…in his current trial because he’s under a gag order. He said this outside the courtroom during a break. He turned to his attorney, Todd Blanche, to confirm it. Todd blanched a little bit but then nodded his head in agreement.
Who agrees with Trump and his lawyer that he’s not allowed to testify in his own defense because of the gag order?
I can't believe he's right but it will be interesting to see if the judge weighs in. He should certainly not testify because it's a classic "perjury trap." But this excuse seems weak.
Please note I did not use "his" name to avoid triggering certain MAGA loons.
Anyone who understands Trump can see that all he’s doing here is taking another shot at the judge’s draconian, election interfering gag order.
threaten jurors, court staff, and prosecutors?
The First Amendment is NOT a blanket protection for all speech.
You still can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Trump doesn't get it and neither does ChicKie.
There, there, ChicKie. There, there.
Biden can reference Trump and Stormy Daniels, but if Trump mentions Stormy in a reply to Biden he’s subject to being put in jail by a Democratic judge?
That is election interference.
First of all Biden is not on trial. Nor has he made himself subject to a gag order as a result of abusive behavior. It is clearly within the purview of a judge to protect witnesses and jurors. As for your example, did Trump do that? I have not followed the specifics on what his violations were.
Biden tweeted a reference to Stormy Daniels and Trump responded. Trump was fined. If one candidate can talk about Stormy, both candidates should be able to talk about Stormy.
Trump and Biden are NOT in the same position. The latter is President of the United States. He is not on trial, no matter how much righty hacks like you would like to see that. Trump is on trial for numerous felonies. Trump has serially threatened witnesses, who have as a result received death threats. As a result, Trump is subject to a gag order. Trump then violated said gag order.
To suggest there is any comparison between the two is simply more blatant partisan hackery from you.
Link? Source?
.
At the White House Correspondent's Dinner, Biden said (not tweeted) during his speech, "I’ve had a great stretch since the State of the Union, but Donald has had a few tough days lately. You might call it stormy weather." Not in attendance, and long deceased, Curly Howard said, "Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk." Apparently, Trump then posted something to Truth Social about Stormy and Judge Merchan required Trump to take it down.
.
How many people here (P&R, TER) have ever heard a news conference where reporters shout out controversial Qs to Public Relations Reps, CEOs, Corporate Presidents, Celebs, etc. and the speaker replies, "I'm sorry. I cannot comment on anything currently in litigation. Thank you for your understanding. Any other Qs?" or similar? I have, many times.
.
"Mr. Trump! Mr. Trump! Is Stormy Daniels lying?" "I have no comment at this time."
"Mr. Trump! Mr. Trump! Is Michael Cohen lying?" "I have no comment at this time."
"Mr. Trump! Mr. Trump! Are you lying?" "I have no comment at this time."
.
"Mr. Trump! Mr. Trump! What did you think of Biden's Stormy Daniels joke?" "I have no comment at this time."
or
"Biden should focus on [foreign policy A], [domestic topic B], [economic issue C], ..." and NOTHING about Stormy.
.
Trump, however, is a narcissistic psychopath with zero self control.
Biden tweeted a reference to Stormy Daniels and Trump responded. Trump was fined. If one candidate can talk about Stormy, both candidates should be able to talk about Stormy.
“The First Amendment is NOT a blanket protection for all speech.”
I know you lefties just love censorship, but the 1st Amendment really is blanket protection for all speech.
“You still can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.”
You must be getting senile, Nicky, because I’ve had to correct you about this before. Yes, you can yell fire in a crowded theater. There’s zero prohibitions against this.
The limitations on speech is extremely narrow. You can’t libel, and you can’t threaten immediate direct violence against someone.
These gag orders have clearly been done in an abusive manner. The point is to prevent Trump from campaigning.
Here's what Britannica says:
"Permissible restrictions on expression
Despite the broad freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment, there are some historically rooted exceptions. First, the government may generally restrict the time, place, or manner of speech, if the restrictions are unrelated to what the speech says and leave people with enough alternative ways of expressing their views. Thus, for instance, the government may restrict the use of loudspeakers in residential areas at night, limit all demonstrations that block traffic, or ban all picketing of people’s homes.
Second, a few narrow categories of speech are not protected from government restrictions. The main such categories are incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats. As the Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the government may forbid “incitement”—speech “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and “likely to incite or produce such action” (such as a speech to a mob urging it to attack a nearby building). But speech urging action at some unspecified future time may not be forbidden.
Defamatory lies (which are called “libel” if written and “slander” if spoken), lying under oath, and fraud may also be punished. In some instances, even negligent factual errors may lead to lawsuits. Such exceptions, however, extend only to factual falsehoods; expression of opinion may not be punished even if the opinion is broadly seen as morally wrong."
Please stop lecturing us as if you know what you're talking about, ChicKie. Trump's diatribes DO include "incitement, defamation...fighting words, and threats."
..,but only IF there actually is a fire. You cannot FALSELY yell “fire!” in a crowded theater because it would create an “immediate breach of the peace” by provoking a stampede in which people would inevitably be trampled.
Oh, willy, wrong again.
From the wiki entry:
“The utterance of "fire!" in and of itself is not generally illegal within the United States: "sometimes you could yell 'fire' in a crowded theater without facing punishment.”
...that proves I was right:
"there are scenarios in which intentionally lying about a fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede might lead to a disorderly conduct citation or similar charge."
And here's a link from another section of the ENTIRE Wikipedia article:
"The act of shouting 'fire' when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise. However, if it causes a stampede and someone is killed as a result, then the act could amount to a crime, such as INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
Naturally, willy bowdlerized the Wikipedia article to cover up the fact that he's a typical righty liar.
-- Modified on 5/5/2024 9:14:15 PM
But there is no law on the books that you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater. Disorderly conduct can be anything. It could be shouting fire, or it could be taking a shit on a salad bar at a restaurant. Quite frankly between COPS and the Real Housewives we have entire TV shows about disorderly conduct.
at a crowded fire. I'm pretty sure that would be OK.
Damn her!
And the lefty judge wouldn't allow it?
Steve Bannon is NOT an election expert.
And the lefty judge wouldn't allow it?