Below is my column in The Messenger on the renewed effort of Special Counsel Jack Smith to gag former President Donald Trump. At the same time, Judge Arthur Engoron has repeatedly fined Trump for his public statements about the New York fraud case. Engoron declared this week “Anybody can run for president. I am going to protect my staff.”
There is widespread support for barring attacks on court staff and Trump did attack the Court’s clerk in a prior posting. However, most of his comments have been directed at Engoron and his alleged hostility toward Trump. Where to draw this line is the subject of this column. In my view, criticism of the case, the court, and the prosecutor should be treated as protected speech.
Here is the column:
In 2016, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion overturning a conviction that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had seemed willing to secure at whatever cost to the rule of law. The case involved the prosecution of former governor Bob McDonnell (R-Va.), and the lead DOJ prosecutor was now-special counsel Jack Smith. The court dismissed the “tawdry tales” offered by the DOJ and declared that it was far more concerned with the damage that Smith was causing to the legal system with his virtually limitless interpretation of criminality.
The rebuke came to mind this week as Smith continued his unrelenting effort to gag former president Donald Trump before the 2024 election. Some of us have previously denounced the gag order issued by U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan as unconstitutional, but even that order was more limited than what Smith had demanded.
Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a leading critic of Trump, has come out against Smith’s efforts as an attack on the First Amendment.
Undeterred, Smith now wants to reinstate and expand the gag on Trump, citing Trump’s comments about his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who reportedly has been given an immunity deal by Smith. (Meadows’ lawyer disputes those reports.)
Smith wants to bar Trump from criticizing any witnesses as well as the prosecution and the court. That would include criticisms of former Vice President Mike Pence, currently one of his opponents for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, on his allegations linked to the earlier election.[Update: after this column ran, Pence withdrew from the presidential campaign]
Of course, gagging Trump will not materially affect the jury pool in the case. The Smith prosecutions are one of the biggest issues in this election. Moreover, it will not protect potential witnesses from withering criticism in the middle of an election that could turn on the public view of these cases.
Indeed, Smith has insisted on trying Trump before the election but now also wants to prevent him from speaking fully about the case before the election. Trump alone would be gagged, even as other politicians and pundits debate the merits of the cases and the countervailing allegations of the weaponization of the criminal justice system.
The prior order issued by Judge Chutkan is shockingly vague and overbroad. It bars Trump from “targeting” Smith or his staff or potential witnesses or the “substance of their testimony.” It leaves an undefined and uncertain line as Trump campaigns on what he (and millions of citizens) view as the abuse of the criminal justice system to target President Biden’s main political opponent.
Smith would add to the scope and ambiguity of the order in his latest motion. He is arguing that the court should “modify the defendant’s conditions of release … by clarifying that the existing condition barring communication with witnesses about the facts of the case includes indirect messages to witnesses made publicly on social media or in speeches.”
Consider that for a moment: Smith would treat comments about witnesses, such as Meadows or Pence, as an effort to communicate with a witness.
Thus, Smith continues to litigate with a sense of utter abandon, showing his signature lack of concern for the implications of his legal arguments. It is the type of blind purpose that leads — as it did in the McDonnell case — to a unanimous ruling against you on an otherwise divided Supreme Court.
Ironically, it calls for a level of self-restraint that the trial court itself failed to show in the past. In sentencing a rioter in 2022, Judge Chutkan said that January 6 defendants “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added that it was “a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.”
Despite clearly indicating with her comment that she believed Trump should be jailed (long before he was indicted), Chutkan has refused to recuse herself in this trial.
The lack of restraint shown by Smith only magnifies the lack of leadership from Attorney General Merrick Garland. The attorney general has repeatedly said that he would give the special counsel full authority and independence. However, that would not ordinarily mean that the attorney general would reduce himself to a mere pedestrian in this process.
This is an example of the ever-shrinking profile of Garland at the Justice Department. He has often told Congress that his knowledge of controversies is limited to what he has read in press accounts. Even beyond the special counsel’s investigations, he seems as proactive as a ficus plant.
Yet, this new gag motion presents a far more serious cost to Garland’s passive role at the department. Smith is taking a hatchet to the First Amendment in these motions. In doing so, he is fueling anger over the perception of a weaponized criminal justice system.
Smith’s deafening attacks on free speech are matched equally by Garland’s utter silence. The attorney general seems to believe that removing himself entirely from these investigations is more important than guaranteeing that his department does not become the enemy of core constitutional rights.
As Smith seems intent on inviting another unanimous Supreme Court opinion against his department, Garland may want to consider voicing a modicum of concern over the cost to free speech in Smith’s efforts to gag Donald Trump.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.
The ONLY thing Mr. “Smartypants” Trump needs to do to make all of this disappear in the blink of an eye, is to demand to see his WRITTEN guarantee of actually getting a fair trial, especially in a 100% corrupted legal system!! Without that guarantee, then every “trial” is totally fake! And it is either a pure gamble with no known outcome, or, it’s a fraud/ scam being run on the victims of the legal system!!
So, if Trump can’t figure this out all on his own, like I did, he must not be all that smart, right? My IQ isn’t genius level, it’s only 149!
Why isn’t the Texas AG charging the States that are prosecuting Trump with Crimes? I.E. election Interference etc… That case would go straight to the SCOTUS (State VS State) real fast – and shut them all down.
𝐆𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐲’𝐬 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐏𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐤 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐜𝐤 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐲’𝐬 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐟𝐟
By: emptywheel ~ October 29, 2023
[LINK:] emptywheel.net/2023/10/29/gary-shapleys-handlers-revisit-past-leak-investigations-into-chuck-grassleys-staff/
𝐅𝐁𝐈 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐭𝐬 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐓𝐚𝐬𝐤 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐏𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐖𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐎𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
The House needs to do more than question the personnel Grassley identified. It must first open a long-overdue impeachment inquiry into FBI Director Christopher Wray.
By: Margot Cleveland ~ October 26, 2023
[LINK:] thefederalist.com/2023/10/26/fbi-and-its-foreign-influence-task-force-purged-sources-who-were-onto-biden-corruption/
𝐃𝐎𝐉 𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐩𝐨𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐞𝐝 𝐏𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐋𝐨𝐠𝐬 𝐎𝐟 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐇𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐥𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞
The executive branch’s targeting of staffers assisting with congressional oversight represents a dangerous intrusion into the legislative branch’s functioning.
By: Margot Cleveland ~ October 25, 2023
[LINK:] thefederalist.com/2023/10/25/doj-subpoenaed-phone-and-email-logs-of-hill-staffers-probing-crossfire-hurricane-malfeasance/
“Trump may well have some degree of blame for the Hamas attack.”
Anyone have helpful tips on how to deal with those who are delusional?
Ask Israel. See my response infra.
I had a favorable view of Merrick Garland before he got AG job, most did, but he has tarnished his good name getting mixed up with the corrupt Biden family. In his capacity as AG he decided to cover up the Biden family corruption and also look the other way when the FBI goes after conservatives. He also has no problem with censorship, and he also has no problem with people demonstrating at Judges homes in anticipation of a ruling. What are Garlands core values? He appears to have none.
If you bothered reading Chutkan’s gag order, you’d find that it gags the prosecution too.
This was a reply to Edwardmahl’s 4:43 PM comment.
Since the DOJ operates by leaks, there is no way to “gag” it. How many government leakers have been outed? When the Watergate Committee was operating, leaks damaging to Nixon were common. Sam Dash could never find the leakers. Then someone made a leak critical of Sam Dash, and the leaker was discovered immediately. It was a two-tiered justice system even then.
You’re showing me again that you still haven’t read the order, which does not gag the DOJ as an organization, but does gag the specific people working for the DOJ on the prosecution team. They can be — and are — gagged by the order, and they can be punished if they violate it.
And if an anonymous anti-Trump leak appears in the NYT, how well the judge determine where it came from, even if she wanted to?
And if an anonymous pro-Trump leak appears in the NY Post, how will the judge determine where it came from, even if she wanted to?
Chutkan has no power to impose a penalty and deny constitutional rights and freedoms before the accused is convicted.
Both parties in a criminal trial — prosecution and defense — have a right to a fair trial. The prosecutor represents the public.
The prosecution is not on trial. The prosection cannot be gagged or hindered in its presentation of its case. Smith wants to gag and hinder Trump because, unlike the other J6
Defendants, he has the resources and disposition to fight. This fight may be the definitive event of the early 21st century. It is Trump vs the Police State.
I thought nothing could ever make me consider voting for Trump. But with the all-out lawfare waged against him, and the Zionist apologies for genocide from Kennedy, that is certainly no longer true.
Have you considered that he’s been charged with crimes because he’s guilty of those crimes?
Actually, penis breath, I have considered that. What does it have to do with the gag order?
Penis breath….ha ha ha….good one
I doubt anything will come from saying it, but thank God we can still say it at all. At this point, many Western countries can’t unless it is just in theory. Thank you team Turley, for what you do every single day. Our first amendment is everything, and we are in a period again where we are the only ones.
Hmm… maybe protected crackpot speech . Is it speech or taunting ? Does it make legal difference ?
I’m all for free speech until it – the speech – is causing violence .
Trump continues to show his lack of diplomacy (or even common sense ) in attacking the judge , court in the way he does – it may be his “right” but it stupid.
Gosh he’s such a putz
The reality is if anyone but Trump was saying what Trump has said, they would be in jail. See what happens when anyone but Trump decides to disobey a judges order. All the whining, complaining, grievance and victimization by the Trump cult that Trump is being denied his 1st amendment, then some of you say you are lawyers, please advise your clients to run their mouths after a order, see what happens.
Fishy, 56% of young liberal white women have been diagnosed with a mental disorder, according to a Pew study.
Are you one of them?
What Trump supporters who argue that gag orders are unconstitutional keep missing is that there’s also a constitutional right to a fair trial. It’s not just a right to a fair trial for Trump. It also needs to be a fair trial for the prosecution. Trump having free rein to poison public opinion or potential jurors and harassing witnesses violates the government’s expectation of a fair trial. The gag order argument has been focused only on Trump. It’s easy to forget that there be a fair trial for everyone involved. Not just Trump.
@mrddmia
“Obnoxiously partisan DC Obama Judge Tanya Chutkan pretends the government has the right to a fair trial.
That flips the Constitution on its head.
From our shield.
To the government’s sword.
The Sixth Amendment protects the defendant’s—not the government’s—right to fair trial.”
There are no government rights, this is a long established principle of law.
Government has powers. Those of the federal government are provided for in the constitution.
Government has rights. It’s in the articles of confederation.
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States ….
The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war ….
The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective States—fixing the standards of weights and measures throughout the United States—regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated ….”
Or federalist 22,
“The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation….
In this case, if the particular tribunals [i.e., courts] are invested with a right of ultimate jurisdiction, …”
Or Federalist No. 31:
“It should not be forgotten that a disposition in the State governments to encroach upon the rights of the Union is quite as probable as a disposition in the Union to encroach upon the rights of the State governments….”
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/22/government-rights/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20governments%20do%20have%20rights%2C%20not%20just%20powers.&text=A%20reader%20mentioned%20a%20claim,only%20people%20can%20have%20rights.
“The Sixth Amendment protects the defendant’s—not the government’s—right to fair trial.”
The words “a right to a fair trial” are not in the constitution. “ A right to a speedy and public trial” is.
The constitution doesn’t say that the government doesn’t have rights. So it’s arguably a valid reason to say the government has a right to a fair trial because it also a fair trial for the defendant. A trial is supposed to be neutral in regards to legal determinations. A trial cannot deemed to be fair if the defendant has free rein to taint the jury pool and threaten witnesses, judges and their staff in an attempt to skew the outcome in their favor.
“[T]he government has a right to a fair trial . . .”
So the Constitution was written to protect the government from individual abuses.
You have it exactly backwards. Your mental contortions notwithstanding, there is not an iota of historical evidence to support such an absurdity.
Trump is being railroaded BY the government. The defendant has ALL the rights, not the government doing the railroading.
The public also has rights. The public has an interest in making sure that Trump doesn’t corrupt the jury pool, doesn’t engage in witness tampering, and more.
The public also has rights. The public has an interest in making sure that Trump doesn’t corrupt the jury pool, doesn’t engage in witness tampering, and more.
What “right” are you talking about? An “interest” is not necessarily a right. And when it comes to corrupting a jury pool, doesn’t a defendant have at least an equal right to speak out against the government, as the government has to speak out against the defendant?
The right to a fair trial applies to the public as well as to the defendant. I suggest that you read the gag order, so you can see that (a) it applies to the prosecutors as well as to Trump, and (b) it doesn’t prevent Trump from speaking out against the government in general.
The right to a fair trial applies to the public as well as to the defendant.
Please explain how the public has a right to a defendant’s fair trial.
Both parties in a criminal trial — prosecution and defense — have a right to a fair trial. The prosecutor represents the public.
Where in the constitution does it state the prosecution has a “right” to a fair trial? Additionally, just because the prosecutor represents the governments interest, and by extension the interests of the public, does not imply “the public” has standing in the case.
The 6th Amendment creates rights for the prosecution, not just for the defendant (e.g., the right to an impartial jury, the right to present witnesses).
The Leftist fiction:
“The 6th Amendment creates rights for the prosecution . . .”
The reality:
“The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants . . .”
Your despotic mindset fails to recognize that the prosecutor also has a duty to the defendant. That failure of many prosecutors, including Smith, has led to results that would never occur if the prosecutor recognized his obligations to the defendant. He is supposed to look at both sides, including innocence, insufficient proof, or political prosecution.
You are of the particular ideological mindset. ‘provide me the man and I will provide you with the guilt’. This idea is proven active in America today by noting the number of prosecutions against Trump before a Presidential election where the individual is running for the highest office in the land. I abhor your Stalinist tendencies.
Your despotic mindset fails to recognize that the prosecutor also has a duty to the defendant.
That is an excellent point SM.
Cite the cases supporting your opinion, dog turd.
“The right to a fair trial applies to the public”
Nope.
Rights belong to individuals.
There are numerous errors in your argument – including a catagory error.
The government is not the public. The government has powers not rights.
The people have rights as individuals. They have rights collectively as participants in free association outside of government.
Governbment is empowered by the social contract to use force. Government has POWERS not rights.
“I suggest that you read the gag order”
It is unconstitutional. I do not need to read it to know that.
in 1831 the power of federal courts was constrained by the supreme court to conduct in or extremely near the court.
That was reafirmed after the 14th amanedment in 1874, in 1931 that constraint was extented to state courts.
and later it was further limited to conduct that presents a clear and present danger.
“it applies to the prosecutors as well as to Trump”
Irrelevant – the prosecution is fully within the power of the courts. The court can absolutely gag the prosecution.
If a prosecutor does not like that he can resign from his government position and say what he pleases.
“it doesn’t prevent Trump from speaking out against the government in general.”
The first amendment says the right to free speech SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
it does not say – except is courts.
We have centuries of constitutional law on free speech.
Speech can be barred if and only if:
The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
Trump and any criminal defendant can say whatever they please about the prosecutor, the court, its employees, ….
If Trump’s speech actually violates the law – not the whim of the court, the prosecutor can file new charges.
But we can not sanction conduct until after a jury determines that it has violated the law.
We do not have star chambers in the US. No judge has the power to unilaterally decide the guilt or innocence of anyone in any circumstances EXCEPT where the defendant has waived the right to a jury trial.
I would note this is NOT restricted to speech. Witness intimidation is a crime. The prosecutor is free to charge it should they believe it has occurred.
But the court can not sanction claims of witness tampering without a trial.
For the same reasons specified above – the constitution requires a trial before a jury to impose sanctions.
One of the reasons for this is made clear by your own remarks.
Witness tampering is a crime with specific requires elements. Harassment is the emotional state of a person – it is NOT a crime.
We are each free to harass whoever we want – because the term is subjective emotional and without any legal clarity.
We are NOT however from to engage in very specific conduct that the courts have found is NOT protected.
Separately the government in general and the courts and prosecutors specifically have no protection from defamation – atleast with respect to the case in court,
The court employess as individuals do have protection from defamation.
But that protection belongs to Them as individuals – not to the court or the judge.
If the clerks feel they were defamed they can file a defamation lawsuit against Trump.
You are arguing the typical nonsense of the left.
As a rule conduct that is actually illegal is subject to a SINGLE process for government sanction.
it is near certain that if a means within the law already exists to sanction conduct, that other means of government sanctioning the same conduct are porobably unconstitutional.
If as you claim Trump’s speech is NOT constitutionally protected free speech – then there already exists a legitimate means of sanctioning that speech other than a gag order.
Pretty much by defintion the gag order is unconstittional – because the only purpose it serves is sanctioning protected speech.
“The right to a fair trial applies to the public”
Nope.
Rights belong to individuals.”
Certain rights apply to individuals, not all of them are specific to individuals.
The easiest way to refutes your argument is when government the government is the defendant. If government doesn’t have rights then the government can’t have a fair trial as a defendant.
“The government is not the public. The government has powers not rights.”
The government is the public. It represents the public. “We the people…”. Remember that? Our government is of the people by the people and for the people.
“it applies to the prosecutors as well as to Trump”
Irrelevant – the prosecution is fully within the power of the courts. The court can absolutely gag the prosecution.
If a prosecutor does not like that he can resign from his government position and say what he pleases.”
The prosecution and the defense are both within the power of the courts. The court can determine the parameters of the proceedings and put limitations on either or both parties. Your interpretation is wrong. Very wrong.
“Speech can be barred if and only if:
The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
Unfortunately that’s what Trump’s speech has done and there’s plenty of evidence. His supporters acting on his speech, inciting harassment and death threats.
“If Trump’s speech actually violates the law – not the whim of the court, the prosecutor can file new charges.
But we can not sanction conduct until after a jury determines that it has violated the law.”
You clearly don’t understand how the courts work.
Trump is a criminal defendant out on bond. Meaning he’s under the purview of the court since his case is before the judge. The judge has the absolute power to control the proceedings and rules to ensure a fair trial and orderly process. Trump taunting, threatening, or deliberately tainting the jury pool thru his speech can be limited by the judge.
“But that protection belongs to Them as individuals – not to the court or the judge.
If the clerks feel they were defamed they can file a defamation lawsuit against Trump.”
No, the clerk is a member of the court which the judge has responsibility over. If the clerk is being defamed and harassed the judge is well within their power to issue a gag order on trump. The gag order applies to the prosecution, Trump’s lawyers the AG and Trump.
The Supreme Court has not established that a gag order, especially a narrow one like these are unconstitutional.
“The easiest way to refutes [sic] your argument is when government the government [sic] is the defendant.”
You can “refute” any argument by dropping the context. The government in *this* case is the prosecution (not the defendant).
“The right to a fair trial applies to the public . . .”
The public’s *on trial*?
The Left sure has a “creative” interpretation of the Constitution.
The defendant in a criminal case has the same rights they had before being charged.
The prosecution has no rights at all. It has powers granted it by the law and constitution – constrained by the rights of individuals.
All rights belong to individuals.
“The prosecution has no rights at all. ”
Again that’s not true.
“A legal right is, generally speaking, just a label for a legal entitlement, and governments can have that, both with respect to other governments and with respect to individuals. One can imagine a different legal system in which one word was used for basic moral entitlements (or even legal entitlements) of individuals and another was used for legal entitlements of governments; one can likewise imagine a legal system in which, for instance, a different word was used for entitlements to be free from governmental constraint than for entitlements to governmental benefit or protection. But in American law, the word “right” has long been used in all these contexts.”
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/22/government-rights/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20governments%20do%20have%20rights%2C%20not%20just%20powers.&text=A%20reader%20mentioned%20a%20claim,only%20people%20can%20have%20rights.
All rights belong to individuals PERIOD.
The public can have an interest in whatever it please – that does not convert that interest into a right.
Government – the courts have specific duties and constitutional powers. That is the extent of their powers.
They do not just get to make up new ones as they please.
I would note that though the US plays a very very bizzarere game of it – defense counsel can not bring up jury nullification in court,
Defendants ARE absolutely allowed to persuade the jury pool that the trial is “unfair” and that they should not convict regardless of the evidence.
So Yes, absolutely the defendant has and has always had the right to “pollute the jury pool”.
The current state of the law on jury nullification is that no one is allowed to explicitly call for it or tell juries they can do it,
But the entire defense team is allowed in court and out to argue in a way that the jury could choose to disregard the law.
Witness tampering is a specific crime with very specific elements – if Trump’s actions constitute actual witness tampering – the prosecution is free to charge that.
But neither the court nor the judge are permitted to restrict the first amendment rights of the defendant in the fear that he might commit a crime.
The courts have no authority to sanction conduct outside the court room that is not an actual crime. And frankly far less power inside the court room than is normally assumed.
“So Yes, absolutely the defendant has and has always had the right to “pollute the jury pool”.
Absolutely untrue. There’s no case law supporting this nonsense. Certainly not before trial. Otherwise it would apply to the prosecution as well.
“All rights belong to individuals PERIOD.”
Nope. Government has rights well.
Federalist papers contain clear reference to government rights.
“The courts have no authority to sanction conduct outside the court room that is not an actual crime. And frankly far less power inside the court room than is normally assumed.”
False. Yes they do. Violating a court order is a crime. Contempt is criminal in nature. Being in contempt of court is in essence committing a crime against the court.
So yes. If a court imposes an order and it’s violated outside of court it’s contempt of court.
“But neither the court nor the judge are permitted to restrict the first amendment rights of the defendant in the fear that he might commit a crime.”
It does when the defendant has already committed multiple violations after being warned. Threatening witnesses and tampering are crimes.
“The public can have an interest in whatever it please – that does not convert that interest into a right.”
Yes it does. The public (government) has a right to ensure a fair trial.
Corrupt the jury pool in the overwhelmingly Democrat places where the courts are located?
Sure, whatever.
@marklevinshow
“Chutkan is a disgrace, trampling all over the Constitution, and everyone who knows anything about the Bill of Rights sees it. The DC courts need to be broken up, its jurisdiction for high profile cases withdrawn, and the judicial seats and subject-matter jurisdictions should be moved to other parts of the country. Congress has the constitutional power to do all of this, and the House GOP should move on this asap.”
Rights by defition belong to individuals – not government. The only one missing an understanding of the right to a fair trial is YOU.
There is no prosecution right to a fair trial – that actually should be obvious to you.
If the prosecution can not deliver a speedy trial and the defendant does not waive his right to one – the prosecution LOSES.
That is NOT fair to the prosecution. But it is the RIGHT of the defendant.
The defendant has the right to NOT testify against themselves – no matter how fair that would be to the prosecution.
Every criminal defendant has the free speech right to “poison public oppinion or potential jurors”.
They also have the right to “harrass” potential witnesses, They do not have the right to induce or coerce them into changing their testimony.
You can call a potential witness a dirty liar all you want. You can not bribe them of threaten them. Further even if you do – that is NOT within the jurisdiction of the current court. Bribing or threatening a witness or juror would be a separate crime – the prosecution is free to charge that – either as an added chage or as a new case. It is not however free to sanction someone for bribery or true threats absent PROVING in a criminal trial before a jury that a bribe or true threat occured.
You do not get to make this stuff up as you go.
I would further note there are actual supreme court cases on this going back to the 1830’s. Judges can only hold people in contempt for conduct that meets the clear and present danger standard, which though lower than the current standard for free speech in other contexts is still a burden that Trump’s conduct has not exceeded.
These gag orders are inarguably unconstitutional.
No there is not a right to a fair trial for everyone involved. In the context of criminal trials all rights belong exclusively to the defenadant.
Can we get past left wingnuts offering lunatic legal theries that were rejected often centuries ago.
The Federalist papers disagree with your argument.
Anytime you violate an order of the court—including a gag order—you could be found guilty of contempt
The Supreme Court previously ruled that a gag order is constitutional if it can protect the right to a fair trial, is as least restrictive as possible, and will be effective. This meets judge Chutkan and Engoron’s orders.
The Supreme Court has not determined that gag orders are unconstitutional. Only that clearly over broad gag orders are an infringement on free speech. Narrowly tailored ones showing pre-trial publicity posed significant risk to providing a fair trial and No other methods are available a gag order is permissible.
Don’t give up your day job (in the unlikely event you have one, to practice law.
“[T]here’s also a constitutional right to a fair trial” for the government.
The government’s *on trial*?
Who knew.
Fishy, you’re so full of fish I can’t believe you would make it so public. You embarrass yourself. Never has a former President been prosecuted “criminally” by a current president and future presidential opponent (the closest example is when “Crazy Abe” threw his opponents in prison during his high-criminal, illegal, and unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus – talking about presidential crimes, that was “Crazy Abe” all day long!). Pick a number – 75% of what presidents do is criminal and illegal in one way or another. You communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) have established a precedent for which you are currently unaware of the ramifications. You fool no one but your idiotic self. It’s like abortion. The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) had abortion disguised as a federal or constitutional right. Bullshoot. It never was and never will be, and that’s why the Supreme Court of 2022 threw out the fraudulent and false decision by the abjectly corrupt communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO, AINO) Supreme Court of 1973. The Justices of that court must have been impeached, convicted, and Drawn and Quartered. Disgusting!
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…
The freedom of speech shall not be abridged by any individual, person, officer, judge, organization, or entity, not even unconstitutional, anti-Constitution, anti-American, communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) like Fishy.
Post conviction criminal penalties may take various forms, with the exception of those that are cruel and unusual, and include fines, abridgement of speech, imprisonment, forfeiture of life, et al.
George: you want to talk about “never befores” when it comes to US Presidents? Where to start? Here’s a partial list:
-cheating to get into office by colluding with a hostile foreign government to spread lies about your opponent
-bragging about getting away with grabbing womens’ genitals
-consorting with porn actress and nude models.
-lying 30,000 + times.
-falsifying campaign finance reports by reporting a payoff to a porn actress as legitimate campaign finance expense
-calling migrants seeking asylum “animals, vermin, murderers and rapists”
-telling the Proud Boys to “stand down and stand by”
-saying that neo-Nazis were “fine people” after they killed a protester
-siding with a murderous dictator over US intelligence, and praising that dictator’s invasion of Ukraine as “genius”
-praises other dictators, whom he would try to emulate
-lying about losing an election, including false claims of rigged voting equipment, fake ballots, dishonest vote counting, votes being switched, all with NO evidence
-fomenting an insurrection by telling fans to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”
-trying to bully Secretaries of State to “find” just enough votes to overturn the vote count and threatening criminal prosecution if he refused
-trying to bully the VP into refusing certified vote counts based on nothing but massive ego
-deliberately stealing classified documents and disclosing the contents to unauthorized persons
-disclosing classified information on capacities of our submarines and strengths and weaknesses of plans to invade Iran plus other classified information
-lying about declassifying and returning stolen classified documents;
-faking net worth by lying about values of assets, to induce banks to loan money on more-favorable terms
-getting fake electors to falsify Electoral College documents, which is a felony.
Our current president is NOT prosecuting Donald Trump–the State of Georgia, the State of New York and the Attorney General are. There is not any evidence that Joe Biden has been anything other than hands-off. In fact, Turley is suggesting that the AG Garland “rein in” the Special Prosecutor–meaning he should get involved in Smith’s prosecutorial discretion–but ONLY to benefit Trump. He won’t do it, nor should he. Now, Trump claims that he should be entitled to say whatever he wants about anyone he wants–witnesses, judges, court staff–without limit, including all sorts of false accusations of political motivation. Anyone attempting to prevent him from slandering people is somehow interfering with an election. Trump hasn’t even been chosen as a candidate yet. NO ONE would have been allowed to get away with what he’s gotten away with so far–NO ONE.
Gigi, the willful ignorance of the Trump cult will go down in history as a textbook example of how propagandists work. And sociopathy marketed as political ideology.
Fishy – the psychological term for everything you say is called P R O J E C T I O N.
President Joe Biden has been brazenly LYING about everything for years.
Why has he gotten away with it?
Why is Hunter not in prison?
Why?
“ falsifying campaign finance reports by reporting a payoff to a porn actress as legitimate campaign finance expense”
Here we have a perfect example of GIGI the LIAR, making another daily FALSE claim.
The allegation was that the payment to Daniels was NOT DISCLOSED as an in kind campaign contribution. LIAR
We can argue about whether your TDS justifies the spurious allegation of FAILURE TO REPORT, but Cohen did plead out in the charge. However, you once again misconstrue or misstate the facts.
LIAR
In other words, it was the FEC that said it was a campaign expense, you idiot, not Trump.
LIAR
According to NPR, April 4, 2023:
“Former President Donald Trump was charged in an indictment unsealed Tuesday with 34 felony counts of falsification of business records in the first degree.
He pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
The criminal charges — a historic first against a sitting or former president — are the culmination of an investigation into hush-money payments that Trump paid prior to the 2016 election to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels to cover up an alleged affair.
Trump and his allies have called the charges politically motivated.
The charges were made public days after a Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump.”
This tranch of trials is following the familiar pattern of modern “justice”. The absolutely obvious bias of the judges and prosecutors is allowed to play out to the end, wreaking its intended damage on the 2024 election. Then predictably, after the election of course, future appeals courts and supreme courts will belatedly rule against all the unconstitutionality, as if that undoes any of the harm done.
This is of a piece with the Jan6 defendants, who suffered months-long, even years-long, pretrial “detention”; threats of felony charges and long imprisonment as extortion to win guilty pleas for small misdemeanors; hugely disproportionate prison terms imposed by deeply biased judges for infractions amounting to nothing at all. Now it is finally coming out that the demonstrators and Capitol Police were set up by certain bad actors in leadership positions to make jan 6 as violent as possible, for political gain. But this blatant corruption of the judicial system will never be brought to account.
Which is of a piece with the courts’ actions in the 2020 election. Every attempt to bring the preparations for election dishonesty and corruption into the courts to nip it in the bud was thwarted by the judges on procedural grounds. Then after the election, every attempt to bring the actual dishonesty and corruption in the election into the courts for redress was thwarted by the judges on procedural grounds. Now years later courts are grudgingly ruling that yes, much of what was done was against the law; but of course it’s too late to do anything about it.
Which is of a piece with the 2016 coup orchestrated by the outgoing Obama two weeks before Trump’s inauguration, bringing the DOJ, FBI, CIA and others into a conspiracy of lies and corruption to bring down the incoming president. It has taken years to finally learn about and prove all the actors involved and what they did. But not a single major conspirator has ever been convicted. Only two minor players, to my recollection, were even indicted on minor charges, but enjoyed acquittal from Democrat judges and juries. We witnessed a four year long coup undermining a siting president, and despite clear evidence of their crimes, our system of “justice” can barely eek out a couple of minor indictments and no convictions.
Turley only ever discusses the small details of this or that instance of judical wrongdoing. He never addresses the elephant in the room–The whole system is biased, weaponized, and politicized.
“The Smith prosecutions are one of the biggest issues in this election.” (JT)
All of the political prosecutions have three twisted motivations:
1) To drain Trump financially and spiritually — as in: You still here, and have money to be here?
2) To make Trump toxic with swing voters — as in: Really? You want to vote for a multi-indicted candidate?
3) Give the MSM an epithet to attach to Trump’s name — as in: CBS reports that the multi-indicted Trump . . .
This is a Leftist pattern of kneecapping Trump that began in 2016. Tonya Harding must be jealous.
“And they are proof that FBI/DOJ FAILED to investigate 40 reports from sources that the FBI had already assessed as CREDIBLE.”
No they they haven’t been assessed as credible. That’s false.
Sen. Grassley claims confidential sources allege criminal activity by the Biden’s. We’ve heard this story before. Lots of allegations but zero clear and convincing evidence.
“Correct, the reports are not incontrovertible proof of Biden corruption.
But they are by definition EVIDENCE.”
Evidence of what? None of the activities being alleged are illegal or criminal. That’s always the problem with this so called “evidence”.
Republicans are using suspicion and insinuation as evidence of guilt. Not actual clear and convincing evidence. Which is weird because I do that is the standard among Republican logic we can clearly apply it to Trump and it makes Trump look fat more guilty than Biden.
It’s always been allegations and accusations and insinuations, but never clear and convincing evidence that would lead to charges or an indictment. They are never enough to get to that point.
“Plausible deniability”
-Jim Biden to Tony Bobulinski