1. Considering the historic nature of a former U.S. President facing trial, how might the selection of the jury be influenced by public opinion, and what measures can be taken to ensure a fair and unbiased jury?
2. Given the claims of the gag order being an unprecedented restriction on a political figure, what are the implication…
1. Considering the historic nature of a former U.S. President facing trial, how might the selection of the jury be influenced by public opinion, and what measures can be taken to ensure a fair and unbiased jury?
2. Given the claims of the gag order being an unprecedented restriction on a political figure, what are the implications for the balance between protecting the integrity of the legal process and safeguarding freedom of speech during a politically charged trial?
3. How might the potential testimony of unindicted co-conspirators, who have previously pleaded guilty in related cases, impact the prosecution's case against Trump and the overall perception of the trial's fairness?
4. What are the broader legal and ethical considerations when a defendant in a high-profile case attempts to delay proceedings, especially in the context of ongoing political campaigns or future elections?
5. How does the current legal standard for imposing gag orders reflect on the judicial system's capacity to adapt to unique cases, particularly when the defendant is a prominent political figure actively campaigning for office?
6. In what ways could the outcome of this trial set a precedent for future cases involving high-profile political figures, and what does this say about the evolving relationship between the justice system and political accountability?
Re Q.2: The gag order does not impact political statements. Trump can tell his lies all day long (as he is currently doing). That's his freedom of speech. He does not have the right to make threats overtly or covertly or by implication. It prevents Trump from making threats against potential witnesses, court employees, prosecutors and by inuendo the jury (the background was his call to executive Mike Milley. If Trump is able (so far he has not shown that he is) to put forth his political message without threats, he is welcome to do so. The gag order means he needs to shut his trap and not make threats before his trial and during his trial. It is the duty of the Court to protect the public and Trump has already shown he can inspire a gang of thugs to do harm. He is a threat to public safety before trial and during trial.
Re Q. 4: Trump is so outside the sphere of ethics, the best the prosecutors in these cases can do is to try to keep ahead of his twists and turns.
Gloria: But it is YOUR brilliance in laying this out in such a clear ‘what if’ process that will make everyone ponder and come up with their own responses over first coffee in the morning. We are all in this together, and our only saving grace is having our brilliant prosecutors. We and they are staying one step ahead of Slick (Trump) and Slickers (his sleaze bag attorneys). 💛
Valere, if you are writing online the ellipse (...) at the bottom right of your message gives you access to an edit function after you have posted it. Thanks for what you write. I learn a lot from you.
Wow! Thank you so much! I keep thinking I should proofread three times before hitting ‘send’ (and usually I do proofread), but sometimes Siri and II miss: ‘execute’ not ‘executive’
I’d also like to know why the ACLU filed an amicus in support of trump’s 1. Amendment rights saying the gag order is too broad and too vague. What the hell?
And why can't his lawyers be held accountable, to screen what Trump plans to post or say and inform/clarify for him that it is not an acceptable statement? Certainly they understand what his gag order does and does not include?
Do you really think he calculates far ahead of time what he's gonna say, far enough to give it to his lawyers to vet? Just listen, if you have the stomach, to what spews out of his mouth!
Kathleen, This is the guy who was two hours from Brazil, G 20 in 2019, intending to meet Putin on the sly for the second time when his advisers were finally able to talk him down from the tree slowly. You are absolutely 100% correct. There’s no doubt in my mind that he posts first and the attorneys read it in real time as we do.
The outcome of this trial plays second fiddle to voting out all Republicans. But second fiddle is no small part. The most obvious precedent the trial outcome will set is whether or not we can make beautiful music any longer in a free and democratic country.
Questions
1. Considering the historic nature of a former U.S. President facing trial, how might the selection of the jury be influenced by public opinion, and what measures can be taken to ensure a fair and unbiased jury?
2. Given the claims of the gag order being an unprecedented restriction on a political figure, what are the implications for the balance between protecting the integrity of the legal process and safeguarding freedom of speech during a politically charged trial?
3. How might the potential testimony of unindicted co-conspirators, who have previously pleaded guilty in related cases, impact the prosecution's case against Trump and the overall perception of the trial's fairness?
4. What are the broader legal and ethical considerations when a defendant in a high-profile case attempts to delay proceedings, especially in the context of ongoing political campaigns or future elections?
5. How does the current legal standard for imposing gag orders reflect on the judicial system's capacity to adapt to unique cases, particularly when the defendant is a prominent political figure actively campaigning for office?
6. In what ways could the outcome of this trial set a precedent for future cases involving high-profile political figures, and what does this say about the evolving relationship between the justice system and political accountability?
Hi Gloria~
Re Q.2: The gag order does not impact political statements. Trump can tell his lies all day long (as he is currently doing). That's his freedom of speech. He does not have the right to make threats overtly or covertly or by implication. It prevents Trump from making threats against potential witnesses, court employees, prosecutors and by inuendo the jury (the background was his call to executive Mike Milley. If Trump is able (so far he has not shown that he is) to put forth his political message without threats, he is welcome to do so. The gag order means he needs to shut his trap and not make threats before his trial and during his trial. It is the duty of the Court to protect the public and Trump has already shown he can inspire a gang of thugs to do harm. He is a threat to public safety before trial and during trial.
Re Q. 4: Trump is so outside the sphere of ethics, the best the prosecutors in these cases can do is to try to keep ahead of his twists and turns.
Thank you so much. Your clarification is just fantastic.
Gloria: But it is YOUR brilliance in laying this out in such a clear ‘what if’ process that will make everyone ponder and come up with their own responses over first coffee in the morning. We are all in this together, and our only saving grace is having our brilliant prosecutors. We and they are staying one step ahead of Slick (Trump) and Slickers (his sleaze bag attorneys). 💛
Sorry, correction: ‘Execute Mike Milley’ not ‘executive’😳
Valere, if you are writing online the ellipse (...) at the bottom right of your message gives you access to an edit function after you have posted it. Thanks for what you write. I learn a lot from you.
Wow! Thank you so much! I keep thinking I should proofread three times before hitting ‘send’ (and usually I do proofread), but sometimes Siri and II miss: ‘execute’ not ‘executive’
Thank you!💛
Your very welcome.
I’ve been correcting things all day:))
I am forgetting to proof each time, so some posts have ‘escaped,’but thank you again
I’d also like to know why the ACLU filed an amicus in support of trump’s 1. Amendment rights saying the gag order is too broad and too vague. What the hell?
I have to go to bed, but I'll try and have answers to your questions by end of day tomorrow.
Thank you!
And why can't his lawyers be held accountable, to screen what Trump plans to post or say and inform/clarify for him that it is not an acceptable statement? Certainly they understand what his gag order does and does not include?
Do you really think he calculates far ahead of time what he's gonna say, far enough to give it to his lawyers to vet? Just listen, if you have the stomach, to what spews out of his mouth!
Kathleen, This is the guy who was two hours from Brazil, G 20 in 2019, intending to meet Putin on the sly for the second time when his advisers were finally able to talk him down from the tree slowly. You are absolutely 100% correct. There’s no doubt in my mind that he posts first and the attorneys read it in real time as we do.
Brava Bonnie.
The outcome of this trial plays second fiddle to voting out all Republicans. But second fiddle is no small part. The most obvious precedent the trial outcome will set is whether or not we can make beautiful music any longer in a free and democratic country.