Trump's gag order is the most beautiful gag order. It's very impressive, built very, very well. Really the best gag order, I mean there are other gag orders but the people who built this were very, very good and it's the best out there, believe me. Trump’s Gag Order Is Crafted Perfectly to Withstand a First Amendment Claim https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/first-amendment-gag-order-against-trump.html On Tuesday, D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, following a hearing on Monday, issued in writing a partial gag order in Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution. She prohibited all parties or counsel in the case from making any public statements, that target (1) the Special Counsel prosecuting this case or his staff; (2) defense counsel or their staff; (3) any of this court’s staff or other supporting personnel; or (4) any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of their testimony. In doing so, she sent three unmistakable messages to defendant Trump and the country: She is firmly committed to the orderly administration of justice; her commitment is fueled by fearlessness; and no one is above the law. The order is elegant. She grounded the order in long-standing Supreme Court law that a trial court has a duty to “protect [its] processes from prejudicial outside interferences” and that “[t]he First Amendment does not override that obligation.” Then, she carefully focused on conduct by Trump that could reasonably be expected to increase the risk of violence to anyone in his trial process—witnesses, prosecutors, and court staff. That alone raises the guardrail against appellate reversal on First Amendment grounds, even by this Supreme Court. In addition, she reinforced the legal permanency of the order by adding: This Order shall not be construed to prohibit Defendant from making statements criticizing the government generally, including the current administration or the Department of Justice; statements asserting that Defendant is innocent of the charges against him, or that his prosecution is politically motivated; or statements criticizing the campaign platforms or policies of Defendant’s current political rivals, such as former Vice President Pence. The judge notably avoided saying how she’d respond to comments about herself, having reportedly suggested earlier in Monday’s hearing that she wasn’t too concerned about her own safety. What matters to the country and the administration of justice is that Chutkan refused to simply take a one-small-step-at-a-time approach. With Trump’s increasingly violent social postings about witnesses, the judge recognized that halfway measures risk a danger to our justice system—and real world threats of violence often follow Trump’s pronouncements in short order. The threats are not hypothetical. In August, Abigail Shry, a Trump follower, was arrested for a voicemail death threat to the judge. Last month, Trump brazenly declared that “in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH” for now-retired Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley. Why? Because Milley dared to have a relatively standard back channel “de-confliction” conversation with the Chinese military at a time of world crisis. And Milley happens to be a key witness against Trump. For Chutkan, the risk of simply giving Trump an escalated general warning was twofold. First, it would give Trump another one or two free strikes until she issued a formal written order. Second, the judiciary would lose authority if it looked ineffectual to the public. Of course, now comes the hard part. As we’ve written before, Trump, by his nature and his political strategy, will feel compelled to test the limits of the order that the judge ultimately issues. In fact, he’s already testing those limits. On Tuesday in Iowa, Trump rallied supporters against Chutkan, saying the “judge doesn’t like me too much.” He added, “I am willing to go to jail if that’s what it takes.” Trump has already filed his notice of appeal. It will not delay the trial. A reactionary Supreme Court majority lurks in the background. They might well relish issuing a high-minded opinion waxing poetic on First Amendment principles that they will apply (or misapply) in favor of the leading Republican candidate for president. At the same time, in recent cases, the justices have seemed to be fed up with Trump’s petitions for special treatment. In addition to clearly underscoring the areas where Trump may properly speak, Chutkan did several important things to avoid reversal. First, her order did not include words proposed by special counsel Jack Smith that would forbid “inflammatory” or “disparaging” speech about witnesses or court personnel. An order worded too vaguely could be viewed as “chilling” speech that is protected as well as that which is not. As recently as June, both liberal and conservative justices warned against such a “chilling effect.” Second, the order included crucial context for its central prohibition on “targeting.” Chutkan cited “undisputed testimony” showing that “when Defendant has publicly attacked individuals … those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed.” She cited in particular Trump’s recent public statements “that particular individuals are ‘liars,’ or ‘thugs,’ or deserve death.” On that basis, the court concluded that “such statements pose a significant and immediate risk that (1) witnesses will be intimidated … by the prospect of being themselves targeted for harassment or threats; and (2) attorneys, public servants, and other court staff will themselves become targets for threats and harassment.” Finally, Chutkan made an undeniable point about why even social posts that are quickly deleted would violate the order: She noted that the significant and immediate risk she cited “is largely irreversible in the age of the Internet … once an individual is publicly targeted.” These findings matter because higher courts do not lightly disturb a district court’s determination of undisputed facts. She found that “Defendant’s statements pose sufficiently grave threats to the integrity of these proceedings that cannot be addressed by alternative means” and the order has been tailored “to meet the force of those threats.” The quoted language is aimed at the Supreme Court’s requirement that restrictions on speech to protect judicial proceedings be contoured no more broadly than required to meet the threat. Perhaps most importantly, the court moored the order in the safest harbor available—forbidding targeting anyone associated with the case from issuing what the Supreme Court has called “true threats of violence.” True threats are defined as words that “subject individuals to ‘fear of violence’ and to the many kinds of ‘disruption that fear engenders.’ ” As recently as June, the Supreme Court ruled that such words are not protected by the First Amendment. Even with a carefully worded order, it is predictable what Trump will do and why. His attacks on prosecutors and courts become fodder for his political fundraising. Trump’s attacks also nourish his single-minded strategy: He appears not to worry about jeopardizing his defenses in criminal cases by ranting and by defying judges. Instead, he aims everything at energizing his electoral base to donate and turn out at the polls. He views this as his path to regain the presidency, arrange for his attorney general to end his prosecutions, and possibly to pardon himself. Given Trump’s pattern of aggressive public counterattacks to any judicial restrictions—or even application of standard judicial rules—he will surely walk right up to the line or over it to demonstrate his defiance. The more extreme and provocative his imagery, the more obvious it will be that Trump is violating the gag order. On the other side of the criminal case, special counsel Jack Smith will not hesitate to move to hold Trump in contempt if he ventures over the line. In response, Chutkan will have an array of options. She could give Trump a last warning before imposing sanctions. Or, following Monday’s pattern, she could issue an immediate order for him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. This would trigger briefing by the parties, and then a contempt hearing—a minitrial on the sole issue of whether the gag order has been violated in any material manner. The hearing would turn on prosecution evidence that the very nature of Trump’s statements is an invitation and provocation to violence. In that event, if the facts were to support a contempt finding by a preponderance of the evidence, the court should carefully calibrate a remedy that would send a major deterrent message to Trump—and to the country—about the rule of law. Stiff monetary fines, doubling with any further violations, are one example. Whatever the course of coming events in Chutkan’s courtroom, here’s what we can count on: She is not one to be intimidated—or to slow rulings that demonstrate that no one is above the law.
This is a continuation of the greatest witch-hunt and election interference... 'Kraken' lawyer Sidney Powell to plead guilty in Georgia election case Sidney Powell, the conspiracy-mongering attorney whose false claims about Dominion Voting Systems rigging the 2020 election came from a woman who claimed that she could speak with the wind, is pleading guilty to criminal charges. As reported by CNN's Kaitlan Collins, "Powell will be required to testify at future trials and write an apology letter to the citizens of Georgia" as part of her plea deal.
Good luck with your assertions. Here is another appropriate article for the day the KRACKEN has turned. Trump May Have to Throw His ‘Clown Car’ Full of Lawyers Under the Bus And Special Counsel Jack Smith wants a judge to force him to make a decision about it soon. https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjv...w-his-clown-car-full-of-lawyers-under-the-bus
Is this a good time to note that Trump's lawyers are not qualified -- not even qualified to appeal a gag order. Trump's lawyer notified he doesn't have proper credentials to appeal gag order: report https://www.rawstory.com/trump-lawyer-snag/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-ripped-shreds-nyc-bank-023316622.html Trump Is About to Be Ripped to Shreds by NYC Bank Fraud Trial Judge
'Cracked the Trump inner circle': Jan. 6 investigator explains importance of Powell plea https://www.rawstory.com/powell-inner-circle/
Trump is truly F'ed. Sidney Powell’s Plea Deal Is So, So Bad for Donald Trump https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/sidney-powell-plea-deal-donald-trump-ouch.html
There is one very strong consistent theme with these GOP lying bastards and that's their christianity...... But you guys knew that, right? https://www.uspastorcouncil.org/new...i-know-sidney-powell-she-is-telling-the-truth News & Events Current Issues November 20, 2020 I Know Sidney Powell. She Is Telling the Truth byJohn Zmirak, The Stream Back in 2014, I worked freelance for a public relations firm in New York City. It was there that I met an unusual woman. I didn’t know many lawyers or Texans, but I knew better than to chalk up her qualities to either her profession or her home. It’s rare that I encounter someone who I’m afraid to argue with, because of her sheer brain power and towering personal rectitude. But this was such a person. This woman had quite a career behind her. An evangelical Christian, she’d been a federal prosecutor — and quit, outraged at the corruption she saw among her colleagues. She did more than quit. Horrified by prosecutors hiding exculpatory evidence and targeting the innocent because of their personal politics, she became a defense attorney, to help people fight the feds. She Gave Up Everything to Expose Abusive Prosecutors But that wasn’t enough. At a huge financial sacrifice, she took time off from her practice to write a book. And self-publish it. And hire a public relations firm to get it out to people, when media ignored it. That book, Licensed to Lie, is absolutely chilling. It shows innocent Americans, even a U.S. Senator such as Ted Stevens of Alaska, unable to defend themselves against prosecutors with vendettas. It recounts how innocent companies, like accounting firm Arthur Anderson, can be broken by biased and dishonest federal prosecutors, and left in ruins. A real-life legal horror story, the book was too disturbing for me to read it through to the end. And its author was Sidney Powell, whom I used to go to lunch with in midtown Manhattan. In retrospect, I feel privileged. I knew she was a powerhouse, but I little suspected what an historic role she would someday play. When I saw that she was representing General Mike Flynn, I knew one thing for sure — that he was innocent. Sidney’s not one of those lawyers who works for people she thinks are guilty as sin. She wouldn’t have gone on Fox News, and One America, and Newsmax, night after night and coolly laid out his defense in a tone of righteous outrage if this were just some client. Because the abuse of power and perversion of law Sidney witnessed made her more than just some lawyer. It made her a crusader. It made her … Joan of Arc. The Theft of Our Election So watching the press conference with Jenna Ellis, Rudolph Giuliani, and Sidney Powell was different for me than for most. I don’t know Ms. Ellis or Mayor Giuliani, though I don’t suspect that they’re cynical, partisan hacks, as Ross Douthat suggests. Keep in mind that a week before the 2016 election, Douthat tried to suppress the pro-life vote for Trump by comparing a voting for Trump to shooting abortionists on the street. That’s one way to keep a job at The New York Times, I suppose. The Evidence Is Coming, to Federal Courts Near You I don’t have any evidence that Democrats used software invented in Venezuela to help socialist dictator Hugo Chavez steal elections. Or that the Soros-linked company Dominion was used by Democrats across multiple states to steal votes from Donald Trump to give to Joe Biden in the middle of the night, in just the strategic states where Trump was leading. I don’t have that evidence, but the fact that Sidney Powell claims she does is enough to convince me. This is a woman who gave up years of income she could have earned in her profitable practice to write, print, and promote a book no publisher would touch. Its charges were too explosive, I imagine. Its targets, like Andrew Weissman (the protege of FBI director Christopher Wray) wield too much power. Tellingly, none of the people Powell exposed in Licensed to Lie have dared to ... READ THE FULL ARTICLE