Trump Gag Order Still In Force To Bring Fines From Judge Merchan Because Of What He Says During Debate

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Jul 21, 2009
132,983
69,601
2,645
Headmaster's Office, Hogwarts
The Gag Order enforced by Judge Merchan is still in full-force even though the trial is over. Why?

Because Biden wants to keep Trump from responding to questions from mods during the first (and probably only) debate.

Trump is going into next week's debate with one hand tied behind his back.

Judge Merchan will probably be announcing contempt of court fines the moment the debate is concluded, if Trump talks about something he feels is covered under the gag order.



 
I hope Merchan does fine him. In fact, I hope he throws him in Jail. Every time dimocrap scum pull some shit like this, OMB's poll numbers go up.

I also hope that Merchan enjoys the rest of his life in prison. There' going to be a special prosecutor appointed just for him. Count on it. For those who know why, it's obvious. For those who don't -- Eat a bag of dicks.

You know who this is really resonating with? Blacks. Especially Black Men. Black women are so far gone, they're all but unreachable. Even the males of their own race can't stand them. But Black Men know what it's like to have false evidence and a skewed Justice System used against them.

Extra Bonus. This is how incredibly scummy the dimocrap FILTH movement is......

Biden's Now-Disbanded "Homeland Intelligence Experts Group" Plotted to Cultivate a Network of Spies Among Government School Teachers Who Would Inform on Parents and Children Who Resisted Their Trans and DEI Agendas​

Ace of Spades HQ

Dark thoughts.

They weren't just hoping to recruit spies among teachers. They hoped to also recruit AWFL mothers to inform on their family members.

Miranda Divine:

The Biden administration's since-disbanded "Homeland Intelligence Experts Group" planned an insidious influence operation to persuade mothers and teachers to inform on dissident parents and students suspected of "domestic extremism," internal documents obtained by The Post show.
The panel, created in September of last year to ostensibly "provide advice and perspectives on intelligence and national security efforts," included Obama-era CIA Director John Brennan and ex-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, both of whom flaunted their intelligence credentials on the eve of the 2020 election to falsely claim The Post's reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation.
But conservative non-profit America First Legal (AFL) alleged in a November 2023 lawsuit that the group was stacked with Democrat partisans and violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act because of its "lack of balance, the Biden Administration's inappropriate influence over it, and its lack of public notice and participation."

DHS agreed to disband the group and to provide AFL with its internal records as part of an out-of-court settlement in May.
Now, the records have been obtained and provide a chilling insight into the ambitions of this shadowy organization.
In notes from a September 2023 meeting, the Brennan-Clapper group discussed ways for DHS to increase efforts to collect intelligence on Americans across the country, and "get into local communities in a non-threatening way."
Members noted that "Americans have an ambivalent feeling of telling on each other," citing the failure of the post-9/11 "See Something, Say Something" campaign.

The problem, one attendee summarized, was: "How do people safely report a concern about their neighbors?"
One solution proposed at the meeting was to reclassify political dissent as a "public health" crisis to encourage Americans to report family members or neighbors to the federal government if they displayed "concerning" behavior.

"To get a mother or teacher to come forward, it needs to be a public health catcher's mitt," one participant was quoted as saying.
If DHS could not convince mothers and teachers to become informants, one member of the group suggested, the feds should turn to corporate America as a resource of intelligence on their employees.
"There is an industry ecosystem, companies are internally collecting open sources," this person mused. "Are you able to engage and use those products?"

...
The plans have strong echoes of East Germany's secret police agency, the Stasi, which relied on a network of unofficial informants to report friends, family, and neighbors as potential dissidents to the socialist regime between 1950 and 1990.


You say you want to recruit spies and agents of influence in corporations, ay?

How about professional associations which professionals are forced to join just to practice their trade?

Does that grab you, Communist John Brennan?

The Connecticut Bar Association (CBA) issued a warning Friday to public officials who speak out against former President Donald Trump's prosecution.

No matter how much you HATE, despise and detest dimocraps and their diseased political/Crime party -- It isn't enough
 
The gag order is still in effect to protect those to whom it applies.

Trump won't mention any of those people, or feel any need to violate the gag order.
 
The Gag Order enforced by Judge Merchan is still in full-force even though the trial is over. Why?

Because Biden wants to keep Trump from responding to questions from mods during the first (and probably only) debate.

Trump is going into next week's debate with one hand tied behind his back.

Judge Merchan will probably be announcing contempt of court fines the moment the debate is concluded, if Trump talks about something he feels is covered under the gag order.




He's got no choice but to decline
 
The Gag Order enforced by Judge Merchan is still in full-force even though the trial is over. Why?
Sentencing.

pay attention

You people made a big deal out of that technicality trying to spin a narrative that Trump was actually not a convicted felon because he was not yet sentenced.

The desperation you people show has you all over the place.
 
The Gag Order enforced by Judge Merchan is still in full-force even though the trial is over. Why?

Because Biden wants to keep Trump from responding to questions from mods during the first (and probably only) debate.

Trump is going into next week's debate with one hand tied behind his back.

Judge Merchan will probably be announcing contempt of court fines the moment the debate is concluded, if Trump talks about something he feels is covered under the gag order.




Republican donor money being wasted on a criminal's legal feels is just delicious
 
The gag order is still in effect to protect those to whom it applies.

Trump won't mention any of those people, or feel any need to violate the gag order.
Wrong. The people it's supposed to protect are the defendant and possibly the members of the jury, and they're out of the loop now.
The only person a gag order really protects is the rights of the defendant.
It's not intended to prevent the defendant from claiming innocence.
 
Sentencing.

pay attention

You people made a big deal out of that technicality trying to spin a narrative that Trump was actually not a convicted felon because he was not yet sentenced.

The desperation you people show has you all over the place.
Oh.....so now you're saying the gag order is protecting the GD judge?

Is that what you're saying?
 
The Gag Order enforced by Judge Merchan is still in full-force even though the trial is over. Why?

Because Biden wants to keep Trump from responding to questions from mods during the first (and probably only) debate.

Trump is going into next week's debate with one hand tied behind his back.

Judge Merchan will probably be announcing contempt of court fines the moment the debate is concluded, if Trump talks about something he feels is covered under the gag order.






Trump should completely ignore it. There is no place the 1st Amendment applies more than a presidential debate.

His support would swell if they fined him for anything he says during the debate.

It will be interesting to see if CNN goads Trump into violating the gag order with their questioning.
 
We all know what the gag order is about.

Try and keep up.
Yes, we know.

I'm way ahead of you on that.

A judge may issue a “gag order” to prevent the attorneys, parties, or witnesses in a pending lawsuit or criminal investigation from discussing the matter with the general public. As with any prior restriction, a court will examine any gag order in light of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to free speech and apply a strong presumption that it is unconstitutional. Carroll v. Princess Anne, for example. In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, the U.S. Supreme Court examined the following elements while determining whether a gag order was constitutional:


  • The type and volume of news coverage before the trial.
  • If other actions are likely to lessen the consequences of unrestricted pretrial publicity.
  • The effectiveness of a restraining order in averting the alleged threat [of an unfair trial for the defendant.

Table of Contents


Examples of gag orders:​


  1. Police agencies issue gag orders to conceal the identities of victims, particularly minors, and to prevent the public from learning details of current investigations where doing so would endanger the cases or the people involved.
  2. A judge will frequently issue a gag order to prevent parties to a lawsuit from talking about it outside of Court.
  3. Gag clauses may be included in contracts for joint ventures, employment, and termination to safeguard confidential information, intellectual property, proprietary information, and, occasionally the company’s reputation.

Criminal Case Illustration​


Anyone accused of a crime in the United States is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty by law since our judicial system is designed to be blind. Gag orders are frequently utilized when the defendant (or person charged with the offense) is well known or renowned so that many other people’s opinions won’t decide their case.


Imagine Benjamin Franklin was facing charges in 1776 for taking the Declaration of Independence from John Hancock’s desk. If every jury member traveled about town soliciting opinions from everyone, Benjamin Franklin would have had a difficult time receiving a fair trial, given his notoriety.



Civil Case Illustration​


A civil case is a private lawsuit between two parties that do not involve criminal charges, as was previously explained. A gag order is frequently used to prevent the case or result discussion.


Court sets a high standards for media gag orders.​


The Supreme Court declared in Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966) that defendants have a right to fair trials and that judges in trial courts must take concrete action to protect that right. Judges saw Sheppard as permitting them to slap gag orders on defendants, but some even started doing so for the media. In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, the Court refuted this latter assumption and established a high standard for such orders (1976). This case developed from Erwin Simants’ 1975 murder trial, in which he was accused of killing six people.


The order was issued by the pretrial news coverage judicial process prohibiting the media from publishing Simants’s confession, his words to others, the contents of the notes he made the night of the killings, as well as any other potentially incriminating details. The Supreme Court overturned the judge’s order, holding that courts must rigorously justify media gag orders and meet a high standard of proof.It is necessary to investigate impartial jury influence potential jurors and disruptive courtroom behavior.


The federal or state district gathers names from a variety of sources when choosing a jury, including registered voters, unemployment benefit recipients, and holders of driver’s licenses or state identification cards. This is referred to as a “jury pool,” and its size fluctuates depending on the criminal cases.



Courts can think about several options instead of enforcing gag orders, including changing the trial location, delaying the trial until the public’s attention wanes, tough voir dire (or jury selection procedures), and jury sequestration.


Gag orders are viewed as a First Amendment​


Judges in appellate court jurisdictions uphold and overturn gag orders, although most are not challenged. Gag orders have detractors who contend that judges should be held to high criteria before placing gag restrictions on defendants. They claim that judges regularly employ gag orders without considering any other options, that many orders are overbroad and should only apply to specific facts, impede the press’s ability to gather news, and impede the flow of information to the general public. In conclusion, while courts view the orders as intrinsically important to uphold the fairness of the legal system, many civil libertarians and journalists consider them a threat to the First Amendment’s protection of a free press.


Gag orders placed on jurors are a topic that is receiving more attention. Even though the courts are split on the subject, recent decisions have tended to support trial judges’ ability to forbid the following: (1) news interviews with jurors about jury deliberations; (2) inquiries about specific votes or comments made by jurors other than the one being interviewed; and (3) repeated requests for interviews after a juror has expressed a desire not to be interviewed. The legality of such orders is in doubt because the state’s interest in a fair trial appears unaffected by media contact with jurors after the problem is over.


Who is subject to a gag order? Does this rule apply to the media?​


All parties are subject to a gag order. The gag order will be broken by anyone who releases any information that could be used to identify the protected individual.



Also Read: Everything You Need To Know About The San Francisco Superior Court


People who are proven to have violated gag orders may face legal action. In particular, a person may be convicted in contempt of Court if it is shown that they purposefully broke a gag order. Depending on the wording of the specific provision that has been violated, a breach of a gag order may result in a fine or even jail. For instance, violating a gag order by Section 7(3) of the State Courts Act may result in a fine of up to $5,000 or a period of imprisonment of not more than 12 months.


Public Prosecutor decides to seek a gag order​


In general, the Public Prosecutor may request a gag order to protect the identity of the victim or witness in:


  • Cases involving sexual offenses, such as rape, insulting a woman’s modesty, sexual penetration of a minor, and other such crimes;
  • Cases in which the victim or witness is a kid or minor, that is, under the age of 18. A very young victim of violence or situations of child abuse may be involved;
  • Situations in which victims of trafficking were sexually exploited.

Gagging orders are not just used in situations involving sexual offenses or young victims. In appropriate circumstances, the Public Prosecutor may also request a gag order to allow witnesses to testify freely during a trial without worrying about embarrassment. Your defense attorneys parties involved in various roles during the course of your case . Several legal rules forbid releasing specific material about court cases without a gag order. Therefore, even in the absence of a gag order, it is illegal for anybody to publish pertinent protected information.



 
Trump should completely ignore it. There is no place the 1st Amendment applies more than a presidential debate.

His support would swell if they fined him for anything he says during the debate.

It will be interesting to see if CNN goads Trump into violating the gag order with their questioning.
Gag orders are used to protect witnesses or minors who are victims.

It's purpose is supposed to assure a fair trial.
 
Wrong. The people it's supposed to protect are the defendant and possibly the members of the jury, and they're out of the loop now.
Trump is forbidden to mention the names of the jurors or their addresses or phone numbers.

But I would agree with you that he has a right to complain about it being a phony court.

I'm not so sure that bringing the 34 guilty verdicts up would be to his advantage. He's better off making it all about Biden's deficiencies.

Is Biden going to have to stand on his feet for 90 minutes?

Expect a 'commercial' break. or two?
 
Sentencing.

pay attention

You people made a big deal out of that technicality trying to spin a narrative that Trump was actually not a convicted felon because he was not yet sentenced.

The desperation you people show has you all over the place.
We know we are a burgeoning dictatorship. It is just we do not believe in them that are bringing it here even if that is what our destiny is. It is so easy to see it is African American vengeance empowered by the globalists to strike out at anything possible for the past. Many people collect checks today from the government. They are numbed. In the 1960's they would not even consider what we see today. Saying any political leader is not above the law means the same for all of them. Joe makes Trump look like a piker. Jill is the worst first lady in history.
 

Forum List

Back
Top