Trump and his legal team contended that the order was an unconstitutional effort to silence the constitutionally protected speech of a candidate for office. What’s more, they insisted, Smith and his team had not presented “one shred of evidence to demonstrate…let alone enough to establish” any “clear and present danger” to the orderly administration of justice in the pending January 6 proceedings. Chutkan again wasn’t buying it: “In what kind of case do you think it would be appropriate for a criminal defendant to call the prosecutor a thug and stay on the streets?” she asked Lauro. “‘Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?’ comes to mind.”
As for the claims of shutting down Trump’s First Amendment rights, Chutkan reiterated that Trump was receiving the same treatment anyone in his position would: “Mr. Trump is a criminal defendant. He is facing four felony charges. He is under the supervision of the criminal justice system and he must follow his conditions of release. He does not have the right to say and do exactly what he pleases.”
You must log in or register to comment.
"He does not have the right to say and do exactly what he pleases.”
Lock him up!
deleted by creator
Which is why the civil suit is going first. If he looses their, his riches will be confiscated and he will loose the protection afforded by being rich. Only then will he be convict-able under the poor-people’s justice system.
Sort of like how OJ Simpson can get away with murder while rich, but be convicted of robbery after the goldman civil suit.
I understand your cynicism, but while he might escape maybe a single case, he’s definitely not escaping the Georgia RICO case and the NY fraud case. One destroys his financial empire, and the other charges are designed to take down organized crime groups.
Even if he escapes the Top Secret Documents case, he’s fucked.
The only way he escapes the documents case is “Judge Nullification™”
What is that symbol you typed after your last period? It doesn’t display properly on my device.
Isn’t he on trial for using speech to incite an insurrection?
Not that particular case, but one of them is, yes.
He’s on trial in several different courts for like 74 crimes or something.
I thought it was 4 indictments for 90 crimes
Fucking DO SOMETHING. He’ll keep talking until you prove to him he can’t afford to. Since he’s doxxing people, see first sentence.
All of these court cases show they are in fact “doing something”
Only putin’s little knobby dong and shriveled chocolate starfish ever kept that mouth occupied for more than 5 minutes.
Without actual consequences for any court order the order and the court become meaningless.
The actual consequence here in the short term is that the trial date will be moved up, which Trump world absolutely does not want.
The answer is always no, when a headline asks a question- but it’s especially no in this situation considering the subject.
Removed by mod
We understand the sentiment, but directly advocating violence is against the rules. Why? It’s what HE would do. :)
deleted by creator
