Writes Jonah Bromwich, covering the Trump trial at the NYT.
Some of us are worried that politics infuses everything that the judge and the prosecutors do. I insist on hearing good faith arguments — and the truth — wherever possible.
It seems to me, we are talking about gagging a presidential candidate, whose prosecution might be political persecution, and that's inescapably political. It's not something to be brushed off as some sort of "ethos" of Trump's that deserves "a complete onslaught."
पोस्ट्स
७५ टिप्पण्या:
And he said that with a straight face. If that were true, you honor, Trump wouldn't be there.
The cynic in me is waiting for the judge to explicitly forbid Trump from any form of campaigning.
'It seems to me, we are talking about gagging a presidential candidate...'
Usually it's Stormy who is being gagged.
The perfect ending? A hung jury, of course...
Fuck this judge.
Trump should keep talking and happily go to jail as a consequence.
He should also attend his son's graduation.
The dynamic would be changed very quickly...
The suspense ended long long ago about what it is.
"Judge" Merchan's family is sending out fundraising emails right now attacking Trump.
"Judge" Merchan is publicly profiting off the persecution and will personally profit in his family's fundraising efforts if he achieves a conviction.
The case for recusal here is so obvious that Merchan's refusal to do so is criminal.
Everyone supporting this fiesta just openly admits they are a piece of shit.
Even trying to argue that reposts aren’t subject to the gag order should be insulting to Merchan. Using surrogates to violate a gag order—and then amplifying them—is no different than doing it yourself.
Meanwhile when not trying to put gag orders on Trump while they try to throw political opponents in jail Democrats are marching around the country beating up Jews.
It is 1938.
Time to show the world why we are better than Germany.
Trump ethos: the man who would not take a knee in the woke of social justice in the wake of injustice. Eat the rotting apple.
"This hearing, ostensibly about violations of a gag order, doubled as a complete onslaught on the Trump ethos. "
Question for Jon Stewart: What if the Judge says a bunch of outlandish stuff and the Wolf Blitzers just repeat it ad nauseam?
Mr Wibble said...
The cynic in me is waiting for the judge to explicitly forbid Trump from any form of campaigning.
i'm waiting for the judge to explicitly state, that "Everybody KNOWS that Trump is Guilty!"
The whole trial is just a formality. Trump is GUILTY! Guilty of beating democrats
@Mr. Wibble (10:37), you are not nearly cynical enough.
It seems to me, we are talking about gagging a presidential candidate, whose prosecution might be political persecution, and that's inescapably political. It's not something to be brushed off as some sort of "ethos" of Trump's that deserves "a complete onslaught."
Strange. That's not how it seems to Jonah Bromwich. Perhaps because he's a member of Team Lying Liars Who Always Lie?
"Some of us are worried that politics infuses everything that the judge and the prosecutors do."
The entire "case" is politics and nothing but politics.
"It seems to me, we are talking about gagging a presidential candidate"
All in the name of combatting election interference. Progs are not just gagging Trump, they are laughing at us.
"It's not something to be brushed off as some sort of "ethos" of Trump's that deserves "a complete onslaught.""
Why not? Progs brush off anything they like, with impunity. What or who is going to stop them? The Althouses of America?
This is political pornography for the left.
Here's a good faith question: If the "hush money" payment were really a campaign expense, would the Trump campaign have legally paid it out of campaign funds? I don't think anyone actually believes the answer to that question is YES.
The fact that this is a past President. Also candidate currently running for the office of President, has no bearing on the law.
ONLY the defendent in this case is gagged. No one else. The thin excuses are what 'might' be said by Trump.
IF that speech violated the law, then the Defendent can be charged with those crimes.
On a side note, The Constitution Bars the government (ie, police) from interfering in the travel of Congressmen, comming or going to the Capital. A very prescient protection, understanding how the power of govt often corrupts individuals. Such a DA Bragg.
The prosecution says they don't want trump jailed as the judge has threatened. They want a $1000 fine for each violation. Trump is daring this corrupt judge to jail him.
Best is if the judge doesn't jail Trump...and it's a $1000 fine per violation, Trump is going violate the gage order all he wants. He should. I think Trump is going to walk out of court soon. Or a least go to Barron's graduation.
We, and free citizens, and Americans, should not have to bow the the whims of corrupt liberal judges. They have WAY too much power they do not deserve. Keep pushing Trump. You'll break him soon.
Come on. The judge's daughter is a Biden fundraiser. Give us a break.
If Trump wins this election (doubtful due to sophisticated cheating by the Dems), he needs to get revenge and retribution on all of his political enemies.
Without wishing to defend Trump one iota, it is fascinating to watch the way in which he pushes conventionally understood boundaries and seems to get away with it much of the time. Makes me wonder how much of what most people do and think is constrained by fear.
OTH — Much of what most people do is constrained by decency and morality, long before it’s constrained by law. Neither constrains Trump.
Is he doing standup this is the second kangaroo jambouree that merchan has been a part of
Meanwhile a convicted felon and perjurist like cohen is allowed to blathet on
Fuck Merchan. The guy is a hyper-partisan with no business judging this trial.
I wonder how the irony of anything these folks say is lost on them. Mom, that lamp was busted before I was born.
- Krumhorn
Ah yes, it's that damn Trump making everything political instead of submitting like a good little boy.
Kangaroos have nothing on this judge--and even a kangaroo couldn't stomach Prosecutor Bragg.
This case is election interference--from start to finish.
I love it... Trump re-tweeted somebody else’s tweet recreating J. K. Rowling’s move. Now I’m getting it.
remember this?
Just when I thought he had lost it.
I fully expect the judge to declare Trump in contempt and to jail him indefinitely with a gag order and no access to his campaign or to his attorneys. What's the remedy--asking for an appeal from a court system staffed by Democrats? They'll "take the appeal" and then drag their feet for months.
I'll wait to pay attention when the case is dramatized on Law and Order
For the left, everything is politics.
Or maybe, politics is everything.
I remember when newsweek spiked the lewinsky and david kendall was counsel to the national enquirer as well as clinton
When mickey kaus was the only one follow the edwards story
Remember when...
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3LmhqTKqmbdVeaXrU30Xrw
Every gag order I have ever heard of was to protect the defendant’s right to a fair trail. It is used against the prosecutor and witnesses, not the defendant. Is Michael Cohen facing contempt for his television appearances?
“Some of us are worried that politics infuses everything that the judge and the prosecutors do. I insist on hearing good faith arguments — and the truth — wherever possible.“
Althouse play with the writer and the judge’s comment reminds me of Norm Macdonald’s The Perfect Joke
”Norm MacDonald says that the perfect joke would be where the setup and punchline are identical (or almost identical.) He says the closest they ever got was writing the joke, "Lyle Lovett and Julia Roberts are getting a divorce. Julia Roberts said that the turning point in their marriage was when she realized that she was Julia Roberts and that she was married to Lyle Lovett."
@Dave Begley, the best revenge would be publicizing this far and wide.
Who here has actually read the revised pretrial Decision and Order that Judge Merchan issued on April 1? By the look of it, I see no thoughtful discussion of the order anywhere on this page, including in the original blog post by the blog author. No sensible lawyer would start anywhere else in a discussion of a pretrial order, other than with a close and careful reading of the order in question.
None of Trump's many pretrial orders, in any of his cases, have prohibited him from speaking about politics. Or about prosecutors. Or about judges.
The pretrial orders are uniformly similar, in that Trump is barred from attacking witnesses, jurors, court staff, and family members of those individuals. The order now in question is exactly like that. Trump is not in trouble fofr talking about politics. Trump is in trouble for clearly -- deliberately -- breaching a court order that barred him from talking about jurors and witnesses. If Althouse has a serious, supportable legal view that trial court orders cannot bar criminal defendants (especially high-profile defendants like Trunmp, or especially dangerous defendants like mob bosses) from making comments about, or threats aimed at, jurors and/or witnesses, then I'd like to see Althouse articulate that legal position with specificity. Again; Trump can talk politics as much as he likes, in general. He can talk political smack if it is aimed at prosecutors or the judge. But not if it is aimed at jurors or witnesses.
That's clear, well-established, well-reasoned standard criminal procedure.
"Time to show the world why we are better than Germany."
While we allow our Hitler youth to run wild at the universities and in traffic.
"Rich" thinks that the case, the judge and his daughter and the prosecutor are upstanding people. Cohen, too. Only Trump is at fault.
Rich said...
OTH — Much of what most people do is constrained by decency and morality, long before it’s constrained by law. Neither constrains Trump.
Hey Rich, here's a problem that you and other ani-Trumpers have. Point out a law that Trump actually broke.
Certainly not any laws that he's now being prosecuted for- with legal theories that have never been used in any other case in US history. Virtually every legal analysis of this case by legal scholars and professors says the same thing- it's all BS. And I've seen not one reason why, but they all arrive at that conclusion by different means.
Unlike Obama and brain addled Biden- the Trump administration abided court orders no matter how egregious they were. My favorite was was Trump couldn't use an executive order to cancel an executive order from Obama- an executive order that courts themselves had ruled unconstitutional but yet was still in effect, because he hadn't followed the Administrative Procedures Act. Wow. Oh, the Obama order was issued without following it... Maybe you can carefully explain why Trump haas to obey the courts- but Obama and Biden don't
We don't want a "perfect ending" joe.
We're all looking for a happy ending
John Henry
I also want to address the bullshit nonsense that Trump was "merely re-Tweeting" a statement by Fox host Jesse Watters. And so, it wasn't any violation of anything.
No; it wasn't on X/Twitter. It was on Trump's own Truth Social.
It wasn't any sort of re-Truthing or re-posting. It was an original posting, written by or on behalf of Trump. It was Trump, apparently attempting to adopt Watters' words, but not even doing that accurately. In the end, it was a post written by Trump and very simply advancing Trump's own viewpoint in his own words. All of which constituted a direct, indisputable violation of the pretrial order which barred Trump from talking about jurors.
It was also a fantastic falsehood, but that part actually doesn't even matter. Trump is barred from saying anything -- true or not -- about the jurors or prospective jurors. Trump could say it that Juror 456 had HIV. Or that Juror 258 lived above a bodega on 11th Street in Greenwich Village. Or that Juror 192 worked for Goldman Sachs and was a graduate of Marquette University. Even if all of those things were true, Trump is barred from sahying them.
But of course what was uniquely outrageous and not simply a technical violation of the order was Trump attacking with falsehoods the jurors and prospective jurors.
I could go on, but I'd never do any better than this deliciously elegant takedown of Trump (and Watters) by MSMBC's Lawrence O'Donnell. It is purely glorious. It is required viewing on the subject of the gag order in The People of New York v. Donald J. Trump. Nine minutes and fifty seven seconds.
Rich said...
Without wishing to defend Trump one iota, it is fascinating to watch the way in which he pushes conventionally understood boundaries and seems to get away with it much of the time. Makes me wonder how much of what most people do and think is constrained by fear.
OTH — Much of what most people do is constrained by decency and morality, long before it’s constrained by law. Neither constrains Trump.
A Joe Biden voter just posted this. Rich voted for a known rapist. Not a "oh Trump raped me in a dressing room 20 years ago I just remembered I swear! give me some money" type of rapist. Joe is a "He pinned me up against the wall and stuck his finger in my ***** while forcibly kissing me" with actual police reports and sending government thugs after his accuser type rapist.
And then there is the showering with your adolescent daughter stuff.
These people are not just Nazi pieces of shit.
They are also just really stupid and lack any self awareness.
Not a past president, Iowa.
A President Emeritus
John Henry
I insist on hearing good faith arguments — and the truth — wherever possible.
Gonna have a long wait, Professor.
I agree with AZ Bob above.
Civil rights protections are in place for criminal trials to protect DEFENDANTS from a nearly all-powerful government.
Also, IANAL, but shouldn't Trump's attorney have cited Chaplinsky for case law on the judge's illegal gag order? The government cannot enforce prior restraint on people's speech rights under the First Amendment unless they constitute "fighting words" which are a direct and explicit call that is likely to lead to immediate violence.
Trump saying the trial is rigged or the judge's daughter is fund-raising off of the trial are certainly NOT fighting words.
Biden said it best....
Biden Tries to Dunk on Trump in Tampa and it Goes Horribly Wrong: “How Many Times Does [Trump] Have to Prove We Can’t be Trusted?!”
https://twitter.com/i/status/1782850764446081132
OTH — Much of what most people do is constrained by decency and morality, long before it’s constrained by law. Neither constrains Trump.
Um, Trump is sitting in a courtroom. He wouldn’t be, if not constrained by law. However, he is deliberately mocking the >unlawful< process being used against him. You need to be in the cage to win the match.
If there was any "good faith" to be had this case would have been dismissed with prejudice.
Didn't think it was possible to hate the Democratic Party more.
This is Stalinism. This is a show trial. Democrats are Communist despots who are crazed for power. They will break all rules to seize and keep it. They are more dangerous enemies than Putin and Xi and the drug cartels and all the terrorists who ever lived. They cannot possibly be considered fellow Americans.
How do we avoid a bloody civil war to save our country from such despicable tyrants?
Has Trump's defense team moved for a gag order against all persons or groups that oppose Trump's [re]election? If not, why not? Typically, gag orders in criminal cases are supposed to prevent intimidation of, or influence on, the jurors, but in this case anti-defendant intimidation/influence is at least as much a threat to justice as pro-defendant -- or more of a threat. Gagging the prosecution lawyers (even if that's been ordered) isn't nearly enough. This case is "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK V. TRUMP". No NY official should be allowed to comment on this case any more than Trump can do so. And remember: Under our legal system we are supposed to lean over backward to protect the rights of criminal defendants. What has this court in this CRIMINAL CASE done to protect the rights of Defendant Trump?
Mr. Merchan punted. He's afraid of finding Trump in contempt despite the heavy pressure on him to do so.
Apologies This is what I wanted to put on. Moby Grape
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww_kvfC0n_s&list=OLAK5uy_kW2RC1cXICOqE4vZQgqsGZEClgNVzayhs&index=8
The left love to shut down speech because their own ideas are shit.
This lawfare conducted by Democrats is nothing less than election interference but the idiot Judge Marchan and Prosecutor Corksoakerangelo just want a conviction before November and won’t care when it’s overturned.
Anti-American criminal clowns.
The legal profession should be collectively ashamed of the courts being used to assassinate a candidate because he is for Americans.
It seems to me, we are talking about gagging a presidential candidate...
We are gagging a criminal defendant who has demonstrated a propensity for publicly attacking witnesses, jurors and civil litigants in ways which threaten the operation of the judicial system.
The criminal defendant in this case is already being treated with more deference than we would treat any other conspiracy defendant.
Would we give him an absolute level of deference because he is "a presidential candidate"? How about any other political candidate? A mayor? A U.S. Senator? Much of the real, serious deference that is extended in these cases occurs outside of our view. It occurs internally, within the Department of Justice and within state AG and county prosecutors' offices. They don't file cases on the eve of elections; they choose prosecutions of political figures with excrutiating care.
OK, Chuck, let's assume arguendo, that you are right about the gag order.
Now get to the meat of the matter: can you argue the legal case against Trump "on the merits"?
Will you address the many, many objections to it made by a huge number of legal scholars, inclluding some Trump critics as well?
I'm betting you won't. Prove me wrong.
"Achilles writes: "These people are not just Nazi pieces of shit. They are also just really stupid and lack any self awareness."
More projection than a film festival. Nothing is more insufferable than someone who is ignorant believing they are an intellectual.
Keep aiming for those stars.
effinayright said...
OK, Chuck, let's assume arguendo, that you are right about the gag order.
Now get to the meat of the matter: can you argue the legal case against Trump "on the merits"?
Will you address the many, many objections to it made by a huge number of legal scholars, inclluding some Trump critics as well?
I'm betting you won't. Prove me wrong.
See you in court, sport.
“More projection than a film festival. Nothing is more insufferable than someone who is ignorant believing they are an intellectual.”
Oh… teh irony.
Even trying to argue that reposts aren’t subject to the gag order should be insulting to Merchan. Using surrogates to violate a gag order—and then amplifying them—is no different than doing it yourself.
God forbid that "surrogates" might insult the all-powerful Judge Merchan.
What sort of world do you want to live in? Listen to yourself.
In Soviet USA - Everyone can trash Trump - and Trump must shut up.
Chuck - you are such a leftist stooge. eee gads you are vile.
"We are gagging a criminal defendant who has demonstrated a propensity for publicly attacking witnesses, jurors and civil litigants in ways which threaten the operation of the judicial system.
"
What is this WE shit?
Also - do explain what Trump did or said - specifically - very specifically - that threatened the judicial system?
Rich:
he pushes conventionally understood boundaries
Meaningless statement. Which? Be specific.
That's Rich, as others have said...
Rich - this criminal defendant is presumed innocent.
Whether you like it or not.
“Here's a good faith question: If the "hush money" payment were really a campaign expense, would the Trump campaign have legally paid it out of campaign funds? I don't think anyone actually believes the answer to that question is YES.”
You forget - Trump self financed that election. That makes it, at best, a bookkeeping error, even less bad than his supposed high valuations in another Kangaroo NYC Court.
Rich said...
"Achilles writes: "These people are not just Nazi pieces of shit. They are also just really stupid and lack any self awareness."
More projection than a film festival. Nothing is more insufferable than someone who is ignorant believing they are an intellectual.
Keep aiming for those stars.
+1
That was an incredible self own.
You just really have no idea how stupid you look right now.
Rich says,
Without wishing to defend Trump one iota, it is fascinating to watch the way in which he pushes conventionally understood boundaries and seems to get away with it much of the time. Makes me wonder how much of what most people do and think is constrained by fear.
OTH — Much of what most people do is constrained by decency and morality, long before it’s constrained by law.
You're having to work hard not to recognize that Trump's pursuers blew through constraints of "conventionally understood boundaries" long ago.
The Soviet Union would be proud of these prosecutions.
We are gagging a criminal defendant who has demonstrated a propensity for publicly attacking witnesses, jurors and civil litigants in ways which threaten the operation of the judicial system.
You just described this entire thread.
Are we too to be gagged?
This hearing, ostensibly about violations of a gag order, doubled as a complete onslaught on the Trump ethos. "
"Justice Merchan clarified that politics infused everything that the former president does and insisted on hearing good faith arguments, and the truth, wherever possible. We knew this was going to be a big moment; it was even more revealing than expected."
From the get-go this pull quote was bugging me. It was the "ostensibly."
I'm having trouble figuring out this writer's POV. He appears - or maybe I'm just assuming that he is because he's covering the trial for the NYT - sympathetic to the "onslaught" against the "entire Trump ethos," but he uses "ostensibly" - "in a way that appears or claims to be one thing when it is really something else" from the Cambridge English Dictionary - to describe it, as if he doesn't really believe what he's saying.
But then, he also uses "doubled" to describe the hearing's purpose, which negates the "ostensibly" by implying that now the hearing had two purposes, the original one about the gag order (no longer just ostensibly, apparently) and this second one about the entire Trump ethos. And then he says the judge "clarified" when he meant "stated," "claimed," something like that.
And the rest of that last-referred-to sentence makes the judge sound as if he's ranting, and the bit at the end of the quote about its being an even more revealing moment than expected could refer to the judge's having revealed his political agenda.
So - is the guy secretly sympathetic to the Trump side (I doubt this), AI (I also doubt this - AI would have been more consistent), or just a kid with a thesaurus and no idea how to choose a word?
Can anybody tell me the trick about getting around the paywall? I've never done it before so I have no muscle memory of it, so to speak. I'd like to know how else this writer characterizes the hearing.
There really are two Americas, with different laws. Its just that borders are not posted.
Achillies and Brad.
Don't engage those two. It's what they are both craving. Don't give it to them.
In other words, Chuck refuses to discuss the case itself, thinking he is clever with his "see you in court" line.
I will ask again, just for the record, Chuck- what is your detailed opinion of the charges in this case- a legitimate use of the law or not?
JJM presents an excellent opportunity to bring up salient points to the discussion of speech, or rather gaggable free speech. Are reposts in social media originating or gag-worthy speech? Or are links to others, not unlike citations in legal briefs, speech at all? If a repost or hyperlink is posted without comment, who decides what the "speech" of the repost explicitly meant? Criticism? Approval? Thumbs up? Thumbs down? Followers of the blog may impute, but that is a slippery area. The social media construct does not enforce a continuous cognitive thread in all postings. Certainly, the European Copyright directive forced Google to license newspublisher's content -- so EU has their own take on what speech or news is. Are social media accounts content collaborative aggregation farms or efferent organs of individuals? This is a fascinating issue, and presents an excellent opportunity for debate.
Chuck offers proof positive that he's chicken shit----chicken shit all...the....way....down.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा