President Trump dares judge in Alvin Bragg case to jail him for violating gag order

[ThisIsMe]

That's nice. But that was a dodge, which is why i ignored it.

Now tell us how Trump has a right to disparage the court staff, while being a criminal defendant in that court.

You know that will be easily obliterated. Which is why you tap dance and post in bad faith, instead of making your claim in simple English.

The fact you don’t like my examples doesn’t make them any less valid. I’ve come to expect that from you. You have a tendency to omit parts of people’s responses you don’t like, you did it to me quite a bit awhile back. You’d literally cut out every bit of context to a point I would make in order to create a response that fit YOUR narrative. And you call ME a bad faith poster??

I stated my opinions about gag orders. If they threaten someone or if they talk about elements of the case that they shouldn’t be, then I support gag orders. It’s pretty simple

Now tell us how Trump has a right to disparage the court staff, while being a criminal defendant in that court.

He has the right to criticize them, because he’s being unfairly treated. I don’t ever recall seeing any law or article of the cotus that says you are to be free from “disparagement”,

Has he threatened them? Has he said anything about the case that was supposed to be sequestered? No? So all you have is a guy trash talking the people who he feels are engaged in lawfare against him. Where is that a crime?

 

[krichton]

Ah.....The Narrative.
Cool story, brah.

Yup, it's so cool Trump has been indicted by a grand jury to stand trial on this "cool story." When Capone went down for tax evasion it was a "cool story" too. I wonder if either Trump or Capone thought it was a cool story.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Yup, it's so cool Trump has been indicted by a grand jury to stand trial on this "cool story." When Capone went down for tax evasion it was a "cool story" too. I wonder if either Trump or Capone thought it was a cool story.

OK, so you claim.....

"he attempted to overthrow an election" BULLSHIT
"send fake electors" BULLSHIT
"Trump is a threat to democracy" BULLSHIT
"not those {you] that want to preserve democracy" BULLSHIT
"ones [me] who would prefer a system like Russias" BULLSHIT

Do you see a pattern here?
All that is a NARRATIVE; a STORY; a TALE; all wrought by your TDS.
All FICTION
I'll take one thing back; it's NOT a cool one.

 

[Rigby5]

Gag orders are explicitly illegal and only legal when there are special circumstances like a need to protect a minor or national security.
Otherwise gag orders violate not just the 1st Amendment, but FOIA.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The fact you don’t like my examples doesn’t make them any less valid

The fact that they are irrelevant sealioning makes them invalid.

Now go ahead. Assert and then argue the clam that the 1st amendment gives criminal defendants the right to attack court staff and jurors in public.

Or stfu. This isn't complicated.

I see you're not so eager, once your pathetic sealioning and red herrings have been whittled away.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The fact that they are irrelevant sealioning makes them invalid.

Now go ahead. Assert and then argue the clam that the 1st amendment gives criminal defendants the right to attack court staff and jurors in public.

Or stfu. This isn't complicated.

I see you're not so eager, once your pathetic sealioning and red herrings have been whittled away.

sealioning

I don’t think this word means what you think it means…

Assert and then argue the clam that the 1st amendment gives criminal defendants the right to attack court staff and jurors in public.

What jurors has he attacked? As far as the rest, he absolutely has the right to make claims that he feels like this is a sham trial. And if you are considering trumps criticism of the judge and staff as “attacks”, we. I don’t know what to tell you. Learn the difference between criticism and “attacks”?
One doesn’t lose their first ammendment rights because you don’t like him.

So once again, for the part that you, yet again, cut out of my response…gag orders are fine for threats and talking about forbidden things about the case. Criticizing those who he feels are using the law as a weapon, there’s nothing wrong with that.

Or stfu.

No, I don’t think I will

see you're not so eager, once your pathetic sealioning and red herrings have been whittled away.

The only thing being whittled away are my posts, every time you respond and cut half of my statements out of it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don’t think this word means what you think it means…



What jurors has he attacked? As far as the rest, he absolutely has the right to make claims that he feels like this is a sham trial. And if you are considering trumps criticism of the judge and staff as “attacks”, we. I don’t know what to tell you. Learn the difference between criticism and “attacks”?
One doesn’t lose their first ammendment rights because you don’t like him.

So once again, for the part that you, yet again, cut out of my response…gag orders are fine for threats and talking about forbidden things about the case. Criticizing those who he feels are using the law as a weapon, there’s nothing wrong with that.



No, I don’t think I will



The only thing being whittled away are my posts, every time you respond and cut half of my statements out of it.

That's a bunch of paragraphs just to say that you're too much of a sissy to argue the claim you are making. Apparently you know how stupid and wrong your claim is.

But we got the message all the same.

Same thing in every single thread with you. The proud sea lion.

 

[ThisIsMe]

That's a bunch of paragraphs just to say that you're too much of a sissy to argue the claim you are making. Apparently you know how stupid and wrong your claim is.

But we got the message all the same.

Same thing in every single thread with you. The proud sea lion.

I’m afraid it’s you that is mistaken. I’ve made my points, you just choose to ignore them. That’s a you problem, not a me problem. I’ve made my claim, I’ve argued my claim, you are just using a lot of personal attacks to disregard them..for what reason…I have no idea. I gave you two reason for when I agree with gag orders, and told you I don’t think that criticism is grounds for a gag order. Those are my arguments, which you claim I’m not making.

Now, we can go round and round about this, or you can explain why you think my arguments are not good. The ball is in your court.

sea lion.

Again…I don’t think you know what this word means…or at least you’re using it in the wrong context here.

 

[Mashmont]

I'd like to see a judge call Trump into the courtroom and tell him the following:

"Mr. Trump, it is clear that you have no intention, or ability, to follow the standards rules of behavior or legal orders in my courtroom. Because we cannot have a situation in which certain citizens are treated differently by the law, I'm going to give you one warning.

"I have personally contacted the City Jail and instructed them to make all provisions for your arrest and detainment in the system. This, of course, will have to allow for your security detail to remain intact. I am providing you and your lawyers with specific written protocols, step by step, on how this would be carried out.

"If you break one more rule that I hand down in this case, those protocols will be in effect, the system will be ready, and you will be immediately arrested for contempt and jailed for at least one day, and I withold the right to make that stay longer. You will be treated the same way we treat any other prisoner".

"Have I made myself perfectly clear to you and your attorneys?"

I don't think that's asking too much. Most people don't get that kind of warning.

1. The case should never have been brought.
2. No crime was committed.

 

[Mac1958]

1. The case should never have been brought.
2. No crime was committed.

Wow, the All Seeing One has weighed in.

You know that, huh?

You're very impressive!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wow, the All Seeing One has weighed in.

You know that, huh?

You're very impressive!

Shaman Mashmont has spoken!

 

[Clipper]

Breaking! After court today Trump still ranting & raving over his Gag A Maggot order.

When a Gangster like Trump runs their yap & threatens jurors, witnesses, court employees etc thry get slapped with a Gag A Maggot Order.

No one is above the law.

 

[boevans]

That's a bunch of paragraphs just to say that you're too much of a sissy to argue the claim you are making. Apparently you know how stupid and wrong your claim is.

But we got the message all the same.

Same thing in every single thread with you. The proud sea lion.

The stupid, stupid Donald.

 

[beautress]

MAGATS love their criminals and criminality.

No, we love the truth, and nothing but the truth. That has been severely obfuscated by a corrupt series of lies provided by guess who. Forgotaboutit

True or false, someone who violates court orders repeatedly while on bail is usually incarcerated.

It depends on the obvious fact the person is innocent having been framed by a creep like Nancy.

 

[Rogue AI]

Trump is welcome to discuss the case and it’s merits.

What he can’t do is engage in personal attacks on the judge, prosecutor or their families

Since there are no merits to this case there is nothing to really talk about on that front. Of course all this was discussed when the indictments dropped. The crux remains true, for the felony counts to have merit, misdemeanor convictions must first exist, they don't, thus this clownshow shouldn't even exist.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Oh **** off! Trump can't talk about how the judge's daughter is a major Democrat operative, raking in funds

for Democrats via a PAC? Bullshit! She's the head of a Democrat PAC.

It’s a Conflict of Interest. The Judge should have recused himself.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It’s a Conflict of Interest. The Judge should have recused himself.

That is not a conflict of interest.

 

[rightwinger]

Since there are no merits to this case there is nothing to really talk about on that front. Of course all this was discussed when the indictments dropped. The crux remains true, for the felony counts to have merit, misdemeanor convictions must first exist, they don't, thus this clownshow shouldn't even exist.

The jury will decide that
So far, Trumps efforts to dismiss the case due to lack of merit has failed Bigly

 

[Rogue AI]

The jury will decide that
So far, Trumps efforts to dismiss the case due to lack of merit has failed Bigly

NY law is clear, there literally is no case. Feel free to point out in the law itself where you think I'm mistaken.

 

[rightwinger]

NY law is clear, there literally is no case. Feel free to point out in the law itself where you think I'm mistaken.

Then Trumps team of top line lawyers should have had the charges easily dismissed