Trump to judge who threatened to toss him in jail over gag order: 'Give me liberty or give me death'

Asking me to read for you is physically impossible.

 

New York Law on disqualification:

His daughter has a financial interest in this prosecution and its outcome.

 

Cohen hasn't given any testimony. As I said, it is a figment of imagination. Complete disinformation. You should go back and actually read Pecker's testimony. "I understand this request is likely too much to ask of you." He is not in the position to have anything to say about the FEC and DOJ investigation into these business records.

 

Cohen HAS given testimony. In his own case. Read. Learn. And this has nothing to do with any FEC or DOJ investigation. This is a state case. Read. Learn.

 

More disinformation. Cohen took a plea deal. "Read. Learn." Cite the testimony Cohen has about the DOJ and FEC investigation into the business records.

 

Yes. Which involves testimony. How did you not know this before today?

 

Yes, but who could they use on the jury who isn't biased for or against Trump? It's a real problem. No mater who is on the jury accusations will be made of bias.

 

Are you excusing the kangaroo courts?

 

No. Why would you think that from what I wrote?
I wrote that everybody has an opinion on Trump, so how can you form an objective jury?

 

how many NDA's has trump used to silence people?

 

What difference does it make?

 

His point is, there are no DOJ, nor FEC investigations into business records.

 

There are exceptions to free speech that are entirely logical. Can't put people in danger (lying yell of fire in theater), can't bribe officials, can't INTIMIDATE WITNESSES AND JURORS to influence a trial. Hmm, wonder what the exception is in this case. I know it's a tough one to figure...

 

Trump hasn't threatened any witnesses, nor jurors. He didn't do so before there was a gag order.

 

Intimidate is the word, not threaten. For a fair trial, the idea is for witnesses to feel safe to tell the truth, and for juries to feel they can make their verdict based upon the facts alone. When Trump attacks them, it sics his supporters on them. When Trump says the jury is biased because they're all democrats, communicating to his supporters they are not doing their duty as jurors but rather are going after Trump, then that makes them more of a target and this could influence their decision. If the goal was a fair trial, this is not desireable. The decision should be by facts, not them fearing for their lives because the defendant made them a target.

 

He hasn't tried to intimidate anyone, neither.

 

This isn't so much about fault, it's about doing what can be done to make the process as fair as possible.

It's intimidating, just situationally, to be on a jury for a trial of a very powerful person, whose supporters previously chanted to hang his VP after he said the VP lacked courage. Trump can't help that now. But he can keep his mouth shut to avoid making things even more intimidating for those who are supposed to be making decisions by facts alone. His right to speak in his defense is still there, but on the stand as a part of the non-public court hearings.

 

That isn't the legal definition of "intimidation".

The gag order is unconstitutional because there's no evidence that supports the order.

 

I think you're just trying to be argumentative for its own sake. Rights come into conflict, obviously, and exceptions to one of the rights must be made when they do. In cases like this, the right to a fair trial outweighs the temporary and specific restriction on free speech.

 

Prior restraints on speech require the highest level fo judicial scrutiny. Allowing defense witnesses to trash a defendant in the media daily and to profit off the prosecution while gagging the defendant from defending themselves does not create a "fair trial." The only thing that served was to prejudice the jury pool. The judge cited case law justifying the gag order that said the opposite of what he claimed it did. There was no other reason for a one-sided gag order.

 

Is it a fair trial is only the defendant is under a gag order, why everyone else can make whatever public statements they choose?

 

Because the rationale of the gag order isn't biasing the jury about the facts of the case, the rationale is intimidation. Trump is the one who has a motive to punish jurors or witnesses for saying the wrong thing or giving the wrong decision on the trial - it's his liberty at stake. Like a Mafia boss, Trump is also one who has the means to make others lives hell with very little effort or risk, given his followers. Trump attacking jurors and witnesses has a fairly high likelihood of muting testimony or making jurors too afraid to convict. Others statements just don't have the same impact.

 

The is no legal rationale for the gag order.

Funny how you whine about a fair trial, but then say that prejudicing the jury isn't a big deal...lol

 

I said the purpose of the gag order isn't related to jury prejudice against Trump, not that it doesn't matter. The jury ignoring noise in the media is a more reasonable expectation of them than to ignore threats to their lives because Trump told people they are political operatives rather than fair jurors.

 

Nice deflection... Trump was outside the court room speaking, not standing up during the trial... how low will you go to not make a point?