politics

Honestly the only surprising thing gleaned here is the notion that the gag order was actually working in the first place.

But on Thursday, Associate Justice David Friedman of the state’s intermediate appeals court agreed to temporarily lift the gag order, “considering the constitutional and statutory rights at issue”.

Now, Mr Trump is able to speak freely about court staff while the longer appeals process plays out.

Justice Friedman, you done fucked up. Are you an idiot? Jesus.

Why was it lifted? Good behavior? The judge should reinstate it immediately.

His Ridiculous and Unconstitutional Gag Order, not allowing me to defend myself against him and his politically biased and out of control, Trump Hating Clerk

But you defend yourself in the court room, not outside of it

Who could have predicted this? 🤯

The reason Trump got so fucked in this trial was because his lawyers neglected to ask for a jury trial like he usually does, now he's actually bound by a judge who understands the law rather than jurors he can emotionally manipulate.

It seems like Trump is trying to build a case in the court of public opinion, but not a legally valid one, that this is just persecution because of personal and political reasons. And he's going to do it by making the judge hate him, in hopes that he can overturn his fuck up. I just don't think that," the judge treated me unfairly because I insulted his staff" is a very compelling argument.

Frankly, if he was anyone else he would probably be thrown in prison for contempt of court by now.

Is it time for the $100,000 fine followed by the $1 million fine

The American justice system, neutered by a greasy Cheeto-dusted dipshit.

So if the appeals court needs one reason to reinstate the gag order with a vengeance, this should be it.

You're guilty all the same

Too sick to be ashamed

You want to point your finger

But there's no one else to blame

You're guilty all the same

This man is not qualified for the presidency of the United States.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4591133

Page 17:

V. The persons who framed Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded the President of the United States as an officer of the United States

The President of the United States was among the officials who took the oath to the Constitution that under Section Three triggered disqualification for participating in an insurrection. As noted in the previous section, the persons responsible for the Fourteenth Amendment sought to bar from present and future office all persons who betrayed their constitutional oath. “All of us understanding the meaning of the third section,” Senator John Sherman of Ohio stated, “those men who have once taken an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States and have Fourteenth Amendment distinguished between the presidential oath mandated by Article II and violated that oath in spirit by taking up arms against the Government of the United States are to be deprived for a time at least of holding office.” No member of the Congress that drafted the the oath of office for other federal and state officers mandated by Article VI. Both were oaths to support the Constitution. Senator Garrett Davis of Kentucky saw no legal difference between the constitutional requirement that “all officers, both Federal and State, should take an oath to support” the Constitution and the constitutional requirement that the president “take an oath, to the best of his ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.” Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin declared that Congress need not pass laws requiring presidents to swear to support the Constitution because that “oath is specified in the constitution.”

In fact, the exact question of whether the disqualification from public office covered the Presidency came up at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was being drafted: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/lsb/lsb10569

Specifically:

One scholar notes that the drafting history of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment suggests that the office of the President is covered:

During the debate on Section Three, one Senator asked why ex-Confederates “may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you all omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation.” Another Senator replied that the lack of specific language on the Presidency and Vice- Presidency was irrelevant: “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’”

I’ll highlight that last bit again:

Another Senator replied that the lack of specific language on the Presidency and Vice- Presidency was irrelevant: “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’”

That is from this paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3748639

Some people seem to have a lot of trouble with figuring out what "or" means, in a list of things.

Our courts are only showing if your white and claim to be rich they'll let you get away with anything. This is just looking like a shame to appease left leaning voters the longer it goes on.

Anyone else would be in jail.