You are right, it says that the part on the jurors was lifted, but then a few paragraphs later it says:
“While he lifted that piece of the gag order, the judge ruled that a prohibition on disclosing juror information will remain in effect until further notice.”
So if that’s correct then it’s only the witness that the ban has been lifted on.
But why is the article saying two different things about the jurors?
And why the heck would any part of the gag order be lifted at all?
But I recall reading that the DAs office was in favor of a partial lifting of the order. There is no reason to keep the order in place for witnesses, for example.
Trump’s lawyers wanted a full cancellation of the order and as far as I can tell the DA’s side got everything it asked for and Trump’s side only got the things the DA agreed to.
As I understand it, though, the point of the gag order was to prevent the witnesses from being intimidated before their testimony. The trial is over, and there will be no more testimony. So a gag order on them is no longer necessary to protect the integrity of the trial process.
Not only that - he's got many other criminal counts still pending. The potential witnesses to those crimes are paying close attention to how much protection these witnesses get in the wake of their testimony.
Lift this gag order, Trump goes on a rampage, witnesses get an increased level of threats or, god forbid, actual violence - that is a chilling effect on witnesses in all of Trump's other cases, and to a lesser extent, for witnesses in any future cases involving any defendant.
It’s not this judge’s job to police those cases, though. The other judges can apply whatever orders they need in order to protect the integrity of the trials they oversee. But this trial is over.
Judge Cannon has the ability to protect her case through orders like this. But it seems all she wants to do is protect her little Donnie-kins from that meanie Jack Smith…
The fear (a rational fear, I think) is that if they didn’t, they’d potentially have an armed rebellion to deal with. Yea, it’s shitty for this asshat to get gift after fucking gift but if there was any appearance of him being targeted he’d never fucking shut up about it.
I’m done with their bullshit and I feel, for democracy’s sake, we should just seize all the family assets to discourage future ass hattery and deal with the consequences now… but I also do appreciate my relatives not living in a war zone.
If the rule of law leads terrorists to attack institutions, then we need to stop those terrorists with force. We should not bend over backwards to avoid angering the terrorists.
I think you’re being too black and white. The purpose of all this society shit isn’t to have laws that are justly applied - it’s to (ideally, late stage capitalism is fucking is here) provide the best life we can to as many people as we can. Being murdered, robbed or a bundle of other things fucking sucks so we use the law to guarantee (again, suckinh at this right now) safety and stability.
If someone did a little asshattery I don’t want to start a civil war - as a parallel, if someone runs a red light and we could either let them go unpunished or start a high speed chase, I’m going to favor the former. There is a line somewhere, there is some amount of petty treason someone could commit and some quantity of armed fanatics backing them where I’d say “we should just not risk it.”
Basically, sometimes it’s optimal to be non-confrontational even if it feels shitty.
Nah, fuck that noise. I don’t want to start a civil war, either, but I’ll be more than happy to end one. You’re conceding ground to effective terrorism.
“Give us everything we want or we will stage an armed uprising, also we really really want to do an armed uprising and have been openly saying so for years”
Add comment