I'm disturbed by this Washington Post headline: "In Trump cases, experts say defendant’s rhetoric will be hard to police."
Let's read the text. Is it as oblivious to traditional free-speech values as it sounds?
As a 2024 candidate, Trump “has the best imaginable First Amendment case for talking about the charges against him, the evidence against him, the witnesses against him,” [said Kenneth White, a former federal prosecutor in California who specializes in free-speech issues]. particularly when one of those witnesses is former vice president Mike Pence, who is also seeking the GOP nomination....
Long before the indictments in D.C. and Georgia, Trump said the election-related investigations themselves sought to punish him for exercising his First Amendment speech rights in the aftermath of the 2020 voting. A pretrial legal battle over what the former president can or cannot say about those events might buttress that line of attack, experts said.
That is, Trump's opponents are in a bind. The more the courts restrict Trump's speech about the substance of the cases, the stronger his argument that they're violating his freedom of speech.
Advisers say the Trump campaign sees a benefit in him testing boundaries by publicly attacking judges and prosecutors — either he gets away with it, or he gets to play the victim for being censored by the courts.
Step back and think about this principle in general. It's a great free-speech safeguard that restrictions on free speech generate the argument that there's a violation of free speech. Those whose freedom of speech is violated should "play the victim." If you don't like your opponents "playing the victim," one option is not to victimize them.
Some of Trump’s political advisers said they are betting that judges will not risk the blowback of imposing sanctions on a major-party candidate....
If we're using the gambling analogy, let's aim it both ways: Trump's antagonists were "betting" that they could induce judges to muzzle their prime political opponent. Otherwise the journalism looks biased.
“Any judge would be very reluctant to jail a candidate for president, not only to protect the candidate’s First Amendment rights, but to permit voters access to the defendant’s statements as they decide how to cast their ballots,” [said Barbara McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor and former U.S. attorney]. “It will take an awful lot for Judge Chutkan to jail Trump, and you can bet he will push the line as far as he can. It is a win-win situation for him. If he is not gagged and jailed, he can disparage prosecutors and witnesses with impunity. If he is jailed, he can portray himself as a victim of persecution.”...
It is a win-win situation for him. Is it a lose-lose situation for the prosecutors? That would be strange. They made their choices. Is the Washington Post portraying them as the real victims here? If we're going to accuse a criminal defendant of "playing victim," we need to notice when the prosecution is posturing in the theater of victimhood.
But you can't upstage Trump. You've just given the brilliant performer great new material:
“So now I have these lunatic reporters back there saying, ‘Sir, we would like to talk to you about your case.’ ‘I’m sorry, I’m not allowed to talk about it,’” Trump parodied during a campaign stop in New Hampshire this month.
“Somehow that’s not good for votes. Do you agree? When we say, ‘I can’t talk,’ I’d love to. I will talk about it. I will. They’re not taking away my First Amendment.”
Trump also mocked the possibility that he may have to leave the campaign trail for court appearances.
“I’m sorry, I won’t be able to go to Iowa today, I won’t be able to go to New Hampshire today, because I’m sitting in a courtroom on bullshit,” he said. The crowd responded by chanting his last word....
पोस्ट्स
७० टिप्पण्या:
The low point (to date, at least) can be found in the multiple criminal prosecutions of President Trump, which are taking place in the shadow of Biden’s open and unpunished corruption.
https://amgreatness.com/2023/08/21/american-self-government-is-falling-apart/
If you don't like your opponents "playing the victim," one option is not to victimize them.
@Althouse, if you keep displaying that level of elementary common sense they may revoke your Emerita status.
The more the courts restrict Trump's speech about the substance of the cases, the stronger his argument that they're violating his freedom of speech.
...as Democrats cheer.
For starters, Republican voters should boycott the 2024 election if this happens. Let the final result be a ridiculous North Korean victory of 90% support for the senile Biden, so that everyone knows we do not consent to the process. Our enemies (and the Quislings) will say, “You should have voted, you could have won,” to which we should remind them, “No, you won’t let us win and put Trump in jail to make sure.”
"Rhetoric should be "hard to police."
You know with sound legalistic logic like that I'm amazed no one has tried to cancel Althouse. That is just the kind of reasonable and civil axiom that drives progressives up a wall. I'm amazed more Chucks and Ingas don't DDOS this site into oblivion.
Big display of the Trumpism that the DC Criminal Gang that is paid off to work for depopulating earth for establishing the New World Globalist paradise is not actually after him, it’s after us. But it has to go through him first. He is our Champion in the tournament. The tournament that is truly a fight to the death for the old fashioned American middle class ( bourgeoisie) that selfishly wants to keep their Bill of Rights as written in 1781.
The man is a titanium fire and they keep thinking water will put him out.
LOL, Ann thinks she still lives in a free country.
"The more the courts restrict Trump's speech about the substance of the cases, the stronger his argument that they're violating his freedom of speech."
MadisonMan: "...as Democrats cheer."
Its not just democrats of course.
The rabid Leftists are the proverbial dog who manages to catch the car it was chasing and the punchline is more relevant than ever: now what? Playing the victim is not a viable strategy for the dog. The situation as Althouse has clarified it, is becoming more obviously a punishment by process as the overreaching reaches absurd proportions. Most of us think the charges are bullshit because commenters here are in the tiny minority of Americans who still consume news actively. But the facts are trickling out to the passive news consumers as all the contradictory narratives collide.
This is so five minutes ago. Now the plan is to claim that the 14th Amendment allows state officials to disqualify Trump from the ballot without due process even. Do this in one or two swing states, like Arizona and Wisconsin, and the election is over before it starts.
Of course, there is Section 5: "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Nowhere does that say that local officials can't take Trump off of the ballot for "insurrection" without due process, so it looks like The Atlantic has an airtight plan! The Constitution is just a piece of toilet paper, right?
But isn't this the same kind of constitutional lawyering that can get you put in jail if your name is Trump? Who cares!
If I were on the Trump legal team, I would be trying to argue election interference based on Fani Willis' announced plans to start the hearings the day before the primaries. Is that a valid legal argument.
OTOH, the John Frederickson/Steve Bannon/Jenny Beth Martin right-wing grift and lie crew are trying to get conservatives in Georgia to petition Governor Kemp to cut off funding to the Fulton County Court and unilaterally remove Fani Willis from office for "corruption" at the threat of getting rid of Kemp and further destroying the Georgia GOP, which will turn the state blue, not purple. These are the same buffoons who lost us two Senate seats for their own personal power goals, not winning on platform or actually reforming the Georgia GOP.
That's just as much using politics to supersede voter's rights as what they're accusing Willis of doing. I support Trump and think her case is mostly if not completely bull, but the law we passed to remove sitting prosecutors involved prosecutors who refuse to enforce crime/immigration/drug policies or otherwise violate their oath of office. The only way to demonstrate that Willis is refusing to enforce the law in this case is to let the case play out and use the media to make substantive points about how other politicians have tried to do recounts and influence outcomes while vote-counting.
The "depose Willis" crew are far too late and far too early to pull this stunt. In fact, I'm very suspicious of their timing. I know many of them personally: they're leftist operatives (one an Obama delegate) pretending to be principled libertarians,
leftitarians too dumb to realize they're leftitarians, or people who have screwed the TEA Party for personal gain and personal power.
The DNC would have kicked them to the curb if they tried to pull this stuff in the Democrat Party.
Heads we win. Tails you lose.
Unintended consequences. Love em. The Dems will be bitten on the ass repeatedly because of this insane persecution of Trump. Remember the ACLU? Those stalwart defenders of the bill of rights er uh I mean free-speech. Well they’ve been re-branded as the ASCLU the American Some Civil Liberties Union. In the 50s free-speech was primary among all the rights of Americans. Now well not so much. The Dems have been unmasked as the fascists they are. Their brilliant strategy of accusing their enemies of the things that they themselves do cannot withstand all this attention.
Buckwheathikes said...
"LOL, Ann thinks she still lives in a free country."
If you give up we'll never keep what freedoms we have left. It is thanks to Althouse and this blog that champions freedom of speech that we still have any. 81 million people want to shut you up.
Make me.
Jailing someone is not a "win" for them. Only a reporter looking through the partisan lens of politics could think someone wants to go to jail for the strategy.
Those windbreakers the government agencies wear in their home raids? There are many different federal alphabet agency logos on them, even the post office gets in on the act. I've never seen one with RHETORIC POLICE on the back, at least not yet...
"Is it as oblivious to traditional free-speech values as it sounds?"
For progs, the "tradition" was always a tool--as long as it served unions and communists. As the tech censorship case shows, they don't give a damn about such precious "values." They aim to rule. For the moment, they don't have total power yet, as Trump usefully illustrates--while, as the losing loser who mobilizes the anti-Trump majority, he also solidifies their power. It's the subtle but disastrous dialectic of Trumpism.
Something overlooked by the Dumbocrats is that the more information about Biden family corruption and the more obviously that the DoJ is actively covering for Joe and Hunter, the more plausible the charge of political persecution becomes. If it becomes Trump vs Biden redux (God help us), I think the Orangeman will win in a walkover. And I think that this reality is gradually being recognized by some Democrat strategists.
--- "traditional free-speech values"
Rhetorically speaking, would that phrase be equal to or not equal to "free speech"?
kenneth white, is popehat, who has demonstrated severe orange man derangement in the past
let's FACE FACTS..
Trump is GUILTY!! Guilty of NOT toeing the democrat line.
Trump is Actively TRYING to prove his innocence.. THAT is a Treasonous FELONY in and of itself!
Innocent people don't defend themselves.. They humbly accept being suicided
ONLY a GUILTY person would defend themselves
So how in HELL can the criticism of a judge be muzzled by that judge outside his courtroom. Or any criticism for that matter.’
I am shocked that we are even talking about ways to trim free speech. Democrats are showing they are truly authoritarians and anti-American. Remind me of Royalist. “King George really isn’t so bad. He only jailed the vocal critics.”
Shorter: for a political persecution to work, it can’t be played as if it’s legit.
You can’t have your cake and drink it too. (See QT birthday cake shake)
The anti-free speech totalitarian left are in lock-step with their demands to make dick-stepping a felony.
The first amendment is the new horse paste.
I lived in Chicago during the Chicago 7 trial. My, how people have changed places.
Any judge would be very reluctant to jail a candidate for president
I don't think that is a true statement. There was a time not so long ago when any judge would have been reluctant, but those days are over. And as we have been told so many times, Trump is different and must be treated differently. New norms and new precedents will be established and Trump is the mechanism.
It will take an awful lot for Judge Chutkan to jail Trump
There's your narrative being established right there. Whatever Trump does or says will be portrayed as Trump going too far and the poor, reluctant judge not having any choice. But the choice has already been made. Let's not go along with the pretense we don't all understand this.
"Now the plan is to claim that the 14th Amendment allows state officials to disqualify Trump from the ballot without due process even."
That's not going to happen. But, yeah, I've seen the article Tribe co-authored. It's click bait for Trump haters. It will be a real embarrassment if anyone attempts to put that theory in force. Zero chance the Supreme Court will allow it.
"Rhetorically speaking, would that phrase be equal to or not equal to "free speech"?"
"Free speech" is the speech that is free. "Traditional free-speech values" refers to the intellectual and cultural foundation that supports a commitment to free speech. For example, the idea that truth is important and that truth is pursued by examining many different ideas and not simply prescribing the idea that the powerful want you to have and the idea that interior of the mind of the individual matters and that it will hurt us in the long run if people just say what they've been told they're supposed to say.
A precedent has been set. If some woman calls him a rapist and he responds by calling her a liar, then he is guilty of defamation. The established precedent is that Trump is guilty a priori and ad infinitum. Some of these DA's should further charge Trump with defamation by pleading not guilty. Such a plea calls into question our entire justice system and is itself an obstruction of justice. Do we really want to live in a country where such a man as Trump is allowed to proclaim his innocence.
people NEED to Remember, that the USA is a land of MEN, Not a land of LAWS..
and when i say MEN; obviously i mean Democrat leaders (who, ARE mostly White Men)
The more the court, with his opponent's gleeful agreement, restrict Trump's speech the stronger the argument that Trump's free speech is being restricted.
I mean, yeah. You can tell I'm not an Ivy-educated big brain elite because that seems pretty obvious to me. Self-evident, even!
Everybody now knows the Trump prosecutions are 100% politics. I just hope he does not spend 90% of his time talking about it. We already know. Democrats and NeverTrumpers cheer but know. The Republican base knows, too. The campaign should be about what we have lost since 2020. War, inflation, indoctrination in craziness like DEI, energy shortages.
The DOJ and the various nut case DA's are patently biased. Well, they're pols and pols act like pols. What's more disturbing is the media. They're also biased against Trump, but more than that they're biased against free speech itself. How does that even happen? It's not just Trump. They were in favor of restricting the speech of those with questions about COVID management. This had extremely negative real word consequences.....The old saw is that we can see further because we're standing on the shoulders of giants. Yeah, maybe. But sometimes our views are blocked because of the long shadows of these giants. Galen had some plausible theories about the need to balance the humors of the body in order to maintain health. This was settled medicine for centuries, and the people who thought otherwise were heretics. Something like that seems to be going on with the various ex cathedra statements of the elite and in the way that elite members of the media report on those statements. We can't see very far because we are imprisoned in a dark cave and that cave is the rectal cavity of these assholes.
Trump and Trump's lawyers are conducting a legal defense in the court of public opinion, possibly at risk to the legal defense to be mounted in the courtroom. Trump seems to be undermining his own fair trial.
Are Trump's arguments being made in the court of public opinion designed to influence the presidential election or the legal proceedings inside the courtroom?
Can the moods created in the court of public opinion affect in any decisive way the legal proceeding conducted in the courtroom? American courtrooms are designed to insulate process and judgments from external influences. Will this hold?
Can the federal judge supervising the trial constrain the defendant sufficiently to protect the objectivity of the legal proceeding in the courtroom while allowing him enough freedom of speech to run for president? Even when Trump's oratorical pyrotechnics are designed to undermine the proceeding in the courtroom? Will the appeals court and the Supreme Court support the trial judge in conducting a fair trial or must the coming trial be a trial by combat and not a trial by law?
I was under the impression that those being prosecuted don't talk because they may say something that could be used as incriminating evidence. There is no legal requirement - beyond a legal 'gag' order, which I find dubious - to remain silent. Am I wrong?
Whoever said the first amendment is weak, never had to go up against it.
I think Abraham Lincoln said that.
‘I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours,’ Bob Dylan said that.
"If you don't like your opponents "playing the victim," one option is not to victimize them."
Best sentence I have read all month long.
WaPo: Take a knee and bray.
Trump may be the first presidential candidate to have to "plead the 5th" in answer to questions posed to him at debates. That would be the most accurate and truthful thing he's ever said.
This all assumes that there is a line they are not willing to cross. Ten years ago, I would believe they would have some boundaries, something they would dare not do. At this point, I am not sure if any exist.
I guess the usual suspects are awaiting their talking points.
And just like that(snap), Althouse became alt-right.
"If he is not gagged and jailed, he can disparage prosecutors and witnesses with impunity." Why shouldn't he be able to disparage persecuters (oops, prosecuters) and witnesses with impunity? It's a free country ain't it? At least it was.
"And as we have been told so many times, Trump is different and must be treated differently. New norms and new precedents will be established and Trump is the mechanism."
There is now a recognized "Trump exception" to all laws, rules, regulations, and precedents. The left will even admit to that "fact" as they endorse the same behaviors or statements in others that they loudly condemn in President Trump and for which they demand he be jailed.
What's more disturbing is the media. They're also biased against Trump, but more than that they're biased against free speech itself.
@William, let someone propose restrictions of even the mildest sort on their right to print whatever they want and whenever they want. They’ll rediscover the First Amendment at just barely under light speed.
If here's an emergency declared, Joe can do what he wants...
OH LOOK!
https://amgreatness.com/2023/08/21/morning-greatness-biden-faces-calls-to-declare-climate-emergency/
"...posturing in the theater of victimhood."
"Gold, Jerry, gold!"
"The DOJ and the various nut case DA's are patently biased. Well, they're pols and pols act like pols. What's more disturbing is the media. They're also biased against Trump, but more than that they're biased against free speech itself. How does that even happen? It's not just Trump. They were in favor of restricting the speech of those with questions about COVID management. "
This continues TO THIS DAY with respect to COVID and Climate Change. Try criticizing that and see how fast google demonetizes you.
It is disturbing that they think speech should be policed. Also disturbing is the DOJ's argument that "Delaying Donald Trump's federal trial for his efforts to stop the peaceful transfer of power until 2026 would 'deny the public its right to a speedy trial'." Here I thought that the right to a speedy trial was to protect the defendant from being locked up without trial, like what's happened to the J6 defendants. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/pushing-trumps-federal-jan-6-case-2026-deny-public-speedy-trial-doj-sa-rcna101056)
"You're gonna fit right in. Everyone in here is innocent.” ~ Red
See you in court.
I don't support Trump for election as President this time around; I think he had his chance and he blew it; we can do better. But if the Democrats (and that includes their judges) try to punish him for what he says about the charges they've brought against him, they will force me to join the broken-glass brigade of Trump voters. Please don't make me do that.
Rich said...
"You're gonna fit right in. Everyone in here is innocent.” ~ Red
8/22/23, 2:57 PM
Chuck said...
See you in court.
8/22/23, 3:05 PM
--
Hey! where's lonejustice?
Althouse at 10:03 am: "Zero chance the Supreme Court will allow it."
Are you sure they won't find a way to sidestep the case?
Also , let me make a prediction. If they do issue a ruling, it won't be nine to zero. And that's when you'll know our Republic is hanging on the lives of the conservative Justices.
"If he is not gagged and jailed, he can disparage prosecutors and witnesses with impunity." Why shouldn't he be able to disparage persecuters (oops, prosecuters) and witnesses with impunity? It's a free country ain't it? At least it was.
Yes it is still a free country. But the First Amendment doesn't allow threatening and intimidating prosecutors, witnesses or grand jurors. Show me one poor defendant that wouldn't find his ass in jail if he posted the same shit Trump has criticizing the judge, DA, grand jury, and witnesses in his case.
I don't support Trump for election as President this time around; I think he had his chance and he blew it; we can do better. But if the Democrats (and that includes their judges) try to punish him for what he says about the charges they've brought against him, they will force me to join the broken-glass brigade of Trump voters. Please don't make me do that.
And if this thinly veiled threat of violence doesn't demonstrate that Trump is advocating violence against his "persecutors", you just aren't paying attention.
Oh, and I missed the press conference on Monday where Trump revealed an “Irrefutable REPORT” about the 2020 presidential election fraud that took place in Georgia.
Even his lawyers are trying to suppress his first amendment rights!
There is now a recognized "Trump exception" to all laws, rules, regulations, and precedents.
Well, yes there is. Trump is still a viable candidate even though he has been found civilly liable for sexual assault (can you imagine the mileage you would get out of Bill Clinton losing a similar case), and is under indictment by the federal, New York, and Georgia government for a series of crimes.
"Trump's opponents are in a bind. The more the courts restrict Trump's speech about the substance of the cases, the stronger his argument that they're violating his freedom of speech."
Trump refuses to shut up and continues to tell lies in the name of free speech, but he also violated the law multiple times and in multiple ways - far more laws than he has actually been charged with. And the four indictments before the courts are not complex. The NY State trial and the MAL Federal case are both backed by documental evidence - evidence that he cannot refute.
His conspiratorial "steal the election cases" are backed by evidential testimony from the conspirators themselves that have already resulted in about 1000 wins in court and sentences up to 30 years.
So what is this BS about freedom of speech? There is no charge out there related to speech. Instead, he will answer for his actions. And before any election win to supposedly keep him out of jail, 50 Secretary of State offices will answer to whether he will be permitted to run for office in each state under the straightforward provisions of the 14th Amendment.
So Trump doesn't have to lose all 161 or whatever indictments hanging out there or be kicked off the ballot in all 50 states to end up in jail for what remains of his lifetime. He can avoid prison by agreeing to do a "Spiro Agnew" out-of-court plea bargain. Otherwise, any attempt to get out of Dodge by screaming "free speech" will inadvisably put him in the witness chair perhaps as many as four times - with good odds that he will be doing laundry for the first time in his life.
I was under the impression that those being prosecuted don't talk because they may say something that could be used as incriminating evidence. There is no legal requirement - beyond a legal 'gag' order, which I find dubious - to remain silent. Am I wrong?
That's the way it should be. But the argument is that a defendants speech is tainting the case by arguing matters outside of court (where things might not be admissible) and biasing the jury pool. The thing is we have processes to isolate jurors. They are reminded to only consider the facts presented in the courtroom. We have voir doire to find unbiased jurors.
So that morphs into "gag" orders where defendants are not allowed to talk about any facts that might bolster their reputation and the process becomes the punishment. Notice that gag orders don't bar the media from speculating what their sources tell them. Bans on free speech are only designed for tyranny. Gagging a candidate for the highest office in the land is the perfect hypothetical for Supreme Court Review.
He can avoid prison by agreeing to do a "Spiro Agnew" out-of-court plea bargain.
And there is the real reason for all this. They think Trump will just give up and go away. I wouldn't bet on it. And his followers won't stop just because he is in jail. There will be more Trump candidates in the future.
Trump is advocating violence
"Broken glass brigade" refers to voters who will crawl over broken glass to get to the polls. The allusion is that broken glass is strewn before the voter to try and stop them. It's violence against the voter, perpetrated by the State, against the people at large. Otherwise known as tyranny.
Yes it is still a free country. But the First Amendment doesn't allow threatening and intimidating prosecutors, witnesses or grand jurors.
Can I stand on the front steps of the Courthouse and say prosecutors are stupid? Can I say that about a judge? Can I say it about SCOTUS? Can a citizen publicly wish a heart attack for Justice Thomas? Does the First Amendment allow all of that?
And since you put grand jurors in there, where has Trump or anyone for that matter threatened a grand juror? The clerk failed to redact the grand jurors names but that wasn't a Trump failure.
For all this talk about how Trump is so bad with words and says the wrong things people sure do want him to shut up.
Yep. Our usual suspects were waiting for the MSNBC talking points.
I think Trump’s decision to skip the debate has little to do with his relationship with Fox. Trump is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but he is cunningly clever when it comes to managing the MAGA crowd.
Trump knows he has nothing to gain from attending the debate, and has everything to lose if someone like Chris Christie can land a few punches, or if another candidate can make him look incoherent and unhinged. There is also the risk for him that he says something in the heat of the debate that harms his chances in the various legal cases against him. I think that’s why he’s staying away from this and any other debate, regardless of which network is hosting the debate.
“Yes it is still a free country. But the First Amendment doesn't allow threatening and intimidating prosecutors, witnesses or grand jurors. Show me one poor defendant that wouldn't find his ass in jail if he posted the same shit Trump has criticizing the judge, DA, grand jury, and witnesses in his case.”
Who gets to determine this? One highly political Soros funded prosecutor and one county judge in one county out of a thousand counties in this country? The two of them, the judge and the Soros funded DA, get to decide what the Presidential candidate of the other political party gets to say during a Presidential election?
Note that the grand jury is irrelevant here. They did their job, they essentially rubber stamped what that Soros funded DA put before them, in an ex parte hearing. Ex parte here means that the only evidence they saw came from that DA. The defense got zero chance to provide them with any competing or exonerating evidence, or even try to rebut it. The DA got to make up the law, and there was no one there to tell them that the DA was lying through their teeth.
Lest though anyone thinks that this is purely a 1st Amdt issue - Trump apparently had to agree to the gag order in order to get bail. Which suggests to me that by the time this is all over, there will be a GA bench warrant out for Trump, that he will ignore, by avoiding GA. But then, we are already seeing how this is going down, with NYC repeatedly now refusing to give Trump and his motorcade any sort of priority on their streets - something that they routinely provide even banana republic potentates. Because they can.
Otherwise known as tyranny.
Well Gadfly, Freder, Chuck and Rich (BIRM) are pro-tyranny, especially the part where they reinterpret everything non-leftists say as "threats" or even "violence." If they ever defend the 1A here it will be the first time I've seen it.
"Blogger Freder Frederson said...
I don't support Trump for election as President this time around; I think he had his chance and he blew it; we can do better. But if the Democrats (and that includes their judges) try to punish him for what he says about the charges they've brought against him, they will force me to join the broken-glass brigade of Trump voters. Please don't make me do that.
And if this thinly veiled threat of violence doesn't demonstrate that Trump is advocating violence against his "persecutors", you just aren't paying attention."
Are they sitting outside the persecutors homes with bullhorns all night. If not spare me.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा