Trump judge issues limited gag order after disparaging post about court clerk

a reply to: Stopstealingmycountry

So to be clear from your tone. You'd prefer 4 more of the old demented fool just to see the GOP and Trump get their comeuppance?

Wonder what you think might be best for the country?

a reply to: frogs453

Again, you miss the bigger point.

Trumps 1st amendment rights.

We are all free to retweet photos, aren't we?

a reply to: Threadbare

Right.

People are happy as clams right now. Good times rolling.

Screw those maxed out cards, the student loans that just built more debt, the high gas and food prices.... Impossible housing prices, homeless growing daily, invasion from the south. Pressure from EVERYWHERE and no calvary coming over the hill to save anyone.

Yeah, those happy Americans are gaining every day.

Do you even hear yourself?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Guyfriday

Here:

www.newsweek.com...

"Schumer's girlfriend, Alison R. Greenfield, is running this case against me. How disgraceful! This case should be dismissed immediately!!" he wrote. Despite his claim, there is no evidence of a relationship between Schumer and Greenfield beyond taking a photo together at one point."

Did Schumer lie to try and get Trump Impeached?
Yes.
Did Schumer seem to have a grudge against Trump?
Yes.
Should Alison Greenfield be on this case, if she is close to Schumer?
Of course not.
She should recuse herself.
The fact some people can't see this for what it is, what it has been since 2016, is ridiculous.
I am beginning to think the world has been infected with a brain eating ameba, that only affects those who watch MSM.
Critical thinking is DEAD, for the most part. It is all about "GO TEAM" now and facts don't matter.

a reply to: Quadrivium

She's a clerk. She's not presiding over the case. Furthermore, all Trump provided is a picture of her with Schumer.

Should we assume Trump is a Democrat because he has photos with the Clintons?

Should we assume he's a pedophile because he has photos with Jeffrey Epstein?

a reply to: Threadbare

All of that is irrelevant.

Trump has a 1st amendment right to retweet a photo, right?

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: Quadrivium

She's a clerk. She's not presiding over the case. Furthermore, all Trump provided is a picture of her with Schumer.

Should we assume Trump is a Democrat because he has photos with the Clintons?

Should we assume he's a pedophile because he has photos with Jeffrey Epstein?

Reading comprehension.
That is why I said "if".
Great way of showing your team spirit.
"GO TEAM".

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Once again, what was his intent? He knew what would happen.

It's just like the LibsofTikTok girl that posts about schools and libraries that support LGBTQ+ people and then acts surprised when her supporters call in bomb threats and death threats, every single time.

Let's not forget, it was just a few months ago that a Trump supporter tried to assassinate Obama the same day Trump posted Obama's address on social media.

This was a clear threat against the court and the judge shut it down right away.

Like I said at the start of this thread, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. What did Trump think was going to happen when he painted a target on a member of the court?

At least he's smarter than Roger Stone and add a literal crosshair to the photo.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Even if she were close to Schumer, her presence still has no bearing on the case. She's a clerk. She's the to fetch things for the judge and keep the court calendar updated.

a reply to: Threadbare

All of that is equally irrelevant as nobody has taken any of those other peoples 1st amendment rights away.

Intent doesn't get involved in the question of your rights. You keep them even if you dont have good intentions. Or even if you have solely self-serving intentions.

What is your point in all this irrelevancy? Does your argument not hold up otherwise?

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

If you're intending to disrupt court proceedings thegn it very much does matter. SCOTUS has ruled that judges can issue gag orders to maintain order in their courts.

a reply to: Threadbare

He wasn't in court at the time.

How are proceedings interrupted?

If an investigative reporter had tweeted the picture, or had said the things Trump said, would the judge have issued a gag-order? Would the reporter have been interrupting court proceedings?

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

It's possible. Judges have no issues issuing gag orders against the media.

a reply to: Threadbare

Ok, so what if it was you or me on social media?

Would WE be interrupting court proceedings?

a reply to: Nodrak

I was not the one stating that a photo of someone with a notable figure means anything other than a photo with a notable figure. You may wish to discuss your views with the person who believes that this proves they will assert any legal means to forward the notable figures agenda.

A gag order is used so people do not talk about a case. Here, there is some hypothetical that NOW, after 7 years of investigations, something may be said to harm someone?

Please.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

We're not one of the parties in the case or a member of the media covering the case, so no. Judges have very narrow authority to issue gag orders.

Now if our posts veered into harassment or intimidation, authorities might become involved and conditions could be set that prevent us from talking about things in exchange for a bond.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: Quadrivium

Even if she were close to Schumer, her presence still has no bearing on the case. She's a clerk. She's the to fetch things for the judge and keep the court calendar updated.

Perhaps you should research the exact duties and responsibilities of a court clerk instead of listening to what you are told to believe.

originally posted by: frogs453

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Threadbare

To illustrate the connection between the court and Shumer. To show the public the bias by the connection to top democrat enemies of Trump?

Seems like that should be his right.

Her position isn't a secret is it. A good investigative reporter would know, but they aren't interested in exposing these connections on the democrat side.

Again, if a photo shows she is chummy with Schumer, then all the various photos of half the GOP with White Supremacists, those convicted of Seditious Conspiracy and even a convicted Russian Spy means that they are all conspiring when passing bills in Congress for their chums interest, yes? That Supreme Court Justice? Who is in photos and has his trips paid for by that very wealthy chum, who's interests are brought before the court? Ruling in his favor, yes?

I mean according to your logic it must be true.

Don’t forget the chummy photo of trump with Hillary Clinton at his own wedding. They must be secret lovers, right?

a reply to: Quadrivium

Court Clerks work in courtrooms and support offices assisting judges with court cases performing a variety of tasks such as calling the court calendar, preparing written correspondence, maintaining custody of physical evidence, swearing in witnesses and preparing and examining court documents to ensure accuracy.

Source