Trump's Truth Social Posts. Violates Gag Order, Dares Commie Judge To Jail Him.

[HomeskillitMoorman]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Huh? When Trump was President we hadn’t started distributing the vaccine. I’m guessing he would have used the evidence and not pushed the vaccine AFTER everyone knew it wasn’t performing as the companies (and Fauci) said that it was supposed to. 

 

I'm pretty sure they had started to distribute at the end of his term, starting with hospitals/nursing homes and elite rich people of course,if I remember correctly. 

 

But regardless he was still saying the same thing about the vaccine being completely safe and effective and was encouraging everybody to go get the shot well into the summer of '21 and even after and wanted credit for "Operation Warp Speed". 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-urges-all-americans-to-get-covid-vaccine-its-a-safe-vaccine

[Doc Brown]

3 hours ago, HomeskillitMoorman said:

Question for the Trump backers...with all their stuff about how vaccine from the Left is causing myocarditis, moreso now with Bronny James, and how horrible the vaccines are...how are we squaring that with supporting Trump who assured us a gazillion times that the vaccine was safe and encouraged everyone to go get it?

 

I don't remember if this was his direct quote but at one point didn't he even go as far as to say something to the effect of "this isn't Fauci's vaccine, it's MY vaccine!" 

The Trump administration deserves a ton of credit for the development and distribution of the vaccines.  I wouldn't run from it as I'd make the case with how many lives were saved because of them.  You don't have to cave to the nut jobs in your party to win the primaries.

[BillsFanNC]

Trump can be absolutely 100% correct occasionally. 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Andy1]

Trump is blathering like a senile old man who knows he is guilty, so the only option is to start thrashing about. 

[BillsFanNC]

^^^^

 

[Andy1]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

10 hours ago, Andy1 said:

 

So, Andy, I’m torn by all this.  As a law and order guy, I completely understand and appreciate the need to protect our institutions, processes and the people who run them.  
 

On the other hand, the simple reality seems to be that the prosecution can leak like a sieve, using the media to create a narrative, and the defense is handcuffed and bullied into silence.  
 

I have used the photo of allegedly classified files strewn about on the floor of Mara Lago.  These photos were released for effect, and of course, we have no idea what the contents of the file represent.  On the other hand, we have no release from DOJ sources of files strewn about in Biden’s garage, office, or any of his homes.  
 

So, I’m asking you as a Trump hater.  Is a gag order really in the best interest of the public, assuming no lives endangered?  

[Andy1]

27 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

So, Andy, I’m torn by all this.  As a law and order guy, I completely understand and appreciate the need to protect our institutions, processes and the people who run them.  
 

On the other hand, the simple reality seems to be that the prosecution can leak like a sieve, using the media to create a narrative, and the defense is handcuffed and bullied into silence.  
 

I have used the photo of allegedly classified files strewn about on the floor of Mara Lago.  These photos were released for effect, and of course, we have no idea what the contents of the file represent.  On the other hand, we have no release from DOJ sources of files strewn about in Biden’s garage, office, or any of his homes.  
 

So, I’m asking you as a Trump hater.  Is a gag order really in the best interest of the public, assuming no lives endangered?  

Trumps language is a threat. How dumb does one have to be to threaten a federal prosecutor? What would the court do to anyone else under indictment who threatened their prosecutor? Trump loves to threaten anyone who opposes him and he doesn’t care about the consequences for the other individual. I’m sure Trump would love one of his deranged MAGA minions to take violent action so I don’t think we can assume no lives endangered. 

[JDHillFan]

10 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

Trumps language is a threat. How dumb does one have to be to threaten a federal prosecutor? What would the court do to anyone else under indictment who threatened their prosecutor? Trump loves to threaten anyone who opposes him and he doesn’t care about the consequences for the other individual. I’m sure Trump would love one of his deranged MAGA minions to take violent action so I don’t think we can assume no lives endangered. 

Since this board is largely about whataboutism, I will just leave these words from a decidedly non-maga here. It’s as if the words are a threat. I’m sure Schumer would love one of his deranged non-maga minions to take violent action. Scary!

 

For the Senate's Democratic leader to stand on the front steps of the Supreme Court and furiously shout words that sound very much like a threat against two high court justices is unseemly and warrants a full-throated apology.

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer roared Wednesday to a crowd of protesters angry over a Louisiana case before the court that threatens abortion rights. "You won't know what hit if you go forward with these awful decisions."

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

7 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

Trumps language is a threat. How dumb does one have to be to threaten a federal prosecutor? What would the court do to anyone else under indictment who threatened their prosecutor? Trump loves to threaten anyone who opposes him and he doesn’t care about the consequences for the other individual. I’m sure Trump would love one of his deranged MAGA minions to take violent action so I don’t think we can assume no lives endangered. 

We can pretend for a minute that politicians and activists don’t use incendiary language on an almost daily basis, or that politicians and activists accusing their opposition of being guilty of treason or being an illegitimate president is way cool and not at all dangerous, or senators ominously stating the intelligence community will come for you in any way, shape or form if you cross them.  If that makes you feel good,Andy, let’s pretend that. 
 

The question was about gag orders.  Short of revealing national security issues and exposing individuals to harm, why is it acceptable for the govt to leak as they see fit without recourse, and the defense required to stand down when it benefits them. 
 

Again, I’m torn, I’m not sure how I feel about that.  If the prosecution is malicious—as has obviously happened with some

regularity since the founding of our county,  wouldn’t you want to see evidence of same?  
 

Assume Trump is not the defendant. 

[BillsFanNC]

This is what happens when you get a bunch of idiots believing that words are actual violence.

 

Remember when the left used Trump saying "fight" as evidence that he wanted a coup during impeachment?

 

And then the defense produced a 10 minute video of democrats using the exact same word in political speeches?

 

Yeah, we know. Those are all different. 

Edited August 5, 2023 by BillsFanNC

[BillsFanNC]

Six ways from Sunday eh Chuck?

 

Two sham impeachments and three sham idictments so far...

 

How dare he take on anonymous un-elected figures!

 

 

 

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:

This is what happens when you get a bunch of idiots believing that words are actual violence.

 

Remember when the left used Trump saying "fight" as evidence that he wanted a coup during impeachment?

 

And then the defense produced a 10 minute video of democrats using the exact same word in political speeches?

 

Yeah, we know. Those are all different. 

As much as you want this to be about the first amendment - Trump’s charges have NOTHING to do with the first amendment.

 

But Karen Psyop - keep bichn gf!

 

[BillsFanNC]

^^^^

 

The court jester for some PPP weekend entertainment.

 

Well for some of you anyway.

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 hours ago, JDHillFan said:

Since this board is largely about whataboutism, I will just leave these words from a decidedly non-maga here. It’s as if the words are a threat. I’m sure Schumer would love one of his deranged non-maga minions to take violent action. Scary!

 

For the Senate's Democratic leader to stand on the front steps of the Supreme Court and furiously shout words that sound very much like a threat against two high court justices is unseemly and warrants a full-throated apology.

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer roared Wednesday to a crowd of protesters angry over a Louisiana case before the court that threatens abortion rights. "You won't know what hit if you go forward with these awful decisions."

Pillow talk! 

2 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

Six ways from Sunday eh Chuck?

 

Two sham impeachments and three sham idictments so far...

 

How dare he take on anonymous un-elected figures!

 

 

 

What always amazed me was Maddow just nodding along, not a question to be found. 

[Andy1]

10 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

We can pretend for a minute that politicians and activists don’t use incendiary language on an almost daily basis, or that politicians and activists accusing their opposition of being guilty of treason or being an illegitimate president is way cool and not at all dangerous, or senators ominously stating the intelligence community will come for you in any way, shape or form if you cross them.  If that makes you feel good,Andy, let’s pretend that. 
 

The question was about gag orders.  Short of revealing national security issues and exposing individuals to harm, why is it acceptable for the govt to leak as they see fit without recourse, and the defense required to stand down when it benefits them. 
 

Again, I’m torn, I’m not sure how I feel about that.  If the prosecution is malicious—as has obviously happened with some

regularity since the founding of our county,  wouldn’t you want to see evidence of same?  
 

Assume Trump is not the defendant. 

Lehnerd you raise some interesting points. As far as the leaked photos of the docs Trump had, I have no good answer. Was it illegal to release them? I’m no attorney so I have no clue on that. Maybe Bidens garage with the docs there should be shown too. The FBI announced the investigation of Hillary and never told the public about their investigation of Trump before the election. Who knows, that may have swung the election towards Trump. That wasn’t fair either but that’s how the world goes.

 I’ve long thought that political leaders on both sides need to turn down the temperature of political rhetoric. If Trumps language threatens witnesses or court members a limited gag order seems appropriate if that is within the norms of the justice system. At this point we just need to let the justice system do its job. I have faith in our justice system and eventually this will be resolved and both parties will move on to some sort of new post-Trump political world. 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

Lehnerd you raise some interesting points. As far as the leaked photos of the docs Trump had, I have no good answer. Was it illegal to release them? I’m no attorney so I have no clue on that. Maybe Bidens garage with the docs there should be shown too. The FBI announced the investigation of Hillary and never told the public about their investigation of Trump before the election. Who knows, that may have swung the election towards Trump. That wasn’t fair either but that’s how the world goes.

 I’ve long thought that political leaders on both sides need to turn down the temperature of political rhetoric. If Trumps language threatens witnesses or court members a limited gag order seems appropriate if that is within the norms of the justice system. At this point we just need to let the justice system do its job. I have faith in our justice system and eventually this will be resolved and both parties will move on to some sort of new post-Trump political world. 

 

Illegal or not, it happens, Andy.  To be candid, I’m really struggling to understand how you can go from “Trump’s comments = threat” to “Gee, I don’t know why certain things are leaked”.  
 

You know why those photos were leaked, and I know why those photos were leaked.  We can debate whether it was some low level flunky trying to look important or Merrick Garland himself.  We can debate whether it was some malicious and malevolent force trying to divide folks like you and me, or some well-intentioned patriot who truly felt Trump is a threat to all mankind and figured “Screw my ethics”.  What is beyond debate is that the photos were leaked to influence opinion. 
 

Back to the point.  The government holds all the cards here.  No budgetary constraints. No limitations on personnel working the case.  No personal financial skin in the game whether Smith wins or loses.  A one-sided process to return an indictment.  The game is played on their home court.  They gave unlimited opportunity to leak information and the protection of anonymous sourcing to shape the narrative as they see fit. 
 

The defendant, on the other hand, has none of that.  If the case Smith is bringing is so strong—-and it likely is—-what’s the harm in sharing/releasing data so long as no significant national secrets are in play (we can even use the Biden Benchmark—anything sensitive enough that it can’t be stored next to a corvette 30 years or older is off limits) and no one is in harms way?  

I’ve gotten to the point where I realize there’s far too much secrecy in our system, too many people protecting others, too much hidden under the cover of National Security.

 

I remain uncertain about the protective order, but the fantasy that what Trump tweeted is beyond the political pale simply doesn’t hold water with me. That and worse occur daily in Washington.  

 

[Andy1]

26 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Illegal or not, it happens, Andy.  To be candid, I’m really struggling to understand how you can go from “Trump’s comments = threat” to “Gee, I don’t know why certain things are leaked”.  
 

You know why those photos were leaked, and I know why those photos were leaked.  We can debate whether it was some low level flunky trying to look important or Merrick Garland himself.  We can debate whether it was some malicious and malevolent force trying to divide folks like you and me, or some well-intentioned patriot who truly felt Trump is a threat to all mankind and figured “Screw my ethics”.  What is beyond debate is that the photos were leaked to influence opinion. 
 

Back to the point.  The government holds all the cards here.  No budgetary constraints. No limitations on personnel working the case.  No personal financial skin in the game whether Smith wins or loses.  A one-sided process to return an indictment.  The game is played on their home court.  They gave unlimited opportunity to leak information and the protection of anonymous sourcing to shape the narrative as they see fit. 
 

The defendant, on the other hand, has none of that.  If the case Smith is bringing is so strong—-and it likely is—-what’s the harm in sharing/releasing data so long as no significant national secrets are in play (we can even use the Biden Benchmark—anything sensitive enough that it can’t be stored next to a corvette 30 years or older is off limits) and no one is in harms way?  

I’ve gotten to the point where I realize there’s far too much secrecy in our system, too many people protecting others, too much hidden under the cover of National Security.

 

I remain uncertain about the protective order, but the fantasy that what Trump tweeted is beyond the political pale simply doesn’t hold water with me. That and worse occur daily in Washington.  

 

I agree, the public should hear whatever evidence Smith has. We will when these cases go to trial. The government does hold all the cards. That’s why legal experts all say you really don’t want to face federal charges. Trump didn’t care about the consequences, so now he faces the charges. The feds still need to convince a jury of their case.
 

The amount of classified documents our country has is ridiculous.  My local library does a better job tracking and retrieving late books than our government does with their classified docs. This is a good opportunity for bipartisan legislation to deal with this issue.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

18 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

I agree, the public should hear whatever evidence Smith has. We will when these cases go to trial. The government does hold all the cards. That’s why legal experts all say you really don’t want to face federal charges. Trump didn’t care about the consequences, so now he faces the charges. The feds still need to convince a jury of their case.
 

The amount of classified documents our country has is ridiculous.  My local library does a better job tracking and retrieving late books than our government does with their classified docs. This is a good opportunity for bipartisan legislation to deal with this issue.

But we won’t hear everything, that not the nature of a trial.  It’s a carefully  scripted presentation by skilled orators who consider everything from jury makeup to how they sit/stand dress, to when they object, tone of voice and human psychology. 
 

In fact, it seems pretty clear you’ve already made your mind up, and I’d be surprised if that’s not due in large part to that which has been said and leaked to the media.   That brings me back to the hypothetical….is a gag order fair?  
 

I’ll move on, doesn’t matter much one way or the other.  Have a good night. 
 

 

 

[John from Riverside]

52 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

I agree, the public should hear whatever evidence Smith has. We will when these cases go to trial. The government does hold all the cards. That’s why legal experts all say you really don’t want to face federal charges. Trump didn’t care about the consequences, so now he faces the charges. The feds still need to convince a jury of their case.
 

The amount of classified documents our country has is ridiculous.  My local library does a better job tracking and retrieving late books than our government does with their classified docs. This is a good opportunity for bipartisan legislation to deal with this issue.

Absolutely it really bothers me just how poorly they are being handled whenever I went through years of being right on point with every document
 

But see, that’s the thing a low level airman they would throw the book at if you have power, it seems you have more leeway I don’t like that very much

[BillsFanNC]

12 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Illegal or not, it happens, Andy.  To be candid, I’m really struggling to understand how you can go from “Trump’s comments = threat” to “Gee, I don’t know why certain things are leaked”.  
 

You know why those photos were leaked, and I know why those photos were leaked.  We can debate whether it was some low level flunky trying to look important or Merrick Garland himself.  We can debate whether it was some malicious and malevolent force trying to divide folks like you and me, or some well-intentioned patriot who truly felt Trump is a threat to all mankind and figured “Screw my ethics”.  What is beyond debate is that the photos were leaked to influence opinion. 
 

Back to the point.  The government holds all the cards here.  No budgetary constraints. No limitations on personnel working the case.  No personal financial skin in the game whether Smith wins or loses.  A one-sided process to return an indictment.  The game is played on their home court.  They gave unlimited opportunity to leak information and the protection of anonymous sourcing to shape the narrative as they see fit. 
 

The defendant, on the other hand, has none of that.  If the case Smith is bringing is so strong—-and it likely is—-what’s the harm in sharing/releasing data so long as no significant national secrets are in play (we can even use the Biden Benchmark—anything sensitive enough that it can’t be stored next to a corvette 30 years or older is off limits) and no one is in harms way?  

I’ve gotten to the point where I realize there’s far too much secrecy in our system, too many people protecting others, too much hidden under the cover of National Security.

 

I remain uncertain about the protective order, but the fantasy that what Trump tweeted is beyond the political pale simply doesn’t hold water with me. That and worse occur daily in Washington.  

 

 

Robert  Hur.

 

Do you know who this individual is @Andy1?

 

I'll give you a moment to Google...

 

 

That's right he is the special counsel assigned to Biden classified docs case. 

 

Jack Smith, as you know, is currently given rock star status.

 

Curiously in this instance it's as it should be, a locked up tight investigation, no leaks at all. We even have a media that is largely uninterested in reporting on the investigation in any way.

 

Why do you suppose that is andy?

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

Anyway, back to the thread...

 

 

 

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

Anyway, back to the thread...

 

 

 

So much winning, Karen.

 

No doubt you’re proud of this POS.

[BillsFanNC]

 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

@Andy1

 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/08/07/trump-gag-order-is-likely-given-his-online-attacks-pence-jack-smith-legal-experts-say.html

 

This article takes a deeper dive  into the question we discussed the other day.  True, it seems a bit hyperbolic on the importance of words in capital letters, neglects to mention that Trump has actually been the victim of political persecution according to many people in the know, but overall...why should his speech be limited beyond highly sensitive or protected information, when the govt has no such restraint? 

 

Gag orders are usually only imposed when the fairness of a trial is seen to be at risk, legal experts said. The judge will have to weigh First Amendment concerns against the need to prevent attempts to tamper with witnesses or taint the jury pool.

 

later...

 

In a filing Monday evening, Trump's attorneys argued that the Department of Justice's proposed protective order was too broad. The defense attorneys proposed a narrower order that they said would shield "only genuinely sensitive materials from public view."

 

and...

 

In a social media post earlier Monday, Trump claimed that a protective order in the case "would impinge upon my right to FREE SPEECH." In the same post, Trump said that Smith and the DOJ should be bound by such an order, claiming they are "leaking" information.

 

Again, I understand the malice and disgust directed at Trump, but think the defense raises a valid point about being muzzled unreasonably.  

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

strange woman but had a unique and close perspective

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/08/08/trump-indictments-speech-grisham-reaction-bts-cnc-vpx.cnnhttps://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/08/08/trump-indictments-speech-grisham-reaction-bts-cnc-vpx.cnn

[BillsFanNC]

The weaponized government can hold press conferences and freely leak to a complicit media laying out their "case" unperturbed, clearly poisoning any potential commie DC jurors to the extent that they can swallow any more poison, but Trump requires a gag order....

 

Got it.

 

How to tell us that you support the police state, comrade. 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by BillsFanNC

[Joe Ferguson forever]

42 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

The weaponized government can hold press conferences and freely lealk to a complicit media laying out their "case" unperturbed, clearly poisoning any potential commie DC jurors to the extent that they can swallow any more poison, but Trump requires a gag order....

 

Got it.

 

How to tell us that you support the police state, comrade. 

 

 

yes, because he's never threatened judges or witnesses.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/07/trump-witness-tampering-analysis/

Edited August 8, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Andy1]

It looks like he is going to challenge the authority of the court and ignore whatever order is decided upon. He probably figures, maybe correctly, that he will not be imprisoned for talking, so why bother complying with the court order. And the show goes on….

[TSOL]

1 hour ago, Andy1 said:

It looks like he is going to challenge the authority of the court and ignore whatever order is decided upon. He probably figures, maybe correctly, that he will not be imprisoned for talking, so why bother complying with the court order. And the show goes on….

 

 

Don't hate the player, hate the game. 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[John from Riverside]

On 8/6/2023 at 10:59 AM, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

 

I can easily see why Dan Bongino is your favorite guy. You must be the life of the parties

1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

52 court cases lost
Countless audits

 

Biden won deal with it

[BillsFanNC]

 

 

[John from Riverside]

15 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

Two fat people calling each other fat

[BillsFanNC]