Indictment number 3 for Trump announced

a reply to: 3000Hard

You really want your King Biden to go down in history with Hitler, Putin, Stalin etc.?



Trump isn’t going to jail.
The Democrats would be finished if that happens.

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Apparently it never occurs to Trump that the judge might have been neutral or even slightly favorable to him.

I swear, the man keeps shooting himself in the foot.

Apparently the judge needs remedial training on the first amendment.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Or due process really.
Hasn't served any papers.
Just did a press conference..

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Apparently it never occurs to Trump that the judge might have been neutral or even slightly favorable to him.

I swear, the man keeps shooting himself in the foot.

Apparently the judge needs remedial training on the first amendment.

My Personal Interpretation of that Right Unlike this Uninformed Judge is that as a Natural Born American Citizen , that Particular Right as Interpeted is ABSOLUTE FREE SPEECH and Inalienable . I also Believe that It is a Decree by the Supreme Being Who Created All Life in this Particular Universe . ..........And That's That ...........*)

a reply to: Zanti Misfit
The constitution limits the government not the people.

a reply to: UtIntusSicForis
Press conferences are a good thing.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Zanti Misfit
The constitution limits the government not the people.

Yes . Theoretically the " American People " as a Whole Rule Themselves and Freely Elect Representatives to be their " Voice " in Matters of State . WTF Happened in the Last 25 Years Dude to that ?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Not when it's obvious grandstanding before any actions is actually taken..

What really gets me is you guys cheering on abuse of the system because the guy in the TV told you Orangeman bad.
It's staggeringly short sighted.
Yea, yea, yea, but replubocrats bad.
I agree.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Pssst Government employees are the government...

a reply to: UtIntusSicForis

Not when it's obvious grandstanding before any actions is actually taken..

Yeah
The first amendment covers just that.
You know, redress the grievances and such…..

Who exactly is “you guys”?
Broad brush billy? Is that you?


Good day

originally posted by: UtIntusSicForis
a reply to: shooterbrody

Pssst Government employees are the government...

Doesn’t change the fact that the constitution limits the government not the people.

In a new entry on the docket, Judge Chutkan has revealed that she will be unsealing and partially redacting a motion the government made regarding witness intimidation on Trump's part. Apparently, as part of the filing, they are seeking some form of relief from the court.

a reply to: Threadbare

Why redact anything?

May I recommend this to y'all?


duckduckgo.com...'t%20get%20fooled%20again&ko=-1&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DSHhrZgoj Y1Q

The Government seeks a narrow, well-defined restriction that is targeted at extrajudicial
statements that present a serious and substantial danger of materially prejudicing this case. The
Government’s proposed order specifies that such statements would include (a) statements
regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses; and (b) statements about
any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and
inflammatory, or intimidating. See Exhibit 2. The Government’s order also specifies that,
consistent with other clarifications in Local Criminal Rule 57.7, the order is not intended to
prohibit quotation or reference to public court records of the case or the defendant’s proclamations
of innocence. Id. This proposal is consistent with the permissible balance approved by the
Supreme Court in Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1074-75, and specific enough to provide adequate notice to
the parties and counsel of prohibited statements.

Source

The DOJ is seeking a partial, narrow, gag order that would prevent Trump from talking about aspects of the case. They are also requesting an order that would require the court to authorize any jury studies.

a reply to: matafuchs

They redacted the names of people not involved in the case.

a reply to: shooterbrody

When acting on governmental buisness, no it does not.

But any port to excuse em aye?

originally posted by: UtIntusSicForis
a reply to: shooterbrody

When acting on governmental buisness, no it does not.

But any port to excuse em aye?

Oh
Especially in that instance

a reply to: Threadbare

You find nothing wrong with a person being told by the courts they cannot talk about the case?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Threadbare

You find nothing wrong with a person being told by the courts they cannot talk about the case?

Yet nothing about the leaky DoJ for years....