Appeals court upholds gag order on Trump in D.C. case but narrows restrictions on his speech

a reply to: theatreboy

And I take what he says very seriously.
And he has said some incredibly dumb things. And continues to this day. And many just give him a free pass and say he was kidding.
So which is it this time?
Do I take what he says seriously and assume he never jokes and means every word he says. Or do I turn a blind eye to just things you would consider a joke?
Because I just flat out disagree with you on many things.

Those who are more against Trump than Biden, can’t be taken seriously.

Trump wanted to secure boarders and the Wu-flu.

Democrats called it racist (for votes) and tried to pick up where Trump left off and failed. Shocker.

originally posted by: Allaroundya4k
a reply to: theatreboy

And I take what he says very seriously.
And he has said some incredibly dumb things. And continues to this day. And many just give him a free pass and say he was kidding.
So which is it this time?
Do I take what he says seriously and assume he never jokes and means every word he says. Or do I turn a blind eye to just things you would consider a joke?
Because I just flat out disagree with you on many things.

list his exact words, then tell us what you think he meant, and we can discuss that. But trying to guess what's in your little head is a difficult task.

originally posted by: Allaroundya4k
a reply to: theatreboy

And I take what he says very seriously.
And he has said some incredibly dumb things. And continues to this day. And many just give him a free pass and say he was kidding.
So which is it this time?
Do I take what he says seriously and assume he never jokes and means every word he says. Or do I turn a blind eye to just things you would consider a joke?
Because I just flat out disagree with you on many things.

Is Speculation allowed in a Court of Law ?

Speculation, Conclusions: Speculation, or someone's idea about what might have happened, is not allowed. A witness cannot jump to conclusions that are not based on what the witness experienced. Example: A witness is asked if he saw his friend Kelly on Saturday.

When Congress Impeached Trump the entire thing was based on the Speculation of what one person heard on one phone call .

January 6th is entirely based on Speculation .

The entire fiasco with Trumps properties in Florida is complete BS , A judge just comes along and decides Trumps Hundred Million Dollar Property is effectively worthless . Again the speculation of one Corrupt Judge blatantly Lying .

They have nothing on Trump and they never have and they never will unless he makes a really dumb decision.

originally posted by: Mahogani

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
a reply to: Mahogani

He does have a right to face his accusers, in court. He can not attack and disparage them outside of court, as he has been doing ceaselessly.

What are you so afraid he will say

?

...

and yet you and others on your train cant Handle ol Trumpy running his mouth against the people accusing him of what they know is complete Fabrications of nothingness that will lead to nothing.

Let me explain to you, and others, what you are doing here.

You are triggered by these news, and you have nothing to say about it. You KNOW he can't attack witnesses, or court staff, and you KNOW nobody else would be allowed to do that. Nobody. Laws are the same for everyone.

However, your cult leader suffering in any way is absolutely unconscionable to you, but you can't do anything about it.

So you're going to direct your anger at me, ask me questions as if I were the court and I made these decisions, and as if I had anything to do with Trump's coup, or his attacks on regular American citizens.

I do not, and I can't answer those questions for you. I am just reporting what's been happening.

Thank you for reading.

distraction and counterattack. the trump way. arguments, facts, what for?

During his speech last night, Trump attacked Bill Barr. Barr is most likely going to be a witness in this case. The gag order prevents Trump from attacking witnesses in this case.

It will be interesting to see how Chutkan responds tomorrow.

a reply to: Threadbarer

so the gag order precludes him from talking about people that "may" be witnesses? Who else "may" be called?

a reply to: network dude

The gag order prevents him from talking about reasonably foreseeable witnesses. Bill Barr firmly falls into that category.