- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: ‘Free Speech Right Not Absolute’ – Obama Judge Tanya Chutkan Delivers Mixed Ruling
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:21 pm to jawnybnsc
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:21 pm to jawnybnsc
quote:
They're going to try to criminalize everything he says from now to November '24. Draw a line NOW!
This is really unprecedented and unchartered territory. This case is just absolute dogshit and its only purpose is to slap a gag on Trump or try to lock him up. Whatever the merits of his argument, Trump truly believes the election wasn't on the up and up and he is entitled to his opinion. How can he possibly be silenced for discussing it?
3
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:27 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
This is really unprecedented and unchartered territory.
I’m curious what any objective legal minds think about this. How does this differ from any other criminal case?
Are defendants ever prevented from going on news or social media to talk about charges, evidence, grand jury testimony, other witness testimony etc?
This post was edited on 8/11/23 at 7:28 pm
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:28 pm to Jjdoc
For those paying attention, the DOJ or their proxies can leak, info through the press(Looking at you NYTimes), and if he responds, it will be considered "inflammatory". DoJ can run a public smear campaign but Trump has to be muzzled.
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:29 pm to POTUS2024
quote:
Nothing is off limits to them, I'm sure, but this would create the biggest mess in this nation since the Civil War, I believe. It would an Arch Duke Ferdinand type of moment.
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:32 pm to BobBoucher
I don’t do criminal work- but generally speaking, prior restraints on speech are unconstitutional.
I can see issuing a gag order to protect the criminal defendant from being prejudiced by a prosecutor trying a case in the media - but something tells me this won’t be evenly applied and we’ll get “unnamed sources familiar with the matter” from team Subway Sandwich discussing the case.
Ultimately, from what I’ve surmised from our other PoliBarristers who work in this area is that it’s nearly impossible to get appellate review of a criminal matter prior to a verdict.
Even if this is a first amendment violation, he won’t have any redress for it from the Jamaican Kentanji
I can see issuing a gag order to protect the criminal defendant from being prejudiced by a prosecutor trying a case in the media - but something tells me this won’t be evenly applied and we’ll get “unnamed sources familiar with the matter” from team Subway Sandwich discussing the case.
Ultimately, from what I’ve surmised from our other PoliBarristers who work in this area is that it’s nearly impossible to get appellate review of a criminal matter prior to a verdict.
Even if this is a first amendment violation, he won’t have any redress for it from the Jamaican Kentanji
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:32 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
Are defendants ever prevented from going on news or social media to talk about charges, evidence, grand jury testimony, other witness testimony etc?
I'm not an attorney, but am pretty certain defendants can be muzzled. But Trump's status as a candidate for president should change the rules of the game. I'll be surprised if they try to put a lid on Trump, but if they do it'll end up being a mistake (for the gov).
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:36 pm to Jjdoc
Maybe Trump should take the advice of his attorneys on what he can and can't say.
Something he's not very good at.
Something he's not very good at.
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:38 pm to teke184
quote:
How does any ruling by her on this NOT get fast tracked to SCOTUS after that statement?
There’s nothing wrong with her statement.
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:39 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
I’m curious what any objective legal minds think about this. How does this differ from any other criminal case?
Are defendants ever prevented from going on news or social media to talk about charges, evidence, grand jury testimony, other witness testimony etc?
Are any other defendants former US Presidents and currently the leading front runner for the nomination and the charges are related to his discussion of election fraud in the last election?
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:45 pm to shoelessjoe
quote:
Only reason this is even happening, is because they are petrified of him returning to the White House.
I used to think that as well until I saw his support from the GOP continue to rise with every indictment. His first impeachment was political, but it turned independents against him. He second impeachment was political, but it made him the face of the GOP and tainted every single one of his endorsements. Now, after every single indictment his support in the GOP primary has risen.
It's almost like they are indicting him on bullshite charges, knowing none of them will stick in the end but it will continue to solidify GOP support for him in the primary and then a loss in the general.
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:45 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
Fast tracked for what? For a mean judge? SCOTUS has to have a case to rule on. I don't think they do change of venue. Whoever the SCOTUS boss is for the DC circuit might chime in. I think it's Roberts.
You’re as stupid as this dumb bitch.
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:48 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
There’s nothing wrong with her statement.
Based on historical precedent? Sure, but based on the Constitution the right to free speech has no limits. I don't care what the Supreme Court or other courts have ruled in the past. I disagree with them.
"Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Shall make no law.
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:50 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
This is really unprecedented and unchartered territory. This case is just absolute dogshit and its only purpose is to slap a gag on Trump or try to lock him up. Whatever the merits of his argument, Trump truly believes the election wasn't on the up and up and he is entitled to his opinion. How can he possibly be silenced for discussing it?
He can still talk about 2020. He can’t talk about the specifics of the case that aren’t public.
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:51 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
He can’t talk about the specifics of the case that aren’t public.
Why?
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:51 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Shall make no law.
Well congress didn’t make a law here. A judge issued an order addressing a specific case.
This post was edited on 8/11/23 at 7:52 pm
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:52 pm to teke184
quote:
How does any ruling by her on this NOT get fast tracked to SCOTUS after that statement?
Because it’s true? The first amendment is not absolute. There are limits put on speech all the time.
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:52 pm to MFn GIMP
So as not to taint witnesses and potential jurors.
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:53 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
So as not to taint witnesses and potential jurors.
In DC? Sure. Literal zero percent chance Trump gets an untainted jury in DC.
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:54 pm to MFn GIMP
Also witnesses
Posted on 8/11/23 at 7:55 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Well congress didn’t make a law here. A judge issued an order addressing a specific case.
Yes, I know. I hate judicial activism. The Constitution takes priority and if even though, for some reason we allow it, judges making rulings that Congress is expressly prohibited from doing is something I oppose with every fiber of my being. That goes for every situation not just this one.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News