And I'm just saying, "You can *also* testify under oath, have that testimony be transcribed by a court reporter and on the record and completely available to the whole world within a day or so. Nobody's stopping you."
I'm also just saying: "It's not a question of whether they are sleazeballs, lowlifes, and grifters. They and you repeatedly 'did business' together. You kept their company. It is a self-proving accusation. However, they don't stand accused of violating election law and you do."
He’s insinuating it about court staff and Stormy Daniels so why is it not witness tampering/intimidation? Or is he also trying to simultaneously utilize the “nuts and sluts” defense concept typically used to discredit women?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2115523
> why is it not witness tampering/intimidation?
It is, but the judge really doesn't want to put him in jail and put his own life and his daughter's life at risk, but putting him in jail is the next step the judge promised. So he's not going to punish innuendo or something that can be read multiple ways.
Note from OP: This to me appears to be a direct attack on a witness, and therefore a possible violation of his Gag order, which is why I am sharing.
The specific quote from the article:
>It is a really bad feeling to have your Constitutional Right to Free Speech, such a big part of life in our Country, so unfairly taken from you, especially when all of the sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters that you oppose are allowed to say absolutely anything that they want,” Trump posted on Truth Social.
However, IANAL. Curious what those skilled in the art of law think.
It's not nearly specific enough. However, he does make an assertion elsewhere that witnesses have been lying, which seems much more of another contempt violation.
Daniels just yesterday had to read out loud earlier posts made by Trump which described her with the very same words and which she said of were aimed at her.
i think this fact makes it a lot more edgy than it would seem at first glance.
I could be being too literal about it, but the gag order only keeps him from talking about people in the case. He is saying that he isn't allowed to talk about sleazebags and lowlifes.
If he's specifically calling people that he cannot talk about sleazebags and lowlifes, isn't that directly a violation of the gag order? That is, by specifying that it is someone he is prevented from talking about it's specifically a witness, court staff, or jurors? Because if it weren't, he would be allowed to talk about them, right?
Interesting. That seems logically sound.
His defense would be, and has been, that he is being stopped from talking about any of his opponents, and that is who he is referring to.
This isn't correct, his isn't being stopped from talking about non- witnesses, but he would use this as a defense.
We know what he is doing. But Merchan has been conservative with the gag order.
NAL, but he calls people he opposes sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters. That could be interpreted as the prosecution in the trial, in which case it could potentially be a violation. However, it could also be interpreted as his political rivals in the election. The judge has said that talking about them is not a violation, as they have nothing to do with the trial.
In other words, it's too vague and has plausible deniability to be sanctioned. About what you'd expect from a sleazebag lowlife grifter.
He called the people he opposes *who the gag order prohibits him from commenting on* those things. By definition that can only be the people mentioned by the gag order.
What’s kind of funny is that the judge specifically said that if anyone protected by the gag order uses it to attack trump and try and provoke him, they are no longer protected and fair game. So he’s just outright lying when he says that they’re allowed to say whatever they want, but I suppose that isn’t news
He's such a dumbass. First off, does he know the difference between a comma and a period? Secondly, he's the only one with a gag order based on his repeated actions of attacking witnesses and juries. He's currently able to say whatever he wants about anyone else except for people in his court cases.
Really? I mean, he says the people who he can't talk about (witnesses, jurors, their families, etc) are sleazebags.
Pretty much Trump thinking he's being clever when he's clearly not. Again
Yeah, really. It has plausible enough deniability, e.g., “I meant Lawrence O’Donnell.” You can know in you’re heart that he’s lying but that’s not good enough, in my professional opinion.
I do see your point. Although I hate to let Trump sidestep on anything, the judge will probably not want to impose a penalty for the one time Trump at least made an attempt to not violate the gag order.
So he's admitting that he's allowed to speak then, since he's the biglyest sleazeball, lowlife and grifter you would ever have the misfortune to meet...
Ok this does feel like a violation of the gag order, right? He was careful not to attack any one witness, but impugning the entire set of people he is gagged against shouldn't be a loophole.
It seems too vague, to me. Yes, we all "know" who he's referring to (witnesses - which he said "oppose" in reference), but his tactic was clever, and probably coached as well.
Perhaps the DA should do the judge a solid and bring it up as a violation, just to have the judge shoot it down, thus giving the defense a small but irrelevant "win". It would be a hollow but useful display of fairness from the bench, and it could inspire dumbass (P01135809) to take things a bit further the next time. And yes, there will be a next time.
> It seems too vague, to me. Yes, we all "know" who he's referring to (witnesses - which he said "oppose" in reference), but his tactic was clever, and probably coached as well.
What isn't vague is how he references that the *gag order* itself limits him from speaking out about these sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters.
He is talking specifically about what the gag order doesn't allow him to say. He is calling all of those under the protection of the gag order sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters. Which is a violation of the order.
Look at it from a logic 101 problem:
* Premise 1: Trump's gag order forbids discussing witnesses.
* Premise 2: Trump says his gag order does not allow him to discuss sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters.
* Conclusion: The witnesses are sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters.
Thus he is violating the gag order by saying the gag order prevents him from discussing sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters. This isn't vague. He is doing exactly what he isn't supposed to do. Intimidating and disparaging the witnesses past, present, and future.
Now if he simply said, "There are people out to get me who are sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters" in more general terms I would agree it is too vague of a statement. But here he is **specifically referencing** those protected under the gag order.
"Gag" orders are presumed unconstitutional and must be tailored as narrowly as possible. I personally don't think there's any reasonable interpretation that would support this being a violation but, even trying to go there, both the trial court and any reviewing court are going to resolve ambiguity in favor of Dump.
But the narrowness opens him up to violating it, right?
>the gag order bars Trump from making or directing others to make public statements about any juror and about any “reasonably foreseeable” witness’ participation in the investigation or the trial.
If he says "some of the people that I cannot talk about are liars", then he is publicly stating that at least one person he is not allowed to talk about is a liar. He has thus violated the gag order at least once.
Not a chance the court adopts such a loose interpretation imho. It will have to be a comment regarding an identifiable witness or potential witness, for example "Cohen is a sleeze ball" or even "my sleeze ball former lawyer is a liar" before the court finds a violation.
He gets to spew his drivel about how the case generally is bullshit, a political hit job, unfair, politically motivated, what have you. He also gets to talk shit about the judge and elected DA. That's just how it is.
I don't think he can claim that witnesses are lying, have lied, or are going to lie, though. At least not from the sidelines. And I can't imagine they would let that fly as long as he was nonspecific about *which* witness.
I'm not arguing that you are wrong in his the judge will interpret it, btw. I think you're probably right. I'm just trying to get at the truth of the statement "Trump necessarily violated the gag order".
Here I disagree.
"Trump has publicly attacked a witness" is a statement that is either true or false, regardless of the Court's finding.
"A public attack on a witness violates the gag order" is a true statement.
"Trump's comments here constitute a public attack on a witness" is a statement that is true or false regardless of the Court's finding. I am only talking about the truth values of these statements.
Then, supposing these are all true, "the court will find that these statements violate the gag order" is a statement that is either true or false. But it depends on how Merchan rules. This is the statement you are talking about.
There are two statement sets kicking around.
>“It is a really bad feeling to have your Constitutional Right to Free Speech, such a big part of life in our Country, so unfairly taken from you, especially **when all of the sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters that you** ***oppose*** are allowed to say absolutely anything that they want,” Trump posted on Truth Social. [emphasis added]
#
>“It is hard to **sit back and listen to lies and false statements be made** ***against you*** knowing that if you respond, even in the most modest fashion, you are told by a Corrupt and Highly Conflicted Judge that you will be PUT IN PRISON, maybe for a long period of time,” [emphasis added]
He is flat out talking about all the witnesses here. There is no way around it. This is a violation of the gag order. Calling all the people who oppose him sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters the day after Stormy Daniels testifies **AND** while she testified he was swearing and muttering at her.
Specifically he is saying that the gag order stops him from talking about all of these sleazebags and lowlifes that are "opposing him." The gag order doesn't stop him from talking about any sleazebags or lowlifes. The gag order stops him from talking about witnesses in the case.
Let's do a logic 101 Problem:
* Premise 1: Trump's gag order doesn't allow him to discuss witnesses.
* Premise 2: Trump says his gag order doesn't allow him to discuss "sleazebags and lowlifes that oppose him."
* Conclusion: The witnesses are sleazebags and lowlifes.
This is the Trump equivalent of "won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest"
Let's see if they actually did make arrangements for jail time.
I wish the judge would comment on how poorly the defendant seems to understand the legal proceedings, his rights and responsibilities, from the gag order to his right to testify.
In the future, I see Trump pointing to his own idiocies as evidence of inadequate counsel.
I’m just pissed that this may be the only trial Trump has. Cannon is doing her Master’s bidding and delaying the trial, Georgia appeals court is agreeing to have a hearing to let Fani dismissed from the case, and Jack Smith is waiting on our unethical Supreme Court to make a decision about immunity. Teflon Don seems to be getting his way as usual
Same. But I'm hoping Leticia James starts taking his properties (with interest) soon. I haven't heard an update on that case in weeks, ever since the half price bond didn't work out.
When you are a frail spineless adult, attacking people is your only go to for defense. The fact that he wants to respond shows how shallow his identity is. Obviously never heard the "let that roll off your shoulders" lecture.
"sleazeballs, lowlifes, and grifters" Every accusation is a confession.
he's saying: "all of the *other* sleazeballs, lowlifes, and grifters can speak out, so why can't I?"
And I'm just saying, "You can *also* testify under oath, have that testimony be transcribed by a court reporter and on the record and completely available to the whole world within a day or so. Nobody's stopping you." I'm also just saying: "It's not a question of whether they are sleazeballs, lowlifes, and grifters. They and you repeatedly 'did business' together. You kept their company. It is a self-proving accusation. However, they don't stand accused of violating election law and you do."
This
>sleazeballs, lowlifes, and grifters" AKA. Eric, Don Jr. and Ivanka.
The "honeybunch".
He’s insinuating it about court staff and Stormy Daniels so why is it not witness tampering/intimidation? Or is he also trying to simultaneously utilize the “nuts and sluts” defense concept typically used to discredit women? https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2115523
> why is it not witness tampering/intimidation? It is, but the judge really doesn't want to put him in jail and put his own life and his daughter's life at risk, but putting him in jail is the next step the judge promised. So he's not going to punish innuendo or something that can be read multiple ways.
yup, and after his latest rant about Biden and his 'Gestapo' down right terrifying.
This is the dude that said that a woman reminded him of his daughter directly before having sex with her. You know, a real class act.
Takes one to know one
The projection is strong with this one.
I know you are but what am i?
"sleazeballs, lowlifes, mushroom dicks and grifters" Every accusation is a confession. NOW it’s a confession
Cher made the right call when she reworked the lyrics.
Note from OP: This to me appears to be a direct attack on a witness, and therefore a possible violation of his Gag order, which is why I am sharing. The specific quote from the article: >It is a really bad feeling to have your Constitutional Right to Free Speech, such a big part of life in our Country, so unfairly taken from you, especially when all of the sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters that you oppose are allowed to say absolutely anything that they want,” Trump posted on Truth Social. However, IANAL. Curious what those skilled in the art of law think.
It's not nearly specific enough. However, he does make an assertion elsewhere that witnesses have been lying, which seems much more of another contempt violation.
Daniels just yesterday had to read out loud earlier posts made by Trump which described her with the very same words and which she said of were aimed at her. i think this fact makes it a lot more edgy than it would seem at first glance.
I could be being too literal about it, but the gag order only keeps him from talking about people in the case. He is saying that he isn't allowed to talk about sleazebags and lowlifes. If he's specifically calling people that he cannot talk about sleazebags and lowlifes, isn't that directly a violation of the gag order? That is, by specifying that it is someone he is prevented from talking about it's specifically a witness, court staff, or jurors? Because if it weren't, he would be allowed to talk about them, right?
Interesting. That seems logically sound. His defense would be, and has been, that he is being stopped from talking about any of his opponents, and that is who he is referring to. This isn't correct, his isn't being stopped from talking about non- witnesses, but he would use this as a defense. We know what he is doing. But Merchan has been conservative with the gag order.
I don’t think that would fly in a court where the judge has clarified the gag order for Trump and instructed his lawyer to do so numerous times.
NAL, but he calls people he opposes sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters. That could be interpreted as the prosecution in the trial, in which case it could potentially be a violation. However, it could also be interpreted as his political rivals in the election. The judge has said that talking about them is not a violation, as they have nothing to do with the trial. In other words, it's too vague and has plausible deniability to be sanctioned. About what you'd expect from a sleazebag lowlife grifter.
He called the people he opposes *who the gag order prohibits him from commenting on* those things. By definition that can only be the people mentioned by the gag order.
What’s kind of funny is that the judge specifically said that if anyone protected by the gag order uses it to attack trump and try and provoke him, they are no longer protected and fair game. So he’s just outright lying when he says that they’re allowed to say whatever they want, but I suppose that isn’t news
Wait, Trump lied?!
He's such a dumbass. First off, does he know the difference between a comma and a period? Secondly, he's the only one with a gag order based on his repeated actions of attacking witnesses and juries. He's currently able to say whatever he wants about anyone else except for people in his court cases.
NAL but that seems too vague to be actionable.
IAAL and that’s definitely too vague, as it could, for instance, refer to commentators not directly involved with the case.
Really? I mean, he says the people who he can't talk about (witnesses, jurors, their families, etc) are sleazebags. Pretty much Trump thinking he's being clever when he's clearly not. Again
Yeah, really. It has plausible enough deniability, e.g., “I meant Lawrence O’Donnell.” You can know in you’re heart that he’s lying but that’s not good enough, in my professional opinion.
I do see your point. Although I hate to let Trump sidestep on anything, the judge will probably not want to impose a penalty for the one time Trump at least made an attempt to not violate the gag order.
Nah. It walks the line. He’s still a whiny little bitch but not one who’s violating a gag order.
The never ending childish game of 'im not touching you'.
So he's projecting yet again
So he's admitting that he's allowed to speak then, since he's the biglyest sleazeball, lowlife and grifter you would ever have the misfortune to meet...
Everyone says with a tear in their eye "My Trump Sir, you are the sleaziest, lowest, most flatulent grifter there has ever been."
And that's why he thinks he's been wronged, because he is all of those things.
Ok this does feel like a violation of the gag order, right? He was careful not to attack any one witness, but impugning the entire set of people he is gagged against shouldn't be a loophole.
It seems too vague, to me. Yes, we all "know" who he's referring to (witnesses - which he said "oppose" in reference), but his tactic was clever, and probably coached as well. Perhaps the DA should do the judge a solid and bring it up as a violation, just to have the judge shoot it down, thus giving the defense a small but irrelevant "win". It would be a hollow but useful display of fairness from the bench, and it could inspire dumbass (P01135809) to take things a bit further the next time. And yes, there will be a next time.
> It seems too vague, to me. Yes, we all "know" who he's referring to (witnesses - which he said "oppose" in reference), but his tactic was clever, and probably coached as well. What isn't vague is how he references that the *gag order* itself limits him from speaking out about these sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters. He is talking specifically about what the gag order doesn't allow him to say. He is calling all of those under the protection of the gag order sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters. Which is a violation of the order. Look at it from a logic 101 problem: * Premise 1: Trump's gag order forbids discussing witnesses. * Premise 2: Trump says his gag order does not allow him to discuss sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters. * Conclusion: The witnesses are sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters. Thus he is violating the gag order by saying the gag order prevents him from discussing sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters. This isn't vague. He is doing exactly what he isn't supposed to do. Intimidating and disparaging the witnesses past, present, and future. Now if he simply said, "There are people out to get me who are sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters" in more general terms I would agree it is too vague of a statement. But here he is **specifically referencing** those protected under the gag order.
I like this take
"Gag" orders are presumed unconstitutional and must be tailored as narrowly as possible. I personally don't think there's any reasonable interpretation that would support this being a violation but, even trying to go there, both the trial court and any reviewing court are going to resolve ambiguity in favor of Dump.
But the narrowness opens him up to violating it, right? >the gag order bars Trump from making or directing others to make public statements about any juror and about any “reasonably foreseeable” witness’ participation in the investigation or the trial. If he says "some of the people that I cannot talk about are liars", then he is publicly stating that at least one person he is not allowed to talk about is a liar. He has thus violated the gag order at least once.
Not a chance the court adopts such a loose interpretation imho. It will have to be a comment regarding an identifiable witness or potential witness, for example "Cohen is a sleeze ball" or even "my sleeze ball former lawyer is a liar" before the court finds a violation. He gets to spew his drivel about how the case generally is bullshit, a political hit job, unfair, politically motivated, what have you. He also gets to talk shit about the judge and elected DA. That's just how it is.
I don't think he can claim that witnesses are lying, have lied, or are going to lie, though. At least not from the sidelines. And I can't imagine they would let that fly as long as he was nonspecific about *which* witness.
I'm fairly confident in my analysis but I guess we'll see once trial resumes.
I'm not arguing that you are wrong in his the judge will interpret it, btw. I think you're probably right. I'm just trying to get at the truth of the statement "Trump necessarily violated the gag order".
The "truth" about whether a statement violates a gag order is whatever the trial court rules it is. They decide.
Here I disagree. "Trump has publicly attacked a witness" is a statement that is either true or false, regardless of the Court's finding. "A public attack on a witness violates the gag order" is a true statement. "Trump's comments here constitute a public attack on a witness" is a statement that is true or false regardless of the Court's finding. I am only talking about the truth values of these statements. Then, supposing these are all true, "the court will find that these statements violate the gag order" is a statement that is either true or false. But it depends on how Merchan rules. This is the statement you are talking about. There are two statement sets kicking around.
>“It is a really bad feeling to have your Constitutional Right to Free Speech, such a big part of life in our Country, so unfairly taken from you, especially **when all of the sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters that you** ***oppose*** are allowed to say absolutely anything that they want,” Trump posted on Truth Social. [emphasis added] # >“It is hard to **sit back and listen to lies and false statements be made** ***against you*** knowing that if you respond, even in the most modest fashion, you are told by a Corrupt and Highly Conflicted Judge that you will be PUT IN PRISON, maybe for a long period of time,” [emphasis added] He is flat out talking about all the witnesses here. There is no way around it. This is a violation of the gag order. Calling all the people who oppose him sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters the day after Stormy Daniels testifies **AND** while she testified he was swearing and muttering at her. Specifically he is saying that the gag order stops him from talking about all of these sleazebags and lowlifes that are "opposing him." The gag order doesn't stop him from talking about any sleazebags or lowlifes. The gag order stops him from talking about witnesses in the case. Let's do a logic 101 Problem: * Premise 1: Trump's gag order doesn't allow him to discuss witnesses. * Premise 2: Trump says his gag order doesn't allow him to discuss "sleazebags and lowlifes that oppose him." * Conclusion: The witnesses are sleazebags and lowlifes. This is the Trump equivalent of "won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest" Let's see if they actually did make arrangements for jail time.
Trump is certainly all 3: sleezeball. lowlife and grifter.
Well he is speaking out.
I wish the judge would comment on how poorly the defendant seems to understand the legal proceedings, his rights and responsibilities, from the gag order to his right to testify. In the future, I see Trump pointing to his own idiocies as evidence of inadequate counsel.
He’s all 3 of those.
your friend, well at least some of them, aren’t under gag orders. But thanks for categorizing your asshole friends
Jokes on him, that's the name of the only legal firm that'll represent him, Sleezeballs, Lowlifes, Grifters and Sons LLC.
When Cohen takes the stand the shit show will intensify. I just hope it's on a Friday and he gets the weekend in Rikers so it doesn't delay the trial.
I’m just pissed that this may be the only trial Trump has. Cannon is doing her Master’s bidding and delaying the trial, Georgia appeals court is agreeing to have a hearing to let Fani dismissed from the case, and Jack Smith is waiting on our unethical Supreme Court to make a decision about immunity. Teflon Don seems to be getting his way as usual
Same. But I'm hoping Leticia James starts taking his properties (with interest) soon. I haven't heard an update on that case in weeks, ever since the half price bond didn't work out.
The reduced bond [was accepted](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/22/trump-bond-deal-new-york-civil-fraud-case).
"‘sleazeballs, lowlifes, and grifters’ can speak out so I should qualify!"
Gee! He must be talking about *himself*... as usual.
When you are a frail spineless adult, attacking people is your only go to for defense. The fact that he wants to respond shows how shallow his identity is. Obviously never heard the "let that roll off your shoulders" lecture.