Gag Order Lifted

[Ana the Ist]

Because, of course, human rights and all that stuff...

Trump attacks NY judge’s clerk as gag order is temporarily lifted

Former President Trump attacked a clerk of the judge overseeing his New York civil fraud trial after a gag order was temporarily lifted Thursday. “Judge Arthur Engoron has just been overturned (sta…

www.google.com

Former President Trump attacked a clerk of the judge overseeing his New York civil fraud trial after a gag order was temporarily lifted Thursday.
“Judge Arthur Engoron has just been overturned (stayed!) by the New York State Appellate Division (Appeals Court), for the 4th TIME (on the same case!),” Trump posted Thursday evening on Truth Social.
I'd say it's weird that the judge in this case keeps getting his rulings overturned...but it's not really that weird if this is a purely political witch hunt.
I can't imagine why any US citizen would be deprived of the right to defend themselves publicly against civil or criminal accusations. You have a right to remain silent, and a right to free speech, but the government needs something along the lines of a "threat to national security" to justify silencing someone.
Hopefully the other gag orders are similarly dropped. If Trump is found guilty....it should be because he's guilty....not because he wasn't allowed to defend himself.

 

[A2SG]

If Trump is found guilty....it should be because he's guilty....not because he wasn't allowed to defend himself.

You do realize the gag order only applied to specific things said about specific people outside of court, not to his defense.

Right?

-- A2SG, just so we're clear.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

You do realize the gag order only applied to specific things said about specific people outside of court, not to his defense.

Right?

-- A2SG, just so we're clear.....

Yeah. Obviously they can't place a gag order on him in court.

 

[A2SG]

Yeah. Obviously they can't place a gag order on him in court.

So a gag order doesn't prevent Trump from defending himself.

Why would you think it would?

All the gag order did was impose penalties on Trump for attacking members of the judge's staff in public. That's it. No more, no less.

But hey, I guess we'll see if an appeals court considers this very specific restriction to be "unconstitutional" or not. It does strike me, however, that this appeal won't apply to anyone other than Donald, so this isn't about protecting anyone's rights, or any constitutional principles other than that Donald should be treated differently than everyone else.

But, I won't deny this is just my own take on things.

-- A2SG, talk about a two-tiered justice system...Trump on one tier, everyone else on the other.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

So a gag order doesn't prevent Trump from defending himself.

Why would you think it would?

Because he wasn't able to comment on the case publicly....although his political enemies and media were.

As we've seen multiple times now.....the court of public opinion matters. Consider the officers in the Breonna Taylor case. They were fired upon, they fired back....as is legal in that situation.

That didn't stop the public from viciously pursuing their prosecution. One of the officers just recently had his second mistrial....something that wasn't even considered worth prosecuting until the public demanded it.

Everyone has the right to free speech. If the media is going to smear your reputation for their political agenda....you certainly should have the right to defend yourself in public.

All the gag order did was impose penalties on Trump for attacking members of the judge's staff in public. That's it. No more, no less.

I'm sorry, but he didn't "attack" anyone. He criticized public officials. That's a human right guaranteed by the US Constitution. It's one of the smarter inclusions to the US Constitution and has been repeatedly upheld by the SCOTUS over centuries.

But hey, I guess we'll see if an appeals court considers this very specific restriction to be "unconstitutional" or not.

You're not aware that the Constitution guarantees your right to free speech, especially criticism of the government or its officials?

It does strike me, however, that this appeal won't apply to anyone other than Donald,

Was someone else placed under gag order?

i remember significant criticism of the judge of the Rittenhouse case by the media, and that media was present at the trial. If you've forgotten then I'm certain I can find examples for you. Jussie Smollet made multiple accusations about the Chicago police in public....no gag order there.

I agree that this situation appears uniquely applied to Donald Trump...just not in the way you mean.

so this isn't about protecting anyone's rights,

Of course it is. Just because the trial is a sham doesn't mean he should be denied due process.

or any constitutional principles other than that Donald should be treated differently than everyone else.

The constitutional principle is outlined in the ruling to overturn the gag order. Freedom of speech.

But, I won't deny this is just my own take on things.

-- A2SG, talk about a two-tiered justice system...Trump on one tier, everyone else on the other.....

Indeed. Everyone has the right to criticize public officials except him. I'm glad some honest judges are left.

You should be too. If these gag orders get ruled as unconstitutional during trial or afterwards, he can get any conviction thrown out because the judge denied his civil rights.

Better these bad rulings be overturned as early as possible.

 

[A2SG]

Because he wasn't able to comment on the case publicly....although his political enemies and media were.

But he was. The gag order didn't prevent him from commenting on the case...only attacking court personnel.

But, that aside, how does public commentary aid his defense? The case isn't being tried in the media....though Trump sure seems like he'd prefer it were.

As we've seen multiple times now.....the court of public opinion matters. Consider the officers in the Breonna Taylor case. They were fired upon, they fired back....as is legal in that situation.

That didn't stop the public from viciously pursuing their prosecution. One of the officers just recently had his second mistrial....something that wasn't even considered worth prosecuting until the public demanded it.

Everyone has the right to free speech. If the media is going to smear your reputation for their political agenda....you certainly should have the right to defend yourself in public.

The gag order did not restrict Trump from commenting on current events, or even on his own trial. It simply imposed penalties if he personally attacked court personnel.

I'm sorry, but he didn't "attack" anyone. He criticized public officials. That's a human right guaranteed by the US Constitution. It's one of the smarter inclusions to the US Constitution and has been repeatedly upheld by the SCOTUS over centuries.

And he wasn't prevented from doing that. He only had to pay a fine if he did.

You're not aware that the Constitution guarantees your right to free speech, especially criticism of the government or its officials?

Yup. And Congress made no law abridging that.

Was someone else placed under gag order?

Well, the attorneys representing him.

But, if this is supposed to be a first amendment/constitutional issue, then it must have further implications. At least, that's the argument.

i remember significant criticism of the judge of the Rittenhouse case by the media, and that media was present at the trial. If you've forgotten then I'm certain I can find examples for you. Jussie Smollet made multiple accusations about the Chicago police in public....no gag order there.

I agree that this situation appears uniquely applied to Donald Trump...just not in the way you mean.

And Trump was not prevented from making any accusations against the Chicago police. Only courtroom personnel involved in the trial in which he is a defendant.

Of course it is. Just because the trial is a sham doesn't mean he should be denied due process.

How is the trial a sham? A gag order doesn't deny him due process. He's had that already, in fact; there was sufficient evidence for a guilty verdict. All that's left is sentencing and penalties.

The constitutional principle is outlined in the ruling to overturn the gag order. Freedom of speech.

Right. And Congress made no law abridging anyone's freedom of speech. Not Trump's, nor anyone else's.

Indeed. Everyone has the right to criticize public officials except him.

No one took that right from him. The judge simply imposed a penalty if he attacked courtroom personnel for the trial for which he is the defendant.

I'm glad some honest judges are left.

I don't see anything dishonest in the judge's ruling. I'd be curious to see exactly what was dishonest about it, in your estimation.

Though, I suspect I already know.

You should be too. If these gag orders get ruled as unconstitutional during trial or afterwards, he can get any conviction thrown out because the judge denied his civil rights.

I'm not sure that would be sufficient to overturn the verdict, even if the gag order is ruled unconstitutional, but I guess Trump's legal team is going to throw whatever they can at the wall to see what sticks.

Better these bad rulings be overturned as early as possible.

If Trump's team wants to change the verdict, they need to appeal that decision. Even if the gag order is ruled unconstitutional, that isn't grounds to dismiss the verdict.

But, for all of this, I personally don't think the gag order was a good idea anyway. The more Trump speaks, the deeper a hole he digs for himself, and the more he implicates himself and does the prosecution's job for them. I say post on, Donny!

-- A2SG, let Trump continue to be his own worst enemy......he's so good at that!

 

[Ana the Ist]

But he was. The gag order didn't prevent him from commenting on the case...only attacking court personnel.

Again...he didn't attack anyone....and criticism of government officials is a deeply held right and part of free speech.

But, that aside, how does public commentary aid his defense?

It aids in the court of public opinion. Clearly the judge agrees....or there's no need for a gag order.

The gag order did not restrict Trump from commenting on current events, or even on his own trial. It simply imposed penalties if he personally attacked court personnel.

He never attacked court personnel.

And he wasn't prevented from doing that. He only had to pay a fine if he did.

That's penalizing free speech.

Well, the attorneys representing him.

Thanks.

But, if this is supposed to be a first amendment/constitutional issue, then it must have further implications. At least, that's the argument.

Nope. It's just a right he has as a US citizen.

And Trump was not prevented from making any accusations against the Chicago police.

In other words....Jussie Smollet can criticize court personnel during his trial but Trump can't.

How is the trial a sham?

The gag order.

A gag order doesn't deny him due process.

Well that's the 4th ruling by the judge that's been overturned by the district.

That's a lot for any trial....let alone one against a former President.

Right. And Congress made no law abridging anyone's freedom of speech. Not Trump's, nor anyone else's.

Which is why the gag order was overturned.

No one took that right from him. The judge simply imposed a penalty if he attacked courtroom personnel for the trial for which he is the defendant.

That's a denial of someone's rights....quite literally.

If the government imposes a penalty for the exercise of a right....they have impeded your rights.

I don't see anything dishonest in the judge's ruling. I'd be curious to see exactly what was dishonest about it, in your estimation.

Though, I suspect I already know.

The dishonest part was the imposition of a gag order without any justification.

I'm not sure that would be sufficient to overturn the verdict, even if the gag order is ruled unconstitutional, but I guess Trump's legal team is going to throw whatever they can at the wall to see what sticks.

If a judge violates one's civil rights during a trial....the trial can absolutely be thrown out. You have a right to a speedy trial for example, if the judge unnecessarily delays the trial, it can be thrown out.

If Trump's team wants to change the verdict, they need to appeal that decision. Even if the gag order is ruled unconstitutional, that isn't grounds to dismiss the verdict.

I was under the impression that he was just found liable...and that his family was still testifying.

Unless I'm think of a different case.

But, for all of this, I personally don't think the gag order was a good idea anyway. The more Trump speaks, the deeper a hole he digs for himself, and the more he implicates himself and does the prosecution's job for them. I say post on, Donny!

Well I suspect this has more to do with crippling his chances for reelection....which seem to be failing. Perhaps the gag order was imposed to reduce the popularity and donations he's received during these cases.

-- A2SG, let Trump continue to be his own worst enemy......he's so good at that!

We'll see. I'd suggest that a gag order be imposed on Biden if they want to win reelection.

Makes one recall the days when people laughed at "cofefe" and think....that wasn't so bad in retrospect.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

In this country we believe in free speech.


Unless you are critical of a tiny desert country in the Middle East that is bombing poor people in an open air prison of a city.

Then the government can officially silence you and people here will cheer that on.

 

[Pommer]

In this country we believe in free speech.


Unless you are critical of a tiny desert country in the Middle East that is bombing poor people in an open air prison of a city.

Then the government can officially silence you and people here will cheer that on.

Unpopular views are illegal, I guess?

 

[Ana the Ist]

In this country we believe in free speech.


Unless you are critical of a tiny desert country in the Middle East that is bombing poor people in an open air prison of a city.

Then the government can officially silence you and people here will cheer that on.

Who did that happen to?

 

[DaisyDay]

Again...he didn't attack anyone....and criticism of government officials is a deeply held right and part of free speech.



It aids in the court of public opinion. Clearly the judge agrees....or there's no need for a gag order.



He never attacked court personnel.




That's penalizing free speech.


Thanks.





Nope. It's just a right he has as a US citizen.



In other words....Jussie Smollet can criticize court personnel during his trial but Trump can't.



The gag order.



Well that's the 4th ruling by the judge that's been overturned by the district.

That's a lot for any trial....let alone one against a former President.



Which is why the gag order was overturned.




That's a denial of someone's rights....quite literally.

If the government imposes a penalty for the exercise of a right....they have impeded your rights.




The dishonest part was the imposition of a gag order without any justification.





If a judge violates one's civil rights during a trial....the trial can absolutely be thrown out. You have a right to a speedy trial for example, if the judge unnecessarily delays the trial, it can be thrown out.




I was under the impression that he was just found liable...and that his family was still testifying.

Unless I'm think of a different case.





Well I suspect this has more to do with crippling his chances for reelection....which seem to be failing. Perhaps the gag order was imposed to reduce the popularity and donations he's received during these cases.




We'll see. I'd suggest that a gag order be imposed on Biden if they want to win reelection.

Makes one recall the days when people laughed at "cofefe" and think....that wasn't so bad in retrospect.

The order was not overturned, you know, merely stayed pending review. A temporary lifting is not quite a reversal.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Who did that happen to?

To an American citizen.

 

[Ana the Ist]

To an American citizen.

Does this American citizen have a name?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The order was not overturned, you know, merely stayed pending review. A temporary lifting is not quite a reversal.

Eh....close enough.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Because, of course, human rights and all that stuff...

Trump attacks NY judge’s clerk as gag order is temporarily lifted

Former President Trump attacked a clerk of the judge overseeing his New York civil fraud trial after a gag order was temporarily lifted Thursday. “Judge Arthur Engoron has just been overturned (sta…

www.google.com

Former President Trump attacked a clerk of the judge overseeing his New York civil fraud trial after a gag order was temporarily lifted Thursday.
“Judge Arthur Engoron has just been overturned (stayed!) by the New York State Appellate Division (Appeals Court), for the 4th TIME (on the same case!),” Trump posted Thursday evening on Truth Social.
I'd say it's weird that the judge in this case keeps getting his rulings overturned...but it's not really that weird if this is a purely political witch hunt.
I can't imagine why any US citizen would be deprived of the right to defend themselves publicly against civil or criminal accusations. You have a right to remain silent, and a right to free speech, but the government needs something along the lines of a "threat to national security" to justify silencing someone.
Hopefully the other gag orders are similarly dropped. If Trump is found guilty....it should be because he's guilty....not because he wasn't allowed to defend himself.

And if something happens to the hapless clerk because one of his nutty followers was acting on his tirades, I hope he’s held criminally responsible.

That said, it seems unlikely as he incited a whole insurrection and we are still waiting for justice on that to be served to him and a good chunk of the people who did it.

 

[rjs330]

In this country we believe in free speech.


Unless you are critical of a tiny desert country in the Middle East that is bombing poor people in an open air prison of a city.

Then the government can officially silence you and people here will cheer that on.

Huh? Who was silenced?

 

[A2SG]

Again...he didn't attack anyone....and criticism of government officials is a deeply held right and part of free speech.

Sure, but personal attacks on an individual go beyond criticism of government officials, and that was what the judge reacted to.

It aids in the court of public opinion. Clearly the judge agrees....or there's no need for a gag order.

But Donald's defense has nothing to do with the court of public opinion. That won't overturn the guilty verdict he's already gotten. It only aids his political career...and, of course, his massive ego. Your concerns about Trump being unable to defend himself seem unwarranted here.

He never attacked court personnel.

Not physically, no. But his comments about court personnel were considered personal attacks by the judge.

That's penalizing free speech.

Yeah. And?

Where in the first amendment does it say you can't face penalties, legal or otherwise, for saying things sometimes? Libel and slander exist, for example, as does hate speech and inciting to riot. Further, courts often impose gag orders on the details of settlement agreements. All of these legal issues penalize free speech in one way or another, and none of them are unconstitutional.

Nope. It's just a right he has as a US citizen.

Yup. And exercising a right sometimes comes with consequences. We have the right to bear arms, for example, but if you shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue without provocation, you're gonna be arrested.

In other words....Jussie Smollet can criticize court personnel during his trial but Trump can't.

I don't know the case, but if that guy didn't have a gag order imposed, he probably can.

How wise that would be is debatable, of course.

The gag order.

How does that make the trial a "sham"? Courts impose gag orders all the time, for many different reasons. One such reason is to ensure a fair trial, and prevent someone from intimidating witnesses, for example.

Well that's the 4th ruling by the judge that's been overturned by the district.

It hasn't been overturned. Just stayed, pending appeal. And Trump's attempt to dismiss the case was rejected. I'm unclear on the other three times you think Judge Engoron was overturned, perhaps you could provide details to refresh my memory?

That's a lot for any trial....let alone one against a former President.

Appeals happen. Nothing unusual about that, really.

Which is why the gag order was overturned.

Again, stayed. The decision on whether or not it's unconstitutional remains to be seen.

That's a denial of someone's rights....quite literally.

The right hasn't been denied, he only faced penalties for saying very specific things. And this isn't a new thing for Trump, remember when he was found guilty for defaming Jean Carroll (and liable for sexual abuse, let's not forget)?

Another penalty faced by Trump for his use of free speech. A penalty, let's be clear, that many others have faced, and is very much not unconstitutional.

If the government imposes a penalty for the exercise of a right....they have impeded your rights.

If you exercise your right to bear arms by shooting someone unprovoked, shouldn't you face a penalty? Or is that also impeding your rights?

The dishonest part was the imposition of a gag order without any justification.

He felt he had justification, to ensure a fair trial. Whether or not the appeals court agrees remains to be seen.

If a judge violates one's civil rights during a trial....the trial can absolutely be thrown out. You have a right to a speedy trial for example, if the judge unnecessarily delays the trial, it can be thrown out.

It doesn't work like that. The guilty verdict, remember, came well before the gag order was imposed, so it has no effect on that decision. That makes an appeal based on that issue unlikely.

Trials can be thrown out, or declared a mistrial, for many reasons...but imposing a gag order isn't one of them. Trump's lawyers tried to have a mistrial declared, it didn't work.

I was under the impression that he was just found liable...and that his family was still testifying.

He was found guilty of fraud. The rest of the trial will determine sentencing and penalties imposed due to that verdict.

Unless I'm think of a different case.

Yeah, Trump has faced so many trials to date, with more to come, it's hard to keep them all straight.

Well I suspect this has more to do with crippling his chances for reelection....which seem to be failing. Perhaps the gag order was imposed to reduce the popularity and donations he's received during these cases.

Seems unlikely to me...I don't believe Judge Engoron has anything to do with the upcoming election.

We'll see.

Yup. As I've said, I don't think the gag order was a good idea to begin with. Let Trump be hoisted by his own petard, I say.

-- A2SG, or, if there's a movie made of this and they get Patrick Stewart to play the judge, we can say he's hoisted by his own Picard....

.....

Sorry, but I couldn't resist....

 

[Pommer]

-- A2SG, or, if there's a movie made of this and they get Patrick Stewart to play the judge, we can say he's hoisted by his own Picard....

.....

Sorry, but I couldn't resist....

Bad @A2SG, BAD.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Huh? Who was silenced?

An American citizen and congresswoman was, effectively.

Why would it matter who when our rights apply to all?

 

[wing2000]

An American citizen and congresswoman was, effectively.

Why would it matter who when our rights apply to all?

Did this congresswoman attack a court...which, btw, is the language of the gag order in question.
Additionally, sactionining a member of Congress was a political statement passed by the House, not a court.
I don't see where you're going with this...