Trump on trial, is it justified or lawfare?

[2tallbill]

Trump on trial, is it justified or lawfare? What say you?

[2tallbill]

The basis of a legal argument is to make a point and then reference the law
or the court case that supports your argument.

The argument to take away Trumps first and sixth amendment rights don't
do that. There is no law or cases sited on how Trump should be stripped of
his rights.

There aren't any court cases where they silence the defendant and he can't
rebut his accusers in public.

The legal argument is
Orange man is crazy madman  "January 6th", therefore he is crazy
madman all the time. Since he is a madman he doesn't have constitutional
rights because of our crazy madman rule. It's a totally circular argument.
He is dangerous so he can't talk.

Hopefully,

That whole line of poppycock gets shot down before the radical left adds this
to their playbook.

Here you go 2tall, page 4 "Conclusions of Law" in judge Juan Merchan's sentencing order for Contempt.

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/D.O.motion4contempt-FINAL.pdf

Page 6 fully addresses your concerns, and Constitutional aspects.

Swing and a miss.

It does not address my concerns in the slightest, it's silly to even pretend that it does.
I just read both cases.

Matter of Ormsby Haulers, Inc. v. Tully has zero to do with the right to
free speech or any restrictions on it
https://casetext.com/case/matter-of-ormsby-haulers-inc-v-tully

Sheppard v. Maxwell was about the press and them having free access to the jury before
and during the trial along with members of the press making predictions and asking jurors to
comment on their predictions and various scenarios. The press additionally published the names
and addresses of the jurors
https://casetext.com/case/sheppard-v-maxwell-3?

The case has nothing to do with a defendant or his 1st, 6th and 14th amendments being reduced or
silenced. The case was about the defendant not receiving a fair trial as a result of the press!

The cases are not even tangentially similar to restricting a defendants rights. 
 

[Manny]

Trump on trial, is it justified or lawfare? What say you?

It's a politically motivated witch hunt, of course. The leftoids and the deep state want him in jail. They are terrified of him winning the election.

[BC]

The cases are not even tangentially similar to restricting a defendants rights.

I guess you're smarter at law than Juan, Bill?

[BC]

It's a politically motivated witch hunt, of course. The leftoids and the deep state want him in jail. They are terrified of him winning the election.

All whine, no substance.

[Markje]

It's a politically motivated witch hunt, of course. The leftoids and the deep state want him in jail. They are terrified of him winning the election.

All whine, no substance.

Thats how I see these court cases against trump.

[2tallbill]

I guess you're smarter at law than Juan, Bill?

Appeal to authority fallacy occurs when we accept a claim merely because
someone tells us that an authority figure supports that claim.

I am unable to argue something because someone else has a diploma? So I
guess you are smarter at law than Trumps lawyers?

I read the cases sited, the arguments and rulings, did you?

Show me a case where the first, sixth or fourteenth amendments were restricted
For the defendant.


There was/is no case law where you can silence the defendant while the trial is underway.
They can't yell obscenities while the witness is speaking while testifying, but outside the
courtroom they can defend themselves.

Please show me a case where the defendant is not allowed to do so.

[2tallbill]

Surprise... Eric showed up in court yesterday to support his dad.

Irrelevant

[BC]

I guess you're smarter at law than Juan, Bill?

Appeal to authority fallacy occurs when we accept a claim merely because
someone tells us that an authority figure supports that claim.

I am unable to argue something because someone else has a diploma? So I
guess you are smarter at law than Trumps lawyers?

I read the cases sited, the arguments and rulings, did you?

Of course. I had no problem understanding the order. It seems you did.

Show me a case where the first, sixth or fourteenth amendments were restricted
For the defendant.

There was/is no case law where you can silence the defendant while the trial is underway.
They can't yell obscenities while the witness is speaking while testifying, but outside the
courtroom they can defend themselves.

Please show me a case where the defendant is not allowed to do so.

Roger Stone. https://www.npr.org/2019/07/16/742333663/roger-stone-barred-from-using-social-media-as-judge-tightens-gag-order

[Bodine]

Trump on trial, is it justified or lawfare? What say you?

Seriously?

[2tallbill]

I read the cases sited, the arguments and rulings, did you?

Of course. I had no problem understanding the order. It seems you did.

You can't explain it, so you didn't understand it.

I linked to the cases that Juan the Pawn sited in his illegal order. Nothing in those cases
showed a court allowing his orders to be lawful.

Swing and a miss strike two

[2tallbill]

Seriously?

BC was hijacking a thread about the Crooked Joe Biden and Camel Toe, with Trump
court stuff. So I started a thread/poll here to deal with it separately.

[2tallbill]

link to Judge Amy Berman Jackson illegal order.

BC your link proves that leftist judges make illegal orders. What you can't find is any
case law that shows they can do it.

[Markje]

Trump in a fair court should not even have been indicted. These cases are bullshit.

[AvHdB]

It's a politically motivated witch hunt, of course. The leftoids and the deep state want him in jail. They are terrified of him winning the election.

All whine, no substance.

I will have a good Malbec.

[B.B.]

Trump on trial, is it justified or lawfare? What say you?

It's a politically motivated witch hunt, of course. The leftoids and the deep state want him in jail. They are terrified of him winning the election.

^ Big Facts.

B/B

[Bodine]

Seriously?

BC was hijacking a thread about the Crooked Joe Biden and Camel Toe, with Trump
court stuff. So I started a thread/poll here to deal with it separately.

Understood. To believe anything other than what these cases really are, lawfare, is outright being delusional.

But let's be honest, marry all the messes that were RussiaGate, Mueller/Durham reports, the presidency of Biden/Harris, the Afghanistan debacle, these past and current witch hunts, the media propaganda, censorship, cancel culture, exploding inflation, the COVID fiasco, fostering Ukraine's devastation, support of Israel's genocidal acts, the looming Middle-East conflict, southeast Asia tensions, etc...people with a spec of a brain matter can easily see what 'we' (the US) is all about these days.

[BC]

Here you go 2tall, page 4 "Conclusions of Law" in judge Juan Merchan's sentencing order for Contempt.

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/D.O.motion4contempt-FINAL.pdf

Page 6 fully addresses your concerns, and Constitutional aspects.

Swing and a miss.

It does not address my concerns in the slightest, it's silly to even pretend that it does.
I just read both cases.

Matter of Ormsby Haulers, Inc. v. Tully has zero to do with the right to
free speech or any restrictions on it
https://casetext.com/case/matter-of-ormsby-haulers-inc-v-tully

Sheppard v. Maxwell was about the press and them having free access to the jury before
and during the trial along with members of the press making predictions and asking jurors to
comment on their predictions and various scenarios. The press additionally published the names
and addresses of the jurors
https://casetext.com/case/sheppard-v-maxwell-3?

The case has nothing to do with a defendant or his 1st, 6th and 14th amendments being reduced or
silenced. The case was about the defendant not receiving a fair trial as a result of the press!

The cases are not even tangentially similar to restricting a defendants rights.

In Sheppard v. Maxwell, the appeals court held that although First Amendment rights must be considered and given great weight, the judge did not do enough to limit the press in this case to help prevent press coverage from affecting the jury. I'm not a lawyer, but it's pretty obvious that this principle applies to anyone in the courtroom, including statements of the defendant. The concept of a fair trial applies to both the prosecution and defense.

You failed to see the forest by instead focusing on just one tree.

I didn't see Ormsby Haulers, Inc. v. Tully mentioned in the order.. did I miss something?

[2tallbill]

In Sheppard v. Maxwell, the appeals court held that although First Amendment rights must be considered and given great weight, the judge did not do enough to limit the press in this case to help prevent press coverage from affecting the jury. I'm not a lawyer, but it's pretty obvious that this principle applies to anyone in the courtroom, including statements of the defendant. The concept of a fair trial applies to both the prosecution and defense.

You failed to see the forest by instead focusing on just one tree.

I didn't see Ormsby Haulers, Inc. v. Tully mentioned in the order.. did I miss something?

The Sheppard v. Maxwell case was overturned letting the defendant go free after the Judge
allowed all the crap that he allowed to go on. It has nothing to do with the defendant.

I would have to go back to see where they sited Ormsby Haulers, Inc. v. Tully, because it had
nothing to do with anything as far as I can tell. 

[BC]

The Sheppard v. Maxwell case was overturned letting the defendant go free after the Judge
allowed all the crap that he allowed to go on. It has nothing to do with the defendant.

Indeed, it was overturned on appeal as I stated, because the judge let trial participants (in this case, the press) get too close to the jury and possibly influence them.  Juan isn't letting any participant, including Trump influence the jury. Take a few steps back from the tree.

I would have to go back to see where they sited Ormsby Haulers, Inc. v. Tully, because it had
nothing to do with anything as far as I can tell.

Who is "they"? I guess wasn't Juan after all?

[2tallbill]

bad copy paste

[2tallbill]

Who is "they"? I guess wasn't Juan after all?

You are correct, I don't know how, Juan never sited the other case in his order. I attempted to
copy and paste. I got it the wrong somehow (I don't know how this happened), it was an honest
attempt to search for the various cases that were sited in the order. I possibly clicked on the
wrong search result. You are correct, that case was not in the judges order.

[rosco]

Here's a really interesting take on the DOJ and FBI's attack on Trump and their staged photo op, following the raid which then got leaked to the media for everyone to see. Well worth a watch.....

https://www.tiktok.com/@damonimani/video/7366751310575684896?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7365295139806807585

In the photo we can see classified cover sheets but it turns out that they were not part of the documents. It turns out that the FBI paper clipped those covers onto the top of the documents for the photo op.

It now turns out that a number of those top secret labels don't even match the documents they were supposedly meant to protect.

This is all clearly part of an anti Trump circus. If you think about it, having him locked down in court every day instead touring the country and trying to embarrass him using a porn star, who might turn away the religious conservatives, when she's as credible as Texan77, is just part of a planned attack to get Biden re-elected.

And the US media is more concerned about the Russian election being fixed........and folk like BC defend what's going on. Broken!!!

 

[Bodine]

Well, massive favorable legal decisions made on Trump’s multiple charges.

1. Judge ruled to cancel the May hearing regarding the ‘classified’ document case and moved indefinitely. No new schedule set as of right now.

2. Georgia higher appeals court moved to overrule lower courts decision to retain Fani Willis and will convene to open Trump’s appeal to disqualify the DA from the case.

3. The alleged insurrection (Jan 6) ‘Presidential immunity’ defense is in the SCOTUS’s court and who knows when that will be heard.

So far the only hearing that remains is the one with the hush payment case which is Trump’s least legal concern.

Anyway, what all these implies is it is highly likely those cases above will not go to trial, if it ever will, before the election.

[Bodine]

Well, massive favorable legal decisions made on Trump’s multiple charges.

1. Judge ruled to cancel the May hearing regarding the ‘classified’ document case and moved indefinitely. No new schedule set as of right now.

2. Georgia higher appeals court moved to overrule lower courts decision to retain Fani Willis and will convene to open Trump’s appeal to disqualify the DA from the case.

3. The alleged insurrection (Jan 6) ‘Presidential immunity’ defense is in the SCOTUS’s court and who knows when that will be heard.

So far the only hearing that remains is the one with the hush payment case which is Trump’s least legal concern.

Anyway, what all these implies is it is highly likely those cases above will not go to trial, if it ever will, before the election.