all 36 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 52 points 2 years ago (1 child)

It never should have been removed.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It shouldn’t have needed to exist in the first place.

    If you or I pulled this behavior, we wouldn’t get gag orders. We’d be held in contempt and locked up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Indeed, a normal defendant would have been treated much differently. Then again, a normal defendant doesn't have an army of enraged violent dipshits with a tenuous relationship with reality, eager and willing to end democracy on his behalf, supporting them. That's why he gets treated with kid gloves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    They’re treating him with kid gloves because they’re trying to avoid an appeal. They know he’s going to appeal whatever verdicts he gets. But you can only appeal a conviction on the basis of a mistrial. Basically, you need to prove that your trial wasn’t fair. And one way to do that is to show that the judge was biased against you. So they’re avoiding giving him any ammo for his inevitable appeal.

    Because higher courts get more and more conservative as they go up, so his chances of getting a conviction overturned increase with each subsequent appeal. And if it makes it all the way to the SCOTUS, they’ll gladly light the constitution on fire to let him walk. So their best chance of having anything stick is to stop the appeals process before it can even begin, by refusing to give him any basis for an appeal. They’re doing everything they can to treat him with kid gloves, so the appeals court can’t go “yeah maybe the lower courts treated you unfairly.” It means that if a conviction happens, it’ll truly be ironclad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Bingo. It's like the Colorado judge who found Trump factually guilty of insurrection. That case was getting appealed, no matter what. But now the next court(s) in line has to take that fact into account, they don't get to rehash or question it.

    tl;dr: All these things we're mad about are brilliant legal maneuverings.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago

    Yeah right. Like how Mueller was taking his time because he was building an air-tight case. I've been hearing this kind of thing since early in his presidency. I no longer buy that the "good guys" have a plan and will put a bow on it in the end.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Sooo… you’re saying that negotiating with terrorists is the best thing to do here?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I'd say they're more insurrectionists than terrorists, and no I do not.
    Speculating why they are doing something is not endorsing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Not acting out of fear is essentially allowing them to negotiate the outcome of his trial.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Can you elaborate? I don't follow.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You’re suggesting he’s getting treated with kid gloves because of his army of terrorists.

    I’m saying that’s not how things work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Ah I see, well he's clearly being treated differently than a normal defendant and I speculated on why, but after reading this comment I agree with @PM_Your_Nudes_Please that it's probably more about denying him a case for appeal even if it means treating his behaviors with more leniency than a normal defendant. Getting it right is important because of the damage he can cause, (due to said army and the scary possibility of reelection,) if he gets off with a technicality. I'm referring to his legal woes in general and not just this trial, he's been trying stochastic terrorism in many of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Violation with zero consequences in 3...2...1...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    IMHO, the judge is handling him with kid gloves so that, when he’s sentenced, he will have fewer avenues for an appeal. Because he wasn’t locked up and was given small (for him) fines, he’ll have fewer opportunities to mount miscarriage of justice claims.

    Edit: sentenced, not convicted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    He's already convicted. This is sentencing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago

    appeals court lifts gag order

    Facepalm

    appeals court reinstates gag order

    Slow clap

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Womp womp. Choke on your own words, you stale Cheeto.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [B] 8 points 2 years ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The one-sentence decision from a four-judge panel came two weeks after an individual appellate judge had put the order on hold while the appeals process played out.

    Engoron imposed the initial gag order Oct. 3 after Trump posted a derogatory comment about the judge’s law clerk to social media.

    The post, which included a baseless allegation about the clerk’s personal life, came the second day of the trial in New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit.

    The former president, now the front-runner for the Republican 2024 presidential nomination, contends the lawsuit is a political attack by James, a Democrat.

    Engoron later fined Trump $15,000 for violating the gag order and expanded it to include his lawyers after they questioned clerk Allison Greenfield’s prominent role on the bench, where she sits alongside the judge, exchanging notes and advising him during testimony.

    State lawyers had sought to tie Trump’s comments to an uptick in nasty calls and messages directed at the judge and law clerk.


    The original article contains 377 words, the summary contains 163 words. Saved 57%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • source
  • [+] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
    [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    I'm staying pessimistic about all of the legal cases surrounding Trump because I don't want to get my hopes up, but this is a very good sign. I'm sure they'll continue to let him violate it with a light slap on the wrist at most, but it's a bold move.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The AP reports that the court made a one-line ruling, but didn't quote it for some strange reason.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    Because it's 1 "sentence" consisting of 3 paragraphs across 2 pages, and nearly entirely -speak gobblygook, summarized perfectly in the headline"gag order reinstated"

    The PDF is out there, I invite you to get any more information from it than what was conveyed by the article.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Woop the news I'd been hoping for!

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I wonder how much ketchup is on the wall at the John Barron residence. For even the most minor of wrist slaps.

  • source