Below is a longer version of my column in the New York Post on the gag order motion docketed Friday night in Washington, D.C. by Special Counsel Jack Smith. While described by Smith as “narrowly tailored,” even a cursory consideration of the broad scope and vague terms belies such a claim. It would sharply limit the ability of former President Donald Trump to publicly discuss the evidence and allegations in a case that is now at the center of the presidential campaign.
Here is the column:
Ronald Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”
After Friday night, we can add nine more: “a narrowly tailored order that imposes modest, permissible restrictions.”
Those words were used by Special Counsel Jack Smith to propose a gag order that would sharply curtail the ability of former President Donald Trump to criticize Smith and his prosecution.
The Smith motion is anything but “narrowly tailored.”
Indeed, short of a mobile “Get Smart” Cone of Silence, it is chilling to think of what Smith considered the broader option.
Smith told District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., that Trump could “present a serious and substantial danger of prejudicing” his 2020 federal election interference case.
Smith compared Trump’s comments on the trial to the “disinformation” spread by Trump after the 2020 election — the subject of the indictment.
The motion states that Trump’s “recent extrajudicial statements are intended to undermine public confidence in an institution — the judicial system — and to undermine confidence in and intimidate individuals — the Court, the jury pool, witnesses, and prosecutors.”
I have long criticized Trump’s inflammatory comments over these cases, but Smith’s solution veers dangerously into core political speech in the middle of a presidential election.
Ironically, Smith’s move will likely be seen as reinforcing Trump’s claim of intentional election interference by the Biden Administration.
I do not view it that way, but I do believe Smith is showing his signature lack of restraint in high-profile cases, a tendency that led to the unanimous overturning of his conviction of former Virginia Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell.
Smith seeks to bar comments “regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses” and “statements about any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflammatory, or intimidating.”
Gag orders have become commonplace in federal trials, particularly high-profile cases.
I have criticized the increasing use of gag orders for years due to concerns over the free speech. Typical orders often seek to shutdown public comments in the interests of protecting jury pools. Even “narrower” orders are written with vague terminology like “disparaging” and “intimidating” that expose defendants to punitive action if they cross uncertain lines in public defending themselves. No one seriously questions the ability of courts to limit the release of sealed material or to bar threatening comments directed at jurors, witnesses, or court staff. Moreover, there are laws on the books allowing for the prosecution of cases of threats or efforts to influence jurors or witnesses.
More importantly, this is no typical case.
Smith has pushed for a trial before the election and the court inexplicably shoehorned the trial into a crowded calendar just before the Super Tuesday election.
Judge Chutkan previously stated that “I cannot and I will not factor into my decisions how it will factor into a political campaign.”
This motion, however, would impose substantial limits on a national political debate and begs the question of whether the court is failing to balance the rivaling constitutional interests in this unprecedented situation.
It could not only test Chutkan’s position but prompt an early appeal.
One of the top issues in this presidential campaign is Trump’s insistence that the Justice Department and the criminal justice system have been weaponized by Democrats.
He was running on that issue even before the four separate criminal cases were filed against him in Florida, Georgia, New York, and Washington, D.C.
More importantly, it is an issue that is resonating with tens of millions of Americans.
One poll showed 62% of the public viewed the prosecutions as “politically motivated.”
Another poll shows that 65% still view the prosecutions as “serious.” Between these polls is found a raging debate among citizens and candidates over the merits and motivations of these cases.
Under Smith’s proposed motion, almost everyone (including Biden) will be able to discuss this case but Trump himself.
Disparaging criticism of Smith or key accusers could land Trump in jail under an ambiguous standard.
That is a rather hard standard to respect when you are alleging that Smith is part of a politically motivated hit job.
Moreover, gagging Trump would not impact the level of inflammatory or insulting commentary.
By scheduling a trial of the leading candidate for the presidency in the middle of the election season, the cases will continue to occupy a high level of coverage and commentary.
This jury pool will be inundated with such commentary on both sides and Trump’s prior comments on the case will be replayed continually in print, radio, and television outlets.
In light of that reality, the question is whether gagging Trump will materially change the impact on potential jurors.
Conversely, it will gag a candidate on a major issue before the public.
Worse yet, one of the potential witnesses is one of Trump’s opponents: former Vice President Mike Pence.
Other potential witnesses are political figures who have engaged in commentary on the underlying allegations.
To be clear, I criticized Trump’s Jan. 6 speech while he was giving it.
I supported Vice President Mike Pence and his certification of the election of Joe Biden.
Despite my disagreement with Trump on that day and his claims of voting fraud, he is making his case to the American people on his past conduct.
This was not some manufactured claim to allow him to poison a jury pool. It has been building for years and long ago some of us predicted that this election would be the largest jury verdict in history.
These courts have elected to daisy-chain trials before the election.
The timing guaranteed the maximum level of coverage and commentary. At this point, a broad gag order is like running for a hand pump on the Titanic.
A truly “narrowly tailored” order would focus on comments deemed threatening to witnesses or jurors.
However, banning disparaging and inflammatory comments about the prosecution or accusers would create a Damocles sword dangling over the head of Trump in every speech.
In making his case that he acted lawfully in the prior election, Trump will be pummeled with specific claims from witnesses and the prosecutors.
Moreover, after long alleging the weaponization of the criminal justice system, any comments on the motivation of Smith and the Justice Department will be — by definition — defamation.
Meanwhile, Judge Chutkan’s own comments about Trump have been repeatedly quoted in the media and are the basis for a motion for her to recuse herself.
For example, in sentencing a rioter in 2022, Chutkan said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man – not to the Constitution.”
She added that “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.”
Judge Chutkan’s promise not to consider the political campaign in ruling on these motions will now be tested.
The trial of a former president in the midst of a presidential election is a unique situation and may require greater accommodation than Chutkan is inclined to give.
There may be a judicial argument for gagging Trump, but it raises serious constitutional concerns. Is it really worth the cost?
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
Reminder: Per docketed Order issued Sept 11 in the DC case —
“MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Upon consideration of Defendant’s 50 Motion for Recusal, it is hereby ORDERED that the government shall file any opposition no later than September 14, 2023, and the defense shall file any reply within three calendar days from the filing date of the government’s opposition. —”
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/
— Trump’s Reply (if any) is due by midnight tonight. And based on this judge’s prior rulings, I’d expect her to rule on the Motion for Recusal by sometime tomorrow, if not sooner, since she usually rules pretty quickly and has already had plenty of time to consider the Motion AND the prosecutor’s Response filed last Thursday and certainly has her own opinions about whether she is fit to hear this case.
Can’t wait to read Trump’s lawyers’ Reply to the Special Counsel’s Response. This really ought to be good, no matter how the judge rules.
As of 9pm eastern time, Trump’s Reply has been filed and the issue is ripe for ruling. Unfortunately, at the moment the filing is hidden behind the PACER paywall, but that SHOULD change soon.
Dennis McInlyre said: If I were “galactically stupid” why is it I was stationed at the Presidio in San Francisco in an Army PR unit–9 to 5, M-F with weekends off?
Well Dennis, I thought I had already answered this question. That is EXACTLY why you were “stationed” there. Because you wouldn’t have lasted 2 days on a submarine, before being gagged, bound, and stuffed into a bilge in the engineroom, until you lost that little passive/aggressive, narcissistic, condescending attitude of yours.
Any more questions?
Let me guess,
The commanders didn’t want to harm him so they placed him in with other San Fran Freaks & they knew with enough time the Seagulls would crap all over him. LOL;)
LOL Speaking of crap all over him. Tomorrow I will explain what a TP shower is and why it applies to our very own big mouth coward.
I’ll look for it.
The attempt to silence Trump is part of the Left’s system of controlling the words and thoughts of all Americans. Only “good” Americans who remain silent in the face of the Left’s attempt to destroy this country will be tolerated, and even they will be tolerated for only a short period of time. Like it or not, Trump is fighting for us and we should defend him no matter our reservations regarding his character and demeanor.
5:22 mins:
Mainstream Media Questions Alex Jones Over Contempt Of Court & Gag Order
63,399 views
·Sep 21, 2022
18
Share
Download
Alex Jones Kangaroo Court Watch
Alex Jones Kangaroo Court Watch
During a press conference outside a Connecticut courthouse on Wednesday, Court TV correspondent Matt Johnson warned Alex Jones of possible Contempt of Court and Gag Orders from the judge.
http://madmaxworld.tv/watch?id=632b6d8efc675f06f3cbad58
You speak of efforts to try to silence Trump, when Tom and other Cult 45ers on this blog do EXACTLY the same thing by insulting people who don’t fall for the Trump BS.
I don’t know why me calling you LIAR would insult you Gigi. One would think you are proud of it, as much as you do it.
Shall I list them all again?
Repeating a lie makes you what??? A LIAR
Don’t be insulted, you woulda have been very popular on a submarine, just for all the wrong reasons
In fact, you just lied again AND insulted me, by implying that I am a so-called “Cult45er”, when I did not vote for Trump in either election.
Just because I won’t let you get away with lies like “the inflation rate was 8% when Trump left office”, does not make me a Trumper
I bet that just burns you morons up, don’t it??? That I can call ’em straight and you can’t.
Where ya at, Gigi? Still at that bday party?
THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS NOT QUALIFIED IN FAVOR OF, OR SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION BY, POLITICIANS OR POLITICAL APPOINTEES
“DECLARE ALL ACTS CONTRARY TO THE MANIFEST TENOR OF THE CONSTITUTION VOID.”
________________________________________________________________________________
And, of course, this high-criminal and court have no power to modify the Constitution, modify the Constitution through “interpretation,” amend the Constitution and Bill of Rights outside of the amendment process prescribed by the Constitution, or otherwise abridge the freedom of speech of any American citizen, much less their principal’s political opponent and opposing candidate in the next election.
This is not dissimilar to federal, state, or local governments infringing, illicitly and unconstitutionally, in any aspect, facet, or form, on a citizen’s absolute right to keep and bear arms.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
__________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
___________________________________________________________________
2nd Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This I consider one of the best recent revealed truth news to the & it’s in their own words.
******
16:45 min., play it.
Exclusive Sneak Peek! Alex Jones Exposes DARPA Mad Scientist
154,821 views
Sep 9, 2023
82
Share
Download
The Alex Jones Show
The Alex Jones Show
Go to JonesCrowder.(dot)com to see the full video & get 1 Month FREE!
http://madmaxworld.tv/watch?id=64fc9778112661824fb0aa29
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/09/17/gagging-donald-trump-why-smiths-narrowly-tailored-motion-is-a-neither-narrow-nor-wise/#comments
Corruption of the DOJ and justice system has been a valid political issue since at least the Spring of 2016 when the Obama DOJ concocted the Trump-Russia Collusion Witch Hunt. That political issue has continued unabated since BEFORE Trump was elected president. If anything, that valid political issue has INTENSIFIED in the years since it began.
For the Joetard DOJ to seek issuance of a gag order preventing Trump from publically-addressing that longstanding campaign issue is a patently illegal misuse of criminal process, violation of Trump’s First Amendment rights, violation of the public’s First Amendment rights to HEAR Trump speak to these issues, and textbook example of tortious Abuse of Process.
The fact that renegade prosecutor Jack Smith would ask the court to silence Trump in relation to a LONGSTANDING campaign issue related to well-documented corruption of the judicial system is Exhibit A in relation to the need for this judge to recuse herself and a subsequent Motion for Change of Venue.
“2020 WAS RIGGED”
__________________
“FBI Crossfire Hurricane Investigators Had Clear ‘Personal Bias,’ Ignored ‘Red Flags,’ Durham Testifies”
Appearing before the House Judiciary committee on Wednesday, Special Counsel John Durham defended his probe into the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, asserting he found “troubling violations of law and policy” as well as bias among key officials.
The report was published in mid-May and determined that the FBI’s investigation into allegations of collusion between Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia was improperly opened. Durham also found several examples of the agency mishandling the investigation once it was opened. The special counsel added that in the intervening years, FBI employees have come to him and apologized for the agency’s conduct.
– National Review
_______________
“Special counsel John Durham concludes FBI never should have launched full Trump-Russia probe”
Special counsel John Durham concluded that the FBI should never have launched a full investigation into connections between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, according to a report compiled over three years by the Trump-administration appointee and released on Monday.
– CNN
______
“Zuckerberg tells Rogan FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship”
Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook restricting a story about Joe Biden’s son during the 2020 election was based on FBI misinformation warnings.
The New York Post alleged leaked emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop showed the then vice-president was helping his son’s business dealings in Ukraine.
Facebook and Twitter restricted sharing of the article, before reversing course amid allegations of censorship.
Zuckerberg said that getting the decision wrong “sucks”.
“When we take down something that we’re not supposed to, that’s the worst,” Zuckerberg said in a rare extended media interview on the Joe Rogan podcast.
– BBC
@Anonymous
Are you naive or just blowing smoke to cover your tracks. Nearly every one of these people in the black robes has worked or sought work or supported one party or another. To eliminate such circumstances would require making those relationships official criteria for not being nominated or selected. On a practical basis, would there be anybody left?
Get real. Even RGB attempted to get a job in the DOJ when Carter was president.
“One of the top issues in this presidential campaign is Trump’s insistence that the Justice Department and the criminal justice system have been weaponized by Democrats”
.
The only issue, the screaming issue, will be the election itself. The issue is going to be election integrity. We are going to be voting on whether future voting will mean anything.
We are going to be voting on whether future voting will mean anything.
I agree. And what really stinks is that one side has made questioning electoral integrity verboten (and is trying to criminalize it, at least for Trump), and has messed around with electoral procedures in so many shady and uncheckable ways, such that many on the other side are absolutely going to view an electoral loss in 2024 as proof that future voting won’t mean anything.
It’s terrible for the polity. I blame the Democrats, almost 100% , because when your answer to “So, exactly why did observers get kicked out of the counting room, and then counters continue to count?” and “So, just what is the audit procedure for ballots dropped in an unmonitored dropbox?” and “So, if the major social media platforms were all directed to deplatform Trump supporters, how is that not election interference?” is “YOU WANT OLD PEOPLE TO DIE! SCIENCE DENIERS! And also, how ridiculous – ooo, boogah boogah, ballot harvesting!” – well, that sort of answer doesn’t fill the voting populace with confidence. And then, when you attempt to criminalize the asking of those same questions, it sure looks as if you have something to hide.
I don’t know that they do. It is now de riguer on the progressive left to avoid engaging with your opponents and instead just to shut down any debate or questioning as fast and hard as possible, so maybe it’s just that.
But it looks suspicious as hell.
Gagging someone who is innocent until proven guilty is antithetical to public confidence in a judicial system that is supposed to uphold the rights of the accused.
Especially when the gag order is intended to prevent THE leading opposition candidate from participating in a public debate that has been raging for more than two years, such as the public debate and CAMPAIGN ISSUES concerning a corrupt judiciary and DOJ and issues related to the fairness of the 2020 election. ALL of these matters were campaign issues BEFORE the corrupt prosecutor brought criminal charges against Trump.
As a candidate for President in an election in which the weaponisation of the justice system is a prominent issue, Trump should be free to say whatever he wants in relation to this case about the Biden administration, the DOJ, Garland, Monaco, Smith and the other prosecutors, Chutkan, Pence and anyone else who has been publicly involved in this matter. He should also be free to say anything he wants about the political orientation of D.C. from which the jury will be drawn. Witness intimidation is already a crime so there is no need for a gag order to prevent that. Jurors’ names are not published, so there is nothing to do there.
You may be innocent, but you’re not free. Trump is technically a prisoner out on bail. He CAN be restricted.
I answered this below. He is not technically a prisoner. He is a free man. He has not been convicted of any crime. His constitutional rights remain intact.
So you must believe all gag orders to be illegal, even though the courts don’t agree.
You apparently think it’s fine to taint the jury pool and to intimidate the prosecution and witnesses.
A.N.D.
Another clown who is confident they’ll find 12 people who never heard of Donald Trump
So you must believe all gag orders to be illegal . . .
Not all, but many, and not because of my own views, but because of how the First Amendment has been interpreted with regard to prior restraints – which are rarely illegal.
You apparently think it’s fine to taint the jury pool and to intimidate the prosecution and witnesses.
First, suggesting the US Government is going to be intimidated by Trump’s political speech is a huge belly laugh. Second, suggesting witness intimidation through public political speech is a stretch, to put it mildly. Finally, as for tainting the jury pool, it’s not fine, but the underlying value balancing with freedom of speech is a fair trial for the defendant. So, it will be a rare case that the court will (validly) find that the First Amendment’s protections have been outweighed because the defendant needs to be protected from his own speech.
So how do you reconcile your claim that “His constitutional rights remain intact,” and presumably the same for all other defendants, with your view that some gag orders are legal, given that gag orders restrict otherwise-protected speech?
“suggesting the US Government is going to be intimidated by Trump’s political speech is a huge belly laugh.”
It isn’t. According to Mitt Romney, some other Republican Senators told him that they wanted to vote to convict Trump in the second impeachment trial but feared for their safety, worried about violent Trump supporters coming after them. Romney still pays for additional protection for his family. You talk about the government as some amorphous entity while ignoring the people who get threatened.
“suggesting witness intimidation through public political speech is a stretch, to put it mildly”
It isn’t. Again: actual people get threatened. For example, Shaye Moss, an election worker who was the target of a conspiracy theory spread by Trump and Giuliani, got violent threats and had to leave her job. It’s not a worry about Trump himself physically harming someone; it’s a worry about some of his violent supporters.
“it will be a rare case that the court will (validly) find that the First Amendment’s protections have been outweighed because the defendant needs to be protected from his own speech.”
I agree. I think this may be one of those rare cases. But it’s not my call. We’ll see what Judge Chutkan rules.
“According to Mitt Romney, some other Republican Senators told him that they wanted to vote to convict Trump in the second impeachment trial”
You are all wet. Today we know that Biden Administration figures lied before Congress and we are learning that Biden interfered in the internal affairs of another country likely to prevent discovery of his corruption with his son. Shokin was removed at Biden’s request.
This is what happens when the medial and society censors speech. Trump did not cause the threats to jurors if any ocurred. That is the nature of our society when the left permits Antifa to run amok killing, looting and burning.
Trump can NOT be LEGALLY restricted from participating in public debate that was ongoing for YEARS before he was arrested. That’s textbook Abuse of Process.
@Anonymous
So, then YOU clearly see the reason why the DOJ has self imposed rules as to why NOT to get involved in politics during an election cycle
And, perhaps, you can see why people are suspicious of the DOJ for doing so?
And why people wonder about judges picking a trial dates that the throws of said cycles? Especially in cases where there is no statute of limitations?
The DOJ does not have “self imposed rules as to why NOT to get involved in politics during an election cycle.” It has a rule about refraining from action during a couple of months before an election, which is nowhere close to the entire election cycle.
@Anonymous
So you agree that:
1. The DOJ does have a rule.
2 Presumably you agree that the DOJ rule is self imposed.
3. That the rule in place is purposed such that DOJ should “refrain from action”.
You state that the time period is for a “couple of months before an election, which is nowhere close to the entire election”.
1. Really? “a couple of months before an election”? Is that the exact wording?
2. One then asks why would there even be the need for such a rule by the DOJ directed at itself?
3. One then asks why such a very specific period of “a couple of months before an election” would be stipulated?
4. Does that wording then mean to imply that, whatever dark actions or political activities that provided the motivation for making the ‘rule’, those same actions were acceptable outside the very specific “a couple of months before an election” time frame? Is that what you meant to imply?
5. Importantly, when those framers of that rule put it into place, do you think they anticipated the DOJ running a Russia-gate type of scam well within the “couple of months” before the 2016 election or a more drawn out process as in seemingly going for the opposition’s main contender while he was seeking his party’s nomination to run in the 2024 election cycle?
Since it is now clear to nearly all but the most partisan hacks that this DOJ ‘rule’ was grossly violated in the 2016 AND 2020 election, your point is that now this rule should be some sort of gold standard that strictly demands adherence to the “couple of months before an election” time frame but on NO other aspect? Such as addressing the type of actions for which the original ‘rule’ was meant?
Sounds like you are more of a ‘details about the details kinda guy’. Is it true what they say about not seeing the forest for the trees?
See section B starting on p. 17: https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download
Again: my point was simply that the claim “the DOJ has self imposed rules as to why NOT to get involved in politics during an election cycle” is false, as it has never had such a rule about an election cycle.
@Anonymous
I want to sincerely thank you for for pointing out the DOJ’s ‘rule’ policy time frame and providing the link to a reference document.
See section B starting on p. 17: https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download
1. From the document, the earlier claim I made about there being a “DOJ has self imposed rules as to why NOT to get involved in politics during an election cycle” is NOT correct. Rather, it is DOJ policy not engage in such involvement regardless of the time frame.
The DOJ’s ELECTION YEAR SENSITIVITIES POLICY memorandum states:
“Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select
the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of
affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or
disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”
2. The Unwritten 60-Day Rule:
the so-called “60-Day Rule,” under which prosecutors avoid public disclosure of investigative
steps related to electoral matters or the return of indictments against a candidate
for office within 60 days of a primary or general election.
Read Section A and B on the document and you will note:
1. The 60-day ‘rule’ is unwritten’. I did not know that and now question the value of such a ‘rule’. The motivation for such a rule is even more disturbing.
2. The rule does not pertain to all “action”. It specifically addresses only ‘avoiding disclosure investigative steps or the return of indictments against a candidate within 60 days of an election or primary’.
3. the DOJ’s POLICY states that officers and prosecutors may NEVER select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges “for the purpose of affecting ANY election…..or giving an advantage or disadvantage to ANY candidate or party’
I thus admit I was wrong for claiming it was a DOJ ‘rule’ “NOT to get involved in politics during an election cycle” when, in fact, it is stated DOJ policy not to get involved in election politics…EVER.
Thank you again Anonymous! And I am sure you would agree that the DOJ clearly VIOLATED its stated policy in 2016 and 2020 and is thus justifiably suspected of doing so again in 2023…and without need for referencing the UNWRITTEN 60-day rule.
No, I don’t agree, and your own comment makes me think that I shouldn’t waste my time saying why.
No, I don’t agree, and your own comment makes me think that I shouldn’t waste
myyour time saying why.Fixed that for ya.
Here is why….
Uh nope nope nope nope uh uh nope…
Sorry to hear that, Anonymous.
The transparency you demonstrated in providing the DOJ policy indicating intolerance for election interference in terms of timing of investigative steps or charges so as to interfere with any election or disadvantage any candidate or party is commendable.
Why you do not agree that the DOJ did interfere in 2016 (Russia-gate) and 2020 (Hunter’s lap-top, Burisma situation, etc, etc) is curious and I would really like to know your reasoning.
And given the track record of the DOJ in 2016 and 2020, I would also like to know your reasoning as to why the DOJ would not be attempting to do the same thing again as evidenced the timing of the current indictments and court dates versus the concerns listed in the DOJ policy. For example, do you think the DOJ is afraid the statute of limitations on the alleged crimes will expire thus explaining a rush to early trial dates atypical of contested federal prosecutions?
His rush to judgment is expected, but nevertheless troubling for anyone who is not an illiberal. What Anonymous meant to say is that Trump is out on bail subject only to appearing in court where the matter of guilt may or may not preclude the presumption of innocence. Until then he is most certainly free and very much not a prisoner – technically or otherwise.
Yea I had a similar argument with this numbskull a week or so ago, when he insisted that Trump was by definition a “criminal”. Good luck reasoning with Beaky Buzzard.
We do not have to reason with him. We only need to correct him.
The Special Counsel, Attorney General, President and this court have no power to modify the Constitution, modify the Constitution through “interpretation, or otherwise amend the Constitution outside of the amendment process prescribed in fundamental law.
Freedom of speech is not qualified in the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute.
Gagging might have some validity as a “penalty” or “sentence” post-conviction.
Gagging before conviction is a denial of the absolute freedom of speech.
Certainly a free American has the freedom of speech which he may exercise in an attempt to defend himself.
In this case, denial of a citizen’s absolute freedom of speech is election interference and corruption.
Ironically, this prosecution and the prosecutor are high-criminally corrupt, and the ultimate sentencing will be against the President, Attorney General and this Special Counsel who are egregiously abusing power and corrupting an election, having already participated in “rigging” the 2020 election, if there is an honorable, ethical, impartial and truthful judicial system in America.
Well this is going to be fun.
Republican prosecutors getting indictments on democrats running for office, and then silencing them.
Democrats continue to make rules they hate to live with themselves. (See Trump impeachment precedent)
Democrats continue to make rules they hate to live with
In that department, a little OT, but liberal sanctuary cities are now having to live with that decision, and they’re going broke dealing with “Joe Biden’s” migrant crisis:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-era-migrant-crisis-blowing-holes-through-budgets-liberal-sanctuary-cities
Eric Adams’ campaign 2021 posted on Twitter,
“We should protect our immigrants. Period. Yes, New York City will remain a sanctuary city under an Adams administration.”
“Let me tell you something, New Yorkers. Never in my life have I had a problem that I did not see an ending to. I don’t see an ending to this. … This issue will destroy New York City,” Mr. Adams said on Sep. 6.
“But we are past our breaking point. … For each family seeking asylum through the city’s care, we spend an average of $383 per night to provide shelter, food, medical care, and social services. With more than 57,300 individuals currently in our care, on an average night, it amounts to $9.8 million a day, almost $300 million a month, and nearly $3.6 billion a year,” he said.
And that is just a fraction boarder states have to put up with.
The crises in America and in NYC (and other Dem-run dystopian hell holes) is entirely created by Democrats. They own it. They now have to live with it. Mayor Adams has no basis to complain. He brought this on himself.
Normal people who are the victims of the Democrats’ banality, stupidity, and evil, do have a basis to complain. That includes a minority of the population of NYC and other deep-blue cities, most of the population of the red border states, and basically anyone who didn’t vote Democrat.
Were not all these Illegal Aliens here to do the work and take the jobs legal Citizens refuse to do?
Why are these people being houses, fed, provided medical care, social services, and schooling for their children at government expense when they were supposed to be self supporting?
Do I miss some thing here…..I know when I went to work in the UK my employer had to obtain a Work Permit for me and prove to the British Government I was not displacing a British Worker and that Permit had to be renewed at two year intervals and was not promised to be renewed absence the show of proof the employer could not find a British Citizen for that job.
You come to this country illegally…..we owe you nothing.
The Left created this problem, the Right failed to stand up….and here we are folks…..people like Adams being slapped across the mouth by reality!
All ya’ll that blabbed about being for “sanctuary cities, counties, states”….ante up your money and pay the bill.
Ralph, you are completely right. I was a legal immigrant to the US (30 years ago). Some of the visa conditions were 1) that I had a job that an American could not do, 2) if I were to become a burden to the state within 10 years, the visa would be revoked, and I would be deported. No free healthcare, free housing, free food, free education for kids, etc. And that is the way it should be.
If the government policy would be changed and it would be announced that illegals get nothing, and also would be deported when caught, the crisis would be soon over. I love my adopted country and I am grateful it adopted me. And it hurts to see how the political left is trying to destroy what set this country apart.
No, Trump believes he does not deserve to be politically persecuted on bogus charges by a banana-republic administration, same as everyone else.
Kind of comical watching the MSM DIMS RHINO”S trying to convince the American people Trump is a loser. He not only won the electoral college but the popular vote in 2020. Russia, Laptops Mules Zuckbucks to get the Mules out Google X Facebook Big Pharma and on and on. The supposed Facist handed their heads to them and will again. Even if the playing field is slanted. They will have difficult time without Covid to try the same nonsense.
Trump’s status as a former president, his current status as a presidential candidate, or his wealth must have no influence on the case. He should be held to the same standards as any other defendant. I don’t care if the gag order is granted or not, I just want to see that Trump gets no favoritism or disfavoritism.
his current status as a presidential candidate
That part does make a difference. We all know this is election interference dressed up as something else. We’re not going to ignore that basic fact.
Hey Dennis, hows that coffee? Better make sure it’s scalding hot (or check for pubes).
Does this mean that presidential candidates get immunity from criminal prosecution? Even for acts that took place before they were a candidate?
It means presidential candidates, same as everyone else, get immunity from trumped-up bogus charges based on novel legal theories that stretch the law beyond recognition in a transparent attempt to interfere with an upcoming election.
Sammy, stupid Sammy.
Sammy, do you know Members of Congress cannot be detained for ANY reason, going to are leaving the Capitol? Its in the Constitution. The founders were painfully awrre of Government using police powers to attack those a danger to the power of govt.
Not a fact. It’s your opinion (one shared by some people and not shared by other people, including me).
If the standards were the same for all Trump would not have been impeached or indicted, Hunter would be in jail and Biden forced to pay for his crimes.
Thank you for your unknown level of intelligent discourse.
The feds regularly prosecute and jail people for mishandling classified material. Any regular defendant would have already plead guilty to avoid decades in prison.
You’re talking about Biden and Pence? Who (unlike Trump) were not protected by law since they were not POTUS at the time of the mishandling?
Trump was a former president at the time of mishandling. Trump isn’t protected by law either. He refused to abide by a legal subpoena, and it appears that he obstructed his lawyers (whence the crime-fraud exception for his lawyers testifying) and ordered documents to be moved to prevent the return of the documents. Pence and Biden both agreed to have the FBI carry out thorough searches, so there was no need for a subpoena.
Biden was found in possession of classified documents that he could only have had if he took them from a scif while a senator. Unlike Trump, he was NEVER entitled to have those documents in his possession.
You people all want to excuse his behavior as senility or ignorance when it’s convenient (box of documents in his garage). You pretty much admit he is the dumbest guy on the planet.
And he!! yes, Biden and Pence gave ’em up. They saw what happened to Trump. How about Obama and Willie….
“The feds regularly prosecute and jail people for mishandling classified material.”
Like Hillary? You would have been a perfect candidate for some EB green.
@Sammy
“regular defendant” does NOT apply to a POTUS (present or former) in the context of their records.
There was a law enacted to specifically deal with a POTUS and their records. There has already been a court decision involving that law and Bill Clinton regarding ‘classified material’ handling by a DC judge.
Your statement “The feds regularly prosecute and jail people for mishandling classified material” is merely obfuscation.
Have you had a chance to read up on the Espionage Act yet Sammy?
Jonathan: You falsely claim Jack Smith’s proposed protective order “veers dangerously into core political speech in the middle of a presidential election” and is “reinforcing Trump’s claim of intentional interference by the Biden administration”. You are wrong on both counts.
First, you admit protective orders are common in “high profile” cases. And Trump’s case fits the bill. Second, Jack Smith’s proposed order does not infringe on DJT’s ability to conduct his campaign. All the order asks is to prohibit DJT from making extra-judicial statements attacking the judge, prosecutors and witnesses–all in an attempt to taint the jury pool in DC. What you ignore is that a criminal defendant’s 1st Amendment rights end at the courtroom door. A federal judge has the power to limit what a defendant says outside the courtroom if it will interfere with the fair administration of justice.
DJT already has a history of trying to interfere in other cases… by witness tampering. In the Fulton County prosecution by Fani Willis, DJT told former Georgia lieutenant governor Geoff Duncan not to testify before the grand jury. That’s witness tampering and a crime! So in the case before Judge Chutkan, DJT is trying to interfere with the DC Court. This is what DJT said, in part, when he learned of Jack Smith’s proposed order:
“Biden Prosecution, Deranged Jack smith, has asked the Court to limit 45th President…So, I’m campaigning for the
President against an incompetent person who has WEAPONIZED the DOJ & FBI…I am not allowed to
COMMENT…how else would I explain that Jack Smith is DERANGED…?.
These are the types of extra-judicial comments Jack Smith is trying to prevent. DJT is free to campaign, talk about the issues, and to attack his rivals for the GOP nomination. What he is not allowed to do is attack Judge Chutkan, Jack Smith or witnesses. That’s interference with the fair administration of justice. I can’t wait to see how Judge Chutkan rules.
And I can’t wait to see DJT ignore it. Popcorn please.
” DJT is free to campaign, talk about the issues”
Except that DJT doesn’t talk about issues. In the 2020 campaign there was no Republican platform. None. All we hear from DJT in this campaign is he will MAGA. What does that mean? What does he think about tax policy? Foreign policy? immigration? Oh yea, we know that one, kill all the immigrants.
You posted that same garbage the other day and someone gave you a full page of the Republican platform.
Bob…abother one of these guys…
As I related yesterday, it’s a good thing they weren’t in the military. Guys like them on a submarine, ended up taped head to toe in what we called EB Green tape. Its a cloth impregnated tape, that is extremely tacky and strong. It has been said to hold submarines together before. When removed, their naked bodies would have not one hair left on them. If that attitude correction wasn’t sufficient, they would be taken to the aft workbench in the engineroom, their thumbs placed in a vice, a handful of grease applied, and an 18″ breaker bar shoved halfway up the orifice where their heads currently reside.
You see, we fought for their freedom to act like embeciles, but in the Navy, you didn’t have that freedom.
“Oh yea, we know that one, kill all the immigrants.”
Are we really supposed to take you seriously, after that?
Better make sure that coffee they brought you is piping hot, or check it for pubes.
We did not need to know what he thinks about those issues.
He proved by action on those issues.
America and American’s first.
His tax policies put money back into peoples pockets.
His foreign police produced the Abraham accords. No new forever wars but did get some NATO countries to commit to their NATO obligations. Pointed out Germany’s energy dependence on Russia energy.
Immigration? You mean a secure border, keeping asylum seekers in their countries of origin? Where and when did he say to kill all the immigrants?
Bob. Because you dont see the issues in play, does not mean there were no issues.
Bob, you have a significant loss of long-term memory. You forget everything the second you leave your keyboard. Then you repeat the same garbage.
“kill all the immigrants.”
Who is killing children (and other immigrants)? Biden. Children die in the desert, and the numbers seen are a small percentage of the children that die because before someone gets to their bodies, wild animals eat them. Your support of this makes you a child killer. If you don’t like the tagline, stop supporting policies that lead to children dying and being eaten in the desert.
By the way, Trump told you about his tax policy and had some laws passed that benefited the lower middle class by about $6,000. Biden has taken it away and more. You are cruel because you want to take money from the lower middle class.
You have seen MAGA’s foreign policy. It means peace, which you object to because you are a warmonger.
Dennis,
Sorry, there is absolutely no justification for the courts to EVER violate the free speech rights of ANY criminal defendant.
Not Trump, not Jack the ripper.
It is absolutely ludicros to claim that that even the most obviously guilty heinous criminal can not protest their innocense publicly and loudly.
And that is 10,000 times more true when the crux of the criminal claim is the accused claims of government malfeasance.
The standard you are arguing is government can silence those that speak out against it by the the mere accusation of bad speech – without trial or conviction.
Are you honestly unable to see that that WILL go badly ?
All these political prosecutions are stupid. They will result in extensive court battles. Trump will lose some, Trump will win some,
But if Trump does not ultimately prevail – because this is all not merely nonsense.
But OFFENSIVE TOTALITARIRIAN nonsense – than we as a nation are in incredibly deep trouble.
By the arguments Bragg is making every NDA is illegal.
By the arguments Smith is making in FL – Biden, Clinton(both Bill and Hillary), Pence should all have been jailed long ago.
Further JW. V NARA is the “law of the land” – ex-president may take whatever papers they want from the WH – classified or not. PERIOD.
The FACT that DOJ has not gone to court BEFORE to try to change that makes the MAL prosection itself an abuse of power.
The GA and DC election cases are the most stupid and the most dangerous.
You should consider that if Trump is re-elected – he will be able to put in place a DOJ that can prosecute Biden, Clinton, Smith, Bragg, Fanni, and on and on on EXACTLY the same legal arguments.
Please explain to all of us how Trump’s conduct is even close to as egretious – aside from your fear of Trump.
Given the unconstitutional efforts you have gone to to “Get Trump” – you should be very affraid that if elected Trump will with relish do unto those who persecuted him EXACTLY what his enemies have done to him – and that many of us will value justifiable vengance over the rule of law – since obviously you do not give a damn about it.
We are increasingly moving towards a 2024 Trump Biden rematch. It is going to be incredibly difficult to judge how that ends.
Majortities of americans do not want Either as president. To the extent that Biden MAY have won in 2020 – with an enormous amount of election rigging.
That would be driven by the fact that democrats and the media successfully painted Trump as far more dangerous and offensive than he is and Biden as far more tame than he is.
It is 2023 now – not 2020. Biden did significantly worse with Covid than Trump. Covid will not be an issue that favors democrats in 2024. If anything the mounting evidence that the eleite were not only Wrong about Covid from the start – but KNEW they were wrong works strongly against democrats who have aligned themselves with those authoritarian and WRONG elites.
We have almost 3 years of a Biden presidency – and it has been a DISASTER.
Trump was not the great president he claims to have been – he was a C+ president at best.
He is STILL by FAR the best president of the 21st century – head and shoulders above Bush., Obama, and Biden.
Biden needs to pull off a miracle to go into the 2024 election without nearly every single measure of his presidency being obviously worse than Trump.
Glenn Greenwald – and many many others – left and right have noted that Trump is the first president since Gerald Ford who did NOT involve the US in a foreign conflict.
It will take a miracle for Biden to enter 2024 with an economy that is not worse than the present. Worse than Trump’s worse than Obama’s worse than Bush’s.
The FED’s necescary efforts to thwart inflation leave us teetering on the edge of a likely unavoidable recession. and in the meantime we have a merely miserable economy.
There is no good economic news on the horizon – all predictions are BAD or WORSE.
Biden had a very good first year, but that just makes it worse. Only Morons accept the argument that Biden was responsible – given that things went to hell rapidly.
Trump is successfully taking credit for leaving Biden with a strong economy.
Biden is clearly failing mentally. He is not going to improve. He is not up to a debate with Marriane williamson – much less anyone – democrat or republican.
If there is a presidential debate Trump will EAT HIM ALIVE – just as he actually did in 2020 – Except that THIS TIME – even the press will not be able to save him.
Joe Biden is criminal.He sold public office for personal benefit. You can have blinders on to that, but most people understand.
But possibly more importantly Joe Biden is an established LIAR. He has repeatedly and boldly told Bald faced lies.
The situation is so bad that Biden may get Sympathy for being bullied in any debate – because while he is clearly corrupt, he is also clearly incompetent,
Regardless, we MAY have some sympathy for doddering Uncle Joe – but we are not voting for him.
It is likely that While Trump has an enormous solid Core of voters that will not abandon him no matter what. that at the same time he may be LESS appealing to independents and democrats.
Normally that would be fatal. But Biden has made himself less appealing still.
A receent CNN poll had every single current presidential candidate – democrat or republican beating Biden in a head to head poll.
Democrats survived 2020 on the “anti-trump vote” In 2024 there will be an equal or larger anti-Biden vote.
And there also will be enormous numers of voters who say “a pox on both houses” and sit out the election.
And in that case – Not just Biden – but democrats as a whole lose and lose badly.
This whole “Get Trump” nonsense is the open admission by the left that they are not going to win a free and fair election.
Joe Biden is not going to be impeached. Hunter Biden is not going to be convicted, Donald Trump is not going to be tried before the 2020 election.
But each of those will continue to be issues – possibly even the core issues through the 2024 election.
Trump will win some and lose some, but will NOT be KO’d before the election and that is all that matters.
There is no good news coming for Biden. There is no economic miracle in the offing. There impeachment/corruption scandal will only slowly worsen.
Frankly the entire democratic party is at risk of ebing taken down by the Biden scandal – becuase they continue to thwart inquiry.
They are making the scandal about themselves as well as Joe.
There are some wise voices telling Biden to get out of the race now – before it si too late, but it is already likely too late.
Here is what you can expect from Dennis (if he pulls his head out of his backside and sticks it up at all). He will take one thing you said that is arguable, and he will give you his opinion, purporting it as fact. He will ignore anything that you said that is not arguable, even if it supports that which is, because he is a coward. Then he will disappear again, never really addressing the crux of what you said, choosing instead to talk about something immaterial, like who signed the Abraham acccords. HE is EXACTLY the type who would have gotten a TP shower on a submarine.
The issues of the case were CAMPAIGN ISSUES long before they became issues of the case. YEARS before these issues became issues of the case they were already campaign issues continuing from the bogus 2020 election. Smith intentionally waited YEARS to bring the case and then sought a gag order specifically so that democrats and RINOS could argue these campaign issues leading into the 2024 election and Trump wouldn’t be permitted to argue back.
If the DC Court of Appeals doesn’t see through this charade the Supreme Court WILL.
I know what Pedo Joe and all of his manchurian handlers are afraid of if Trump gets re-elected. It just occurred to me why the coward crew here is afraid of secure borders, less crime, lower inflation, cheaper food, $2/gal gas, and low interest rates.
They are afraid of him pardoning the J6 (mostly peaceful) protestors.
I assume you are one of these guys.
As I related yesterday, it’s a good thing they weren’t in the military. Guys like them on a submarine, ended up taped head to toe in what we called EB Green tape. Its a cloth impregnated tape, that is extremely tacky and strong. It has been said to hold submarines together before. When removed, their naked bodies would have not one hair left on them. If that attitude correction wasn’t sufficient, they would be taken to the aft workbench in the engineroom, their thumbs placed in a vice, a handful of grease applied, and an 18″ breaker bar shoved halfway up the orifice where their heads currently reside.
You see, we fought for their freedom to act like embeciles, but in the Navy, you didn’t have that freedom.
Happy to see you know your place as one of the coward crew…
Gag orders are prior restraints on speech. Prior restraints are almost always prohibited by the First Amendment. As such, gag orders are not comparable to defamation verdicts – or even criminal verdicts for speech offenses such as fraud or terroristic threats – that happen after the speech has taken place. Also, generally speaking, defamation doesn’t include political speech, but speech that not only is false but causes an economic injury to the person disparaged. The countervailing social interest is the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.
https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/when-silence-isnt-golden-how-gag-orders-can-evade-first-amendment-protections
A person who has not been convicted of any crime still has his Constitutional rights intact. The First Amendment protects that person just as much as any other person.
It is a tortious Abuse of Process to bring a criminal charge and seek a gag order for the purpose of silence a party to a political debate that was ONGOING for more than TWO YEARS before the criminal charge and request for a gag order were sought. If the judge grants this request for a gag order, she will be willfully participating in Smiths tortious Abuse of Process.
“Disobeying
a judgehas consequences.”Fixed that for you, comrade.
Any justification for why Americans should believe there’s little chance that Jack Smith won’t yet again function as a Soviet Democrat hit man THIS time, “ANONYMOUS “?
“ANONYMOUS” returns as the Soviet Democrat apparatchik to claim every single act of police state fascism from Jack Smith in service to the Soviet Democrats is justified – and First Amendment rights and an unbiased justice system be damned. Ditto for the judges who allow Smith’s police state facism in their courtrooms,. That SCOTUS overturns them – unanimously- after the upcoming elections are over doesn’t bother them or the Sovit Democrat police state facists they serve.
No surprise the cowardly use of “Anonymous” – wouldn’t want your parents regretting they gave birth to a freedom hating police state fascist serving as an apparatchik for a political party reminiscent of Soviet rule.
Maybe “Anonymous” can explain why, with his long previous history of targeting and taking out Republican opponents (to be later overturned and chastized) for the police state fascist Obama/Biden administration, Jack Smith actually fits the job description of an unbiased Special Counsel that most Americans would agree can’t be suspected of being a hit man for one of the political parties?
In the court of public opinion the citizen owners of this nation, most see the political frame up of these J6s & others. People have already been using Peaceful Descent with success like with the pedotranny p-iss type beers, etc..
*******
EXCLUSIVE: Prosecutors Told J6 Political Prisoners to Lie About Trump Involvment in Exchange for Freedom
170,310 views
Sep 11, 2023
38
Share
Download
The Alex Jones Show
The Alex Jones Show
Enrique Tarrio of tarriofamilyfund.*** and Dominic Pezzola of https://givesendgo.com/helpdom join The Alex Jones Show to expose the abuse of the justice system in the hands of the authoritarian fascist left as they target political figures who exposed the rigged election system in America.
http://madmaxworld.tv/watch?id=64ffa35fc5d54ea882060f12
Alax Jones? the guy that committed perjury? They guy found liable for maliciously attacking victims of a school massacre? Sure. That a hole will have a special place in the afterlife where he will forever hear his own voice spouting lies.
Sandy Hook Lawyer Attempts To Force Alex Jones To Undergo Communist Struggle Session
104,670 views
Sep 22, 2022
37
Share
Download
Alex Jones Kangaroo Court Watch
Alex Jones Kangaroo Court Watch
The left wanted their show trial to destroy the first amendment and they nearly got it in CT.
Alex Jones is now hosting exclusive content on Mug Club! Use promo code “ALEX” at JonesCrowder (dot)com to get one month FREE when you sign up!
http://madmaxworld.tv/watch?id=632d1ab09184e00d0f44d63b
http://madmaxworld.tv/channel/alex-jones-kangaroo-court-watch-
Maybe you can help us all out understanding?
After Columbine Co. was attacked by kids on Pfizer Prozac class/type of dope ( Their own label warns it makes some people/kids nutz) there were examinations by states/schools as to what they could do to beef up security, etc.. One of the things I believe was that Ct. State approved money to pay for locks in in places like Sandy Hook. SH took the money but never installed them.
Afterwards that the SH kid was also said to be on SSRI Prozac type crap. ( Read the Dope companies own warnings on those drugs) but after the event in SH the govt raced in & bulldozed the school & thus destroying physical evidence of things like Door Locks.
Yet some how people like you believe the Govt paid for propaganda horsesh-it & think just because you were fooled by it the rest of us have to also?
What was the Drill that was the being run at SH? Who were those running around SH like the one man in a ghillie suit that police caught, cuffed & put in a squad car??? It’s on video somewhere.
The last I heard Tucker Carlson is getting around 100 million views a show now, Alex Jones is clocking around 10 million views a day. I hear/see CNN is only getting around 100,000 views in prime time, Fox has dropped to around 1/2 to 2/3’s their audience since Tucker left that outfit.
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/09/13/marching-orders-white-house-letter-tells-media-to-ramp-up-their-scrutiny-in-response-to-impeachment-inquiry/
Speak of Nuts, would be petty dictators attempting take over the world again:
16:45 min., play it.
Exclusive Sneak Peek! Alex Jones Exposes DARPA Mad Scientist
154,821 views
Sep 9, 2023
82
Share
Download
The Alex Jones Show
The Alex Jones Show
Go to JonesCrowder.(dot)com to see the full video & get 1 Month FREE!
http://madmaxworld.tv/watch?id=64fc9778112661824fb0aa29
Anonymous now comment carpet-bombs these stories like Svelaz used to. And he’s just as much of a tribalist. Never admit there is any valid issue with the actions of Democrats, always attack the actions of Republicans. Truth? Who cares? The only value is that my tribe wins.
More than one person is commenting anonymously. I know this because I’m one of them, but there are also other anonymous comments that aren’t mine. And I’m no more a “tribalist” than you are.
A.N.D.
A.N.D. – I don’t say you’re a tribalist (nor do I say that about myself). The problem is that when multiple people are commenting anonymously, there is no way to tell who is who. Sometimes multiple people comment under the same name, but then they are providing their email address, so the little icon looks different. That helps distinguish them (albeit not as well as a screen name). You have your own reasons for commenting anonymously, but it would help me if you had some identifying mark.
Yours,
Uncle Henry
Well we know who YOU are now.
As I related yesterday, it’s a good thing they weren’t in the military. Guys like them on a submarine, ended up taped head to toe in what we called EB Green tape. Its a cloth impregnated tape, that is extremely tacky and strong. It has been said to hold submarines together before. When removed, their naked bodies would have not one hair left on them. If that attitude correction wasn’t sufficient, they would be taken to the aft workbench in the engineroom, their thumbs placed in a vice, a handful of grease applied, and an 18″ breaker bar shoved halfway up the orifice where their heads currently reside.
You see, we fought for their freedom to act like embeciles, but in the Navy, you didn’t have that freedom.
In general you’re correct – BUT – if one guy is comment-bombing and making this whole comment section a big pile of tribalist trash, I’m going to say so.
You understand u can make up any name you want, and avoid confusion, right?
Most of the anons here are smeagols, who prefer confusion, like the rest of their ilk.
Exactly.
Nobody’s saying you must, just that (a) if you want to not be confused with other Anonymous’s it’s easy to do, (b) you remain anonymous anyway, and therefore (c) you have no basis to complain if we do end up mixing you up you with the others.
He’s just another Smeagol. And he is right, they all parrot the same DNC talking points, so what difference does it make. They just shouldn’t whine we they get accused of saying something stupid and it was their cubicle mate.
Good lord — how hard is it to make up a fake screen name so that you can comment anonymously but still be differentiated from the MORONS that call themselves “Anonymous”?
“Not hard, just choose not to. That’s called liberty, right?”
Yep, just like we are at liberty to accuse you of saying something stupid, you are at liberty to claim it was your cubicle mate, and you are at liberty to whine about the outcome that you facilitated. Enjoy it. I fought for your liberty to be an embicile.
Also, enjoy that coffee.
In the court of public opinion the citizen owners of this nation, most see the political frame up of these J6s & others. People have already been using Peaceful Descent with success like with the pedotranny p-iss type beers, etc..
*******
EXCLUSIVE: Prosecutors Told J6 Political Prisoners to Lie About Trump Involvment in Exchange for Freedom
170,310 views
Sep 11, 2023
38
Share
Download
The Alex Jones Show
The Alex Jones Show
Enrique Tarrio of http://tarriofamilyfund.org and Dominic Pezzola of https://givesendgo.com/helpdom join The Alex Jones Show to expose the abuse of the justice system in the hands of the authoritarian fascist left as they target political figures who exposed the rigged election system in America.
madmaxworld.tv/watch?id=64ffa35fc5d54ea882060f12