthink this matter. Our judicial proceedings need to be conducted fairly and responsibly and important witnesses must not be subject to threats or intimidation.

That seems so common-sense to most everybody.

 

[Chillicothe]

"I surely wouldn't want to be those corrupt lawyers and judges."

Well, nobody should want to be a corrupt judge or a corrupt lawyer.
But, in my opinion, suggesting such is the case here seems to be a 'red herring' falsity.
To add that suggestion that that is relevant to the matter of protecting our judicial system seems unrelated.


Can the frequent poster 'Duke' explain why he would suggest such?
Are any or all of the many many lawyers involved.....prosecutorial, or defense.....corrupt? If so, how does Duke know?
Are any of the half-dozen or so judges involved corrupt? If so, how does Duke know?
Same question can be asked of the dozens and dozens....perhaps hundreds? ....of clerks and administrative staffs involved?
Again, if they are corrupt as poster Duke seemingly suggests.....well, how would he know?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

On Wednesday night ---last night ----Smith's team filed a motion with the court asking that a more robust gag order be installed against the disgraced former president, Don Trump.

His latest pronouncements ---in front of cameras, in interviews, and on social media ----have caused alarm among judges and prosecutors. In fact, just yesterday, Don Trump was again fined for violating a 'don't-target-my-staff' warning by a judge.

In other words, Smith's filing last night is sort of a 'ba-da-bing'.....a one-two punch .....signaling that the justice community is not going to tolerate a defendant who threatens, or attempts to intimidate court staffs, prosecutorial staffs, .....or most importantly, witnesses.

If you really want to know what my avatar thinks on this ------ well, we think it is a good thing to exercise more discipline in court matters.

Don Trump is being treated with kid gloves by the prosecutors and the courts. No other defendant could get away with such behavior as dissing judges, judges' staff, or prosecutors, witnesses.

Justice needs to treat all the defendants equally and not give highly preferential treatment to any one. So, the various judges involved in the 91 criminal charges against the former president need to exercise proper but stringent control on all the participants...... including Don Trump.




This was reported this morning:

"Special counsel Jack Smith argued in new court filings Wednesday that recent comments by Donald Trump show not only that a federal gag order should be reimposed, but that the court should weigh stricter sanctions, including sending him to jail, if he keeps talking about witnesses in his case.
In recent weeks, Trump’s public statements attacking prosecutors, court personnel and others have raised alarms among judges who worry that such verbal broadsides might inspire someone to commit violence against the subjects of Trump’s wrath.

Without the court’s order, prosecutors wrote, there is an “immediate risk” that witnesses’ testimony “could be influenced or deterred by the defendant’s documented pattern of targeting.”

“Otherwise, ………..the defendant will continue to threaten the integrity of these proceedings and put trial participants at risk,” the 32-page filing argues."

First amendment protects even those who are being prosecuted until they have been sentenced.

 

[struth]

On Wednesday night ---last night ----Smith's team filed a motion with the court asking that a more robust gag order be installed against the disgraced former president, Don Trump.

His latest pronouncements ---in front of cameras, in interviews, and on social media ----have caused alarm among judges and prosecutors. In fact, just yesterday, Don Trump was again fined for violating a 'don't-target-my-staff' warning by a judge.

In other words, Smith's filing last night is sort of a 'ba-da-bing'.....a one-two punch .....signaling that the justice community is not going to tolerate a defendant who threatens, or attempts to intimidate court staffs, prosecutorial staffs, .....or most importantly, witnesses.

If you really want to know what my avatar thinks on this ------ well, we think it is a good thing to exercise more discipline in court matters.

Don Trump is being treated with kid gloves by the prosecutors and the courts. No other defendant could get away with such behavior as dissing judges, judges' staff, or prosecutors, witnesses.

Justice needs to treat all the defendants equally and not give highly preferential treatment to any one. So, the various judges involved in the 91 criminal charges against the former president need to exercise proper but stringent control on all the participants...... including Don Trump.




This was reported this morning:

"Special counsel Jack Smith argued in new court filings Wednesday that recent comments by Donald Trump show not only that a federal gag order should be reimposed, but that the court should weigh stricter sanctions, including sending him to jail, if he keeps talking about witnesses in his case.
In recent weeks, Trump’s public statements attacking prosecutors, court personnel and others have raised alarms among judges who worry that such verbal broadsides might inspire someone to commit violence against the subjects of Trump’s wrath.

Without the court’s order, prosecutors wrote, there is an “immediate risk” that witnesses’ testimony “could be influenced or deterred by the defendant’s documented pattern of targeting.”

“Otherwise, ………..the defendant will continue to threaten the integrity of these proceedings and put trial participants at risk,” the 32-page filing argues."

Not surprised...what a disgrace...the Xiden admin is doing everything they can to try and keep Trump from being able to campaign...what an insult to our democracy, and a bastardization of the rule of law by the demafacsit.

 

[The Duke]

Well, nobody should want to be a corrupt judge or a corrupt lawyer.
But, in my opinion, suggesting such is the case here seems to be a 'red herring' falsity.
To add that suggestion that that is relevant to the matter of protecting our judicial system seems unrelated.


Can the frequent poster 'Duke' explain why he would suggest such?
Are any or all of the many many lawyers involved.....prosecutorial, or defense.....corrupt? If so, how does Duke know?
Are any of the half-dozen or so judges involved corrupt? If so, how does Duke know?
Same question can be asked of the dozens and dozens....perhaps hundreds? ....of clerks and administrative staffs involved?
Again, if they are corrupt as poster Duke seemingly suggests.....well, how would he know?

Take Jack Smith. He corrupted the IRS in 2010. He put Lois Lerner up to what she had to step down for,

and the IRS got sued for hundreds of millions of dollars and lost.

"
“the Justice Department convened a meeting with former IRS official Lois Lerner in October 2010 to discuss how the IRS could assist in the criminal enforcement of campaign-finance laws against politically active nonprofits. This meeting was arranged at the direction of Public Integrity Section Chief Jack Smith.”"

Testimony: In 2010, Justice Department Sought Lois Lerner’s Help to Prosecute Tax Exempt Groups Engaging in Politics - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

oversight.house.gov

How do I know they're corrupt? Because I've done my homework.

 

[Chillicothe]

"Now you can go fornicate yourself."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You know, poster Sea7, your response is a disappointment.
Not only to my avatar, but also, I believe it must be to those intelligent and informed Trump supporters, even the MAGA-versions, because now they too are linked to the profanity, and vulgar demeanor of your avatar.

The obvious question must be....if that Trump defender is that crude, are ALL such supporters just as crude and base?

So, I'd urge you to reflect on the impression you leave that supporting Don Trump, defending him, is done by some of our more crude citizens.

Is that what you rally want?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We knew the Democrats would do something to try to distract from the Republican victory yesterday.

It is so cute how you think taking 3 weeks to find a new Speaker is a "victory".

I cannot wait till he makes a compromise with the Dems to pass a CR and you all turn on him and call him a RINO.

It will be so much fun

 

[SeaMajor7]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You know, poster Sea7, your response is a disappointment.
Not only to my avatar, but also, I believe it must be to those intelligent and informed Trump supporters, even the MAGA-versions, because now they too are linked to the profanity, and vulgar demeanor of your avatar.

The obvious question must be....if that Trump defender is that crude, are ALL such supporters just as crude and base?

So, I'd urge you to reflect on the impression you leave that supporting Don Trump, defending him, is done by some of our more crude citizens.

Is that what you rally want?

Fuck off you pretentious POS communist asshole.

 

[Chillicothe]

"...doing everything they can to try and keep Trump from being able to campaign...an insult to our democracy, and a bastardization of the rule of law"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rather than inhibiting campaign rhetoric what seems to be at play, is the understandable desire by judicial administrators ---judges, lawyers, staff, etc. ----to be free of danger or harassment by some of the more violent and unstable people who sometimes are motivated by what they perceive to be righteous hints by a politicl leader. That it is okay to threaten and intimidate anyone who is dealing with the disgraced former president in any judicial matter, be it criminal or civil.

In other words, framing any engagement of Don Trump in judicial proceedings as 'bastardizing' our rule of law, or interfering with our political campaigning protocols, puts us on a very slippery slope of allowing misbehavior to be inflicted under the guise of 'free speech', or 'mere 'politics'. And it puts witnesses or mere administrative clerical staffers --or their families ---at risk of harm.

I think we all know that is too dangerous for America, or for a democratic society.

 

[August West]

First amendment protects even those who are being prosecuted until they have been sentenced.

Not when they`re trying to rig a jury by lying.

 

[forkup]

First amendment protects even those who are being prosecuted until they have been sentenced.

Sure it does. On the other hand, the first amendment is not permission to break the law.

If you talk about how you want somebody killed to a hitman. That speech will be construed as outside the first amendment.

If you threaten a witness of a criminal case with harm. That threat will not be protected by the first amendment.

Of a judge instates a gag order on you. And you break the conditions of that order a judge could rule you in contempt.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sure it does. On the other hand, the first amendment is not permission to break the law.

If you talk about how you want somebody killed to a hitman. That speech will be construed as outside the first amendment.

If you threaten a witness of a criminal case with harm. That threat will not be protected by the first amendment.

Of a judge instates a gag order on you. And you break the conditions of that order a judge could rule you in contempt.

Their is no law that protects a fucked attorney from being called out on their stupidity of the law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not when they`re trying to rig a jury by lying.

Why is Jack smith rigging the jury?