[U.S. district judge Tanya] Chutkan’s gag order, which is currently paused, bars Trump and his attorneys from speech that would “target” foreseeable witnesses, prosecutors in the case and court personnel....
The ACLU said the order is vague enough to violate Trump’s due process rights, contending he “cannot possibly know” what he is permitted to say.
“The entire order hinges on the meaning of the word ‘target,’” the ACLU wrote in its brief. “But that meaning is ambiguous, and fails to provide the fair warning that the Constitution demands, especially when, as here, it concerns a prior restraint on speech.”
The civil liberties group also contended the order is overly broad in violation of Trump’s First Amendment rights, saying it could prevent him from speaking about key points in the campaign, including the results of the 2020 presidential election and the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
Boldface added (to highlight First Amendment doctrine).
This is the D.C. federal court case, but there's also a gag order in the civil fraud trial in state court in New York. Trump has been fined twice for violating the state court gag order, and Trump took the stand in in that case yesterday.
The state court judge, Arthur Engoron, questioned Trump about his saying there is a “very partisan judge with a person who is very partisan sitting alongside him, perhaps even more partisan than he is.” Was he talking about the judge's law clerk? Trump testified that he was talking about Michael Cohen! How was Michael Cohen, a witness, "sitting alongside" the judge?
Did Trump lie under oath? That's a separate matter, of course, with no bearing on the question whether the gag orders violate Trump's free-speech rights.
ADDED: If you're trying to picture the seating arrangement: "The judge's clerk, Allison Greenfield, typically sits right next to the judge, and during pretrial hearings often questioned attorneys for the two sides herself."
Posts
80 comments:
Watch out for flying pigs today.
In software that is what we call a feature perceived as a bug.
-XC
It appears Chutkan is not overly burdened with intelligence. Which makes sense, given she was an 0bama pick.
As they say in the Talmud, "One mitzvot does not an entire life of sin erase"
Put more simply: ACLU - 1, Everyone else with a brain - 14,658
Glad you could join us ACLU. Long and hard is the road that leads from hell into light, so get cracking.
No-no-notorious, notorious (ah)
No-no-notorious
You own the money
You control the witness
I'll leave you lonely
Don't monkey with my business
You pay the prophets to justify your reasons
I heard your promise, but I don't believe it
That's why I've done it again
No-no-notorious
Duran Duran
Nice. We need to end judicial dictatorships inside and out of their courtrooms. The most ridiculous charge that can be laid is contempt of court. I could see busting people for disorderly conduct or interference with a proceeding. Contempt of court is nothing but a thought crime.
I do not understand why every lawyer in the country isn’t standing up on his soapbox and screaming at the top of his lungs about this brutal corruption of the judiciary, this lawfare attack on Trump in multiple venues. I met and talked frequently with Bill Kuntsler, the great 1960s civil rights lawyer, when I lived in Woodstock. He would never have tolerated this lawfare campaign, and he was by the standards of the day far leftist… and Jewish. He even defended the free speech rights of Nazis.
It won’t do any good to tell you what to do, prof, and I know you have your own objectives for this blog, but it looks to me like your “cruel neutrality” stance is now bullshit.
I wasn't there, haven't seen any pictures, but I would imagine the witness stand is in front of the court, beside and slightly below the judge. In other words, alongside. Makes sense to me.
I wasn't there, haven't seen any pictures, but I would imagine the witness stand is in front of the court, beside and slightly below the judge. In other words, alongside. Makes sense to me.
That's what I thought too. Or, alternatively, something like what my husband does - "The hardware store is right next door to the shoe store." Me: "What? No it's not, it's at the other end of the strip mall." Him: "I forgot I was talking to the word police. Ok, the hardware store is in the same strip mall as the shoe store."
"Target?" Right.
The ACLU is a shadow of its former self.
I wonder which ACLU lawyer went rougue. Keep in mind that the Nazi march in Skokie,(all 11 0f them), was defended as free speech by only one ACLU lawyer.
I am heartened to this liberal group actually adhere to Classical Liberalism and defend free speech again, especially because it is speech by the most vilified figure of current politics. I hope it is one data point among many that signal some return to American principles amongst the activist crowd.
"I do not understand why every lawyer in the country isn’t standing up on his soapbox and screaming at the top of his lungs about this brutal corruption of the judiciary."
Because they'd never work again. As the saying goes, just because it doesn't look like a war doesn't mean you're not in one. They're in one, whether they know it or not, and the casualties are people's careers.
@Cheryl
Your visualization makes sense in general, but in this courtroom the clerk sits right next to the judge. I added this fact to the post.
If the judge sat alone then the witness might be the closest seated figure near him, but if that were the setup, I don't think the expression "sitting alongside him" would have been used.
Here the clerk is literally "sitting alongside him," and Trump's effort to say that meant Cohen not credible.
are we ta[l]king Trump both literally and seriously?!
I get ACLU beg letters all the time. On the rare days that I'm feeling generous I just shred them. The rest of the time? I won't describe what happens.
This statement by ACLU is encouraging: if they do it about 50,000 more times, I might warm to them.
Perhaps Trump, not known for literal speech, meant that Cohen sat idealistically next to the judge. They're side by side against him. Shoulder to shoulder. Arm in arm. Two peas in a pod.
I’ve previously mentioned how poorly developed the case law is on the constitutionality of gag orders. It’s sort of a poorly developed area of law, that in general courts look very skeptically on prior restraints on speech and ordering people not to talk about certain things, not to say certain things, that it's very difficult to do that in a way that's constitutional. But this one’s limited scope — focusing on commentary that is likely to disrupt the court and unlikely to have significant value even for the defendants. It’ll be interesting to read what the courts have to say about this.
I reject the claim that courts can punish non-lawyers for statements made outside of court, however offensive they may be to the judge, court employees, lawyers, opposing parties, etc. A judge can censor anyone's speech within the courtroom, but they cannot lawfully curtail the speech of individuals outside the courtroom except for lawyers (as officers of the court). The fact that Trump is a defendant doesn't mean he loses his right to free speech. He should be as free as you or I to criticize the judge or clerk as partisan hacks if that's what he wants to do. He didn't ask to be a defendant. His only obligation to the court IMO is to follow the usual rules and customs of decorum while he is in the courtroom.
but in this courtroom the clerk sits right next to the judge.
This is non-responsive; the question is where was Cohen seated in relation to the judge. Presumably it was a traditional witness box, where the witness is also next to the judge, because if Cohen wasn't next to her, you would have said so. Using "alongside" to describe Cohen is thus perfectly reasonable.
You seem to be suggesting that only one person can be "alongside" another at a time, but that would be a unique definition of the word; I doubt you can find examples of anyone else defining it that way. There's no reason to think that Trump would also have recognized this unusual interpretation.
And even if one does define the word that way, it just strains credulity to think that just because the clerk was a little bit closer to the judge, she was the one Trump was referring to. She's a court employee whose name Trump might not even know, whereas Cohen is a longtime enemy whom Trump clearly believes to have betrayed him.
I think the issue of credibility needs to look at the entirety of Trump's statement:
CSPAN has the entire statement which starts with the comments on Cohen so it is possible to interpret that he's talk about Cohen with the "sitting alongside". The really funny thins is that the Captions have it as sitting alongside "us" instead of "him" which would then reference the DA (though listening it certainly sounds like him).
Finally, wouldn't the fact that what he is saying (if he's referencing the Judge's assistant) is factual count for something? Would Trump be exposed to a fine if he just said something like "she's wearing a red blouse"?
ACLU = American (questionable) Civil (but only highly selected ones) Liberties (as if it knows the meaning) Union (and all that that means in lefty-speak).
NEVER took a case advancing the interests of a citizen wanting the protections of the 2d Amendment.
You know, there are times when it's probably wise to exercise cruel neutrality...and then there are times when you need to be a Shouting Thomas. We're there.
I could care less whether Trump was referring to the clerk or the witness. I do find it hilarious that the same people who always claim Trump is lying are this time are trying to parse a somewhat ambiguous statement to prove Trump is lying in violation of a questionably legal prior restraint which is the actual basis of the article.
When Trump is in the rear view mirror, will the reporters, editors, pundits and blogs currently consumed with Trump Derangement Syndrome develop the same zeal for pursuing the Biden crime family doings and associated DOJ malfeasance?
Just kidding.
>Ann Althouse said...
If the judge sat alone then the witness might be the closest seated figure near him, but if that were the setup, I don't think the expression "sitting alongside him" would have been used.
Here the clerk is literally "sitting alongside him," and Trump's effort to say that meant Cohen not credible.<
You are being very linear here. Sure it is credible. A common use of the word is exactly as Trump of course meant it. Is there anyone here who has not heard or used it in this sense? The dictionaries certainly know about it (and this is only a few of them).
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
2: in company with
Collins Dictionary
2. If you work alongside other people, you all work together in the same place.
Cambridge Dictionary
next to, or together with
I have practiced law for 20 years, tried dozens of cases and never heard of a judge's clerk questioning parties. is this standard practice in NY? if so, then the clerk is not merely court officer.
"I do not understand why every lawyer in the country isn’t standing up on his soapbox and screaming at the top of his lungs about this brutal corruption of the judiciary."
Maybe four years ago. Maybe two years ago or last year. But Trump has tried his best to destroy any kind of sympathy that a lot of people would have for him. And frankly, people are WORN OUT at defending him and all the drama generally, much of which he brings on himself.
"How was Michael Cohen, a witness, "sitting alongside" the judge?"
Oh, for fuck's sake- it is easy to imagine Cohen sitting in the witness box next to a judge. This is the most common courtroom arrangement in the United States.
Why would he bother to "prevaricate" about the secondary "partisan" person when he already identified the Judge as the primary "partisan" person?
"Your visualization makes sense in general, but in this courtroom the clerk sits right next to the judge. I added this fact to the post.
If the judge sat alone then the witness might be the closest seated figure near him, but if that were the setup, I don't think the expression "sitting alongside him" would have been used.
Here the clerk is literally "sitting alongside him," and Trump's effort to say that meant Cohen not credible."
If you mean this to just rile us up, well done! If you are being serious, then you are denser than a neutron star.
So trump should have said the judge and the person two persons over. Silly. Corrupt judge.
The Supreme Court case NYT V Sullivan specifically deals with public figures/ employees as unprotected from critical speech and comments. How are court clerks not treated the same? Don’t take the job if you can’t take the heat.
@Mark.
A more confused response to my remarks is hard to imagine. Nothing I said indicated that anybody should support Trump politically.
The lawfare attacks on Trump corrupt both our judicial and electoral systems. Our judicial system is being used to attempt to punish political dissidence and to rig the 2024 election. Doesn’t matter whether or not you like Trump.
As Scott Adams said today, this lawfare attack is open and unapologetic election rigging. The Democrats aren’t even bothering to disguise it, as they did a little in 2020.
Personally? I wouldn't go on world-wide TV and trash a judge in a case against me.
But to not let a man speak, whatever he wants to say, is not only wrong but election interference...
The KKK has long lacked any real power. Defending them gives you credibility, while not actually helping your enemies.
Trump testified that he was talking about Michael Cohen! How was Michael Cohen, a witness, "sitting alongside" the judge?
Was Cohen in some other room testifying via Zoom? If not, this is silly.
This is classic Trump. He says one thing, but gets the listener to hear a totally different thing. Both are possible.
He intended for the judge to get riled up, he wanted the judge to get mad thinking Trump was violating the gag order. He knew he had deniability with Cohen on the stand.
People say that Trump is very imprecise with his language, but he's very precise, he just seems imprecise. It's disarming. It gives him plausible deniability. It gives him the ability to do A/B testing. It's a superpower.
"Was he talking about the judge's law clerk? Trump testified that he was talking about Michael Cohen! How was Michael Cohen, a witness, "sitting alongside" the judge?"
TaserFace: "It's metaphorical!"
Blogger Owen said...
I get ACLU beg letters all the time. On the rare days that I'm feeling generous I just shred them.
If they come with a postage paid return envelope, ALWAYS put the materials they sent in the return envelope and mail it back to them. It costs them 75 cents or so each time you do that.
They quickly get the idea and take yo uoff the list.
I used to get stuff from the Colonial Insurance Company, errr I mean AARP, pretty much weekly asking me to join. Sending it back, at their expense, worked like a charm.
Related, another petty annoyance. A friend who died requested donations to a cancer center in his name. I sent $25 (we were not that close). Now I get letters monthly asking for more money. They've spent more trying to get more money out of me than I ever gave.
I give $100/month to St Jude's Children's hospital and have been for a few years. About once a year I get a letter thanking me for the donation. Other than that, they leave me alone. This is how it should be done. Spend my money on the kids, not trying to get more.
John Henry
Attorneys shouldn’t be required to answer questions from the law clerk, and the judge shouldn’t allow it.
If the judge sat alone then the witness might be the closest seated figure near him, but if that were the setup, I don't think the expression "sitting alongside him" would have been used.
Here the clerk is literally "sitting alongside him," and Trump's effort to say that meant Cohen not credible.
Great, now do he word neighbor.
I have neighbors that live in a different zip code, and those in adjacent to me that I dont know. Its a cultural thing. Like calling a man 'son' that in 50 and not related.
Trump wasn't filing a legal brief, and judge lacks evidence, and ignores due process.
Never in these news reports do they talk about how insane this is and how Trump is being treated as no other ex-POTUS has been treated. Or even normal people in a civil suit.
I'd love to see how many civil suit defendents are threatened with jail. Or fined any money for their out-of=court speech. As for Smith, he's just a stalinist DNC gangster, he doesn't even pretend to be objective or unbiased.
But tHis is the new normal. The Democrats/Left trying to destroy by lawfare any politician they wish. And the reponse by GOPe and Conservative INc. is to yawn. They're 10x more upset over Biden not supporting Israel enough!
This shows GOPe, including DeSantis, are the controlled opppostion. We might as well just elect Democrats, since the R's are only there for show. Washington Generals in a rigged game.
@ PG: Trump, in this case, has been vigorously attacking, in public, Judge Engoron, and the Attorney General, and all sorts of other people, but he crossed a red line when he attacked the judge's law clerk, which any attorney would tell you, attacking court staff is a absolutely insane thing to do. It's the best way to make sure everything starts to go badly for you, just because of the things those court staff can do, and it very much antagonizes the judge. On the legal level — probably saying that for the system to function, the court staff has to be not afraid for its safety because of threats, is persuasive and the speech value of attacks on the court staff would probably be seen as low and something just restricting attacks on court staff is going to be seen as narrowly tailored.
I always thought free speech outside the courtroom was protected. Or is this a case where the Leftwing Judges are using a reasonable tradition in an unreasonable way?
You can't have some Mob Boss going outside the Courtroom and threatening witnesses or courtroom personel. "vote not guilty or you're dead".
So these leftwing judges, just USE THAT - in an obviously absurd insane way. So, anything Trump says is somehow a "Threat". Or may not be, depending on the Judge's whim and how they feel that day.
This is judicial tryanny and rule of men, not rule of law.
And frankly, people are WORN OUT at defending him and all the drama generally
Trump does not need defending.
There is no drama. Just the theater group you spend so much energy watching, want you to "believe!"
4 years of the Trump administration brought rare, peace and prospeerity to this great nation. Explain what was "dramatic" about it?
The little boy screanming WOLFE! three times a day is not drama...its entertainment, or propaganda. You get to choose.
Final comment. That fake Andrew McCarthy is now saying the DOJ should go "scorched earth" on "antisemties" like they did with the 1000 J6 prosecutions. Which he approves of.
No mercy for the counter-revolutionaries and wreckers. We will smoke them out and punish those running dogs of capitalism, Comrades.
Is there anyone still dumb enought to think McCarthy is some sort of conservative? Or even Republican? He's just another David French/Bill Kristol fake-con with a law degree.
Final comment. That fake Andrew McCarthy is now saying the DOJ should go "scorched earth" on "antisemties" like they did with the 1000 J6 prosecutions. Which he approves of.
No mercy for the counter-revolutionaries and wreckers. We will smoke them out and punish those running dogs of capitalism, Comrades.
Is there anyone still dumb enought to think McCarthy is some sort of conservative? Or even Republican? He's just another David French/Bill Kristol fake-con with a law degree.
Love the NY fraud case where there is no defrauded. Also dim prosecutors with no understanding of the implications of non recourse financing on lender due diligence.
I read yesterday that Trump was fined for statements made outside the NY Courtroom. I just don't see how that passes Constitutional Muster. Maybe I read it wrong. Or maybe the Judge has far overreached their authority.
The interesting thing is that the ACLU feels the need to pretend to support civil liberties again. Their donations must be suffering something awful.
It's a superpower.
I would add it's another case of Trump creating a "win/win" scenario. The judge ignores it and the gag order looks weak. The judge reacts to it and the gag order looks silly and highlights the law clerk (who in this case appears to be cross examining attorneys? Is that normal?).
The third option available to the judge was to go nuclear and enforce the gag order by jailing Trump. That would have been a grand slam immediate appeal to the higher courts. Huuugee win for Trump.
still trying to understand why a judge's clerk is asking parties questions in court? I am disturbed by this because the clerk is neither elected, politically accountable in elections or impeachment (i.e. the clerk is probably collectively bargained), nor hired by a party as part of the dispute. this should concern litigants and shows unfairness.
It's a little late to be thinking about that. The fact is, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is unconstitutional. She should be deported, to whatever shithole she slithered out of.
Actually, DC should be deported to whatever shithole it slithered out of. It has no place in a constitutional republic. I'm hoping the Norks, or maybe the Iranians, will nuke it.
It's an astonishing situation, although pretty clearly some people planned it and carried it out. I think it was George Soros, or someone who worked for him, who recognized that our system of governance is exquisitely vulnerable to external subversion at the local level. For a trivial investment, you can install a criminal as the local DA. That POS can then destroy the city it infests, and, we are now seeing, can actually reach out from its shithole to seize and destroy anyone its owner wants to see destroyed. It can also destroy any attorney who tries to defend him.
He also noticed that the mechanism designed to forestall this, namely elections, can also be subverted, again for a trivial sum, by buying a Secretary of State. We are truly fucked.
"Also dim prosecutors with no understanding of the implications of non recourse financing on lender due diligence."
Oh, yeah, that's the problem. The prosecutors "don't understand". Mike, they lick the bowl. They know what was in it.
"Is there anyone still dumb enough to think McCarthy is some sort of conservative?"
He's a DC conservative. He wants to conserve DC. He does not want the Norks or the Iranians to nuke it. I guess that makes him a patriot. Of DC.
gspencer said...
"ACLU = American (questionable) Civil (but only highly selected ones) Liberties (as if it knows the meaning) Union (and all that that means in lefty-speak).
NEVER took a case advancing the interests of a citizen wanting the protections of the 2d Amendment."
That's why the NRA is the largest civil rights organization in the US, rather than the American Certain Liberties Union.
(Although some prefer other 2nd Amendment rights groups to the NRA).
The Times Union story on the trial includes a courtroom sketch at the link below that clearly shows the witness, Cohen, seated directly next to (and at roughly the same height as) the judge.
https://www.timesunion.com/news/politics/article/donald-trump-expected-back-at-civil-fraud-trial-18443847.php
CNN has a different courtroom sketch also showing Cohen seated directly next to the Judge while on the stand:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/25/trump-fraud-trial-michael-cohen-testifies-in-fraud-trial.html
It is okay to admit that you are wrong on this one, Professor.
Also, why is the clerk questioning the attorneys? WTF?
“very partisan judge with a person who is very partisan sitting alongside him, perhaps even more partisan than he is.”
Remember when TRUTH was an actual valid defense?
Even if Trump was talking about the judge AND the clerk, is that not a true statement?
Ask Trump under oath if he is a "partisan" person, I am pretty sure he would reply "yes". It appears to me that judge is definitely a partisan person. (Not enough info to know about the clerk.)
Is truthfully calling a partisan a "partisan", an example of targeting? If so, free speech is dead in this country and authoritarian Democrats are the ones who killed it!
So trump should have said the judge and the person two persons over. Silly. Corrupt judge.
Look at the courtroom sketches - Cohen is literally seated right next to the judge. The clerk (based on other photos I have seen) is seated at the other side of the judge.
By the way, if he actually was referring to the clerk, anyone bother to report on what questions the clerk was asking of the two sides, and why the clerk was addressing the parties in any way> It certainly suggests that the clerk has an agenda to push.
In my courtrooms, witness sit right alongside the judge when they are on the stand to testify.
“As the trier of fact I find that the witness is not credible," ~ Judge Engoron
Trump's problem isn't so much stupidity as it is pathological narcissism: he just can't shut up.
I wonder if Trump can talk about the law clerk by asking questions next?
"Why is the partisan Judge allowing people to whisper in his ear?"
"Why does the partisan Judge have his law clerk sitting with him?"
Note that isn't disparaging to the clerk, just the judge.
The judge and clerk, and Constitution, exist in parallel universes.
Rich said...
“As the trier of fact I find that the witness is not credible," ~ Judge Engoron
"Trump's problem isn't so much stupidity as it is pathological narcissism: he just can't shut up."
Are you a psychiatrist? Has Trump been your patient?
ditto Mike at 8:44!
Trump's problem isn't so much stupidity as it is pathological narcissism: he just can't shut up.
How would things be better for Trump if he kept silent? This isn't a judicial proceeding. It's a political proceeding using the judicial system to target a political opponent. Keeping silent is the GOPe tack which is why they lose (see Romney, et. al.)
The only thing that this has "cost" Trump is $10k that he is never going to pay. He made that in 3 seconds of fundraising.
Worst.
Client.
Ever.
Trump brings this on himself with his refusal to discipline himself and shut the hell up.
Remember when TRUTH was an actual valid defense?
Even if Trump was talking about the judge AND the clerk, is that not a true statement?
I remember the truth that only an idiot trashes the judge during a case, as well as the truth that trashing the judge is contempt of court, whether the trashing is true or not.
VA Lawyer Mark: "And frankly, people are WORN OUT at defending him and all the drama generally, much of which he brings on himself."
The lies one has to tell oneself to believe Trump himself is responsible for all the usual suspects bringing on these non-stop hoaxes, deep state attacks, weaponization of govt against domestic political opponents and coordinated dem/media narrative lies for the last 7 years.
Go take a nap Mark. You probably need it.
The ACLU siding with a litigant doesn't mean what it used to mean.
"From CBS
Trump acknowledged making the statement, but said it was about "you and Cohen." (Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer and "fixer," had been testifying for the second day.)
"You didn't mean the person on the other side of me?" Engoron asked, referring to Greenfield.
"Yes, I'm sure," Trump said.
Soon after, Trump was allowed off the stand and Engoron issued him a $10,000 fine.
Attorneys for Trump protested, saying Greenfield's behavior was unusual for a law clerk.
Trump attorney Alina Habba said she "does not like being yelled at by law clerks who did not earn the robe," and said Greenfield's "influence on the bench is completely inappropriate and it should stop."
Engoron countered that his practice is to consult with his law clerks.
"I value input from both my law clerks," Engoron said. "Every judge does things differently. I don't know if others have them sit on the bench, that's how I do things. I make the final decisions."
Jupiter said...
" It's a little late to be thinking about that. The fact is, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is unconstitutional. She should be deported, to whatever shithole she slithered out of.
Actually, DC should be deported to whatever shithole it slithered out of. It has no place in a constitutional republic. I'm hoping the Norks, or maybe the Iranians, will nuke it."
CRACKER!
In every court room that I participated in the Judge was on a bench about 2 feet higher than the witness box that was adjoining the Judges bench and between the Judge and the Jury Box.
As for calling this a court of Justice that is absurd. Judicial Gag orders have always been for protecting the pristine jury’s ears. And there are none. This nasty little clown is re-enacting the tyrants old favorite orders that’s the victim’s tongue to be cut out.
Speaking of Felonies...
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/10/26/new-footage-confirms-jamaal-bowman-removed-emergency-signs-before-pulling-fire-alarm/
Lookie there, a public school principal? What a role model.
Asking Trump to shut the hell up is asking a great leader to become another Dementia victim. That would prevent a comparison between the two candidates. Ergo: pure election interference.
1. ICE NINE for the win!
2. As a former Postmaster, I can tell you that, at least at the local level, Business Reply Mail that contains nothing or something other than a response (such as fishing weights hoping to get the mail a higher charge) are DEDUCTED from the original bill statement when the mailer present evidence at the appropriate time. Empties are presented at the Mail Facility (if the mailer wants to take the time -- not every company gets hundreds or more a day) and if it is an obvious "prank" -- afterwards, if evidence presented show a non-obvious misuse. Don't forget that the MAILER pays for the BRM (Business Reply Mail) and is thus entitled to a refund if the mailpiece comes back other than what it is designed for.
3. The Hostess makes a not-credible statement about the definition of "alongside" and perhaps is attempting to read Trump's mind as the biased judge is doing. "I worked alongside Fred for years," a man might testify as a character witness. He certainly wasn't talking about "positioning". Silly.
4.The idea that most people shouldn't trash the judge is a sound one (assuming you think a judge is affected by personal insults and bad behavior and the like) -- but the outcome and desire to railroad DJT is clear and he's a fighter, thank God, so he should even be more insulting to this cretin.
MarcusB. THEOLDMAN
traditionalguy said...
"In every court room that I participated in the Judge was on a bench about 2 feet higher than the witness box that was adjoining the Judges bench and between the Judge and the Jury Box."
traditionalguy has had several experiences in court copping a plea to peeping tom charges.
I've tried a lot of cases in a lot of courts. The witness stand is right there next to the judge.
The clerks sit on the other side, and never get to question witnesses.
Post a Comment