Appeals court weighs DC gag order for Trump. It didn’t go well for Jack Smith or prosecutors.
Key Highlight
A liberal stacked appeals court weighed in on the DC gag order for Trump. One would think that the judges there knew the score. Trump giveth and Trump taketh away. In other words, whatever Trump says about prosecutors, witnesses, judges et al, must be weighed against his 1st amendment right to threaten people, malign them, disparage them, and attack them hoping some rando supporters will go overboard mentally and attack them physically or kill them.
Liberals of course continue to try and be the moral standard bearers of the law, and what the 1st amendment rights of a criminal defendant are. You see in the normal world; criminal defendants would have been in jail by now if they’d done what Trump has done so far to the many witnesses and prosecutors. But according to the liberal point of view, Trump must be afforded all rights and allowed to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and to whomever he wants, because he’s running for office. Two-tiered justice system is the problem.
The justice system wants you and I to believe that justice is equal or at least tries to be equal, but the reality is it’s not equal and never has been. Those who are well-heeled and who come before the justice system are always allowed to get away with things you and I would not get away with. So, today, the appeals court had a deep dive into what Trump could say, how to police it, and how to tailor any gag order on him if one were to actually stand up for what is right and gag him.
But today, Jack Smith, and his prosecutors, were pretty much handed their walking papers by the democrat judges who were appointed by Obama and Joe Biden. They acted as if Trump was someone to take care of instead of sending him to the woodshed. They afforded him ever consideration. They stood up for free speech and Trump attacking anyone he wants to attack. Why to hear their questions one would think that if Trump incited people to murder his opponents, the judges would have no problem with it, because they aren’t there to prevent crimes from happening by Trump’s words, they are there to give Trump his greenlight to attack at will, because free speech and all.
D. John Sauer argued the case for Trump. He began by arguing that a gag order will allow a single trial judge to decide what he is allowed to say on the campaign trial. He also argued that the basis for the order was not that Trump would engage in violence but some unknown third party might do so, therefore it is not permissible to restrict his speech based on what someone else might do.
This is the standard right-wing nonsense. Our words have no relation to third parties don’t you see. We can couch them in dog whistle language knowing full well only those we programmed Manchurian candidate style will hear, and then follow them. But we’re not responsible for the actions of that Manchurian candidate following our dog whistle words to maim and or harm those people who understood those words to be marching orders to do so.
Liberals want to be the standard moral bearers of the old order, whereby things like free speech are more important than using Soviet technology borrowed from the Chinese to program sheep who will go out and kill or riot at the Capitol, because they have to fight like hell or they’re not going to have a country anymore. Those types of words have consequences, just like saying General Milley should be executed for treason. It isn’t saying: hey, go out and execute him. But dog whistles like that translate to those that hear them differently as marching orders to do Trump’s will. They see it as an order, and an obligation, much like Proud Boys stand back and stand by prior to January 6th.
The problem with liberals is they prefer to coddle people like Trump to show that they aren’t bad people as Trump thinks, and will take a case like this on the merits and afford Trump every opportunity to do whatever he wants because they don’t wish to be seen as clamping down on such violent fantasy rhetoric. Anyone else doing that would of course been clapped in irons and sent to jail. But not Trump. And this will become clearer to Trump as liberals fail once again to take the Trump threat seriously.
Sauer was then asked to name a specific social media post made by Trump cited by Judge Chutkan that should be allowed and why. He cited an example that was specifically excluded by Chutkan where Trump criticized DOJ. The judge then asked him about Trump’s post suggesting that General Milley should be tried for treason and executed. Sauer said that Trump’s post about was vague and that his criticism of Milley had nothing to do with his potential testimony.
Yes, Trump’s post was vague on purpose, as only people that respond to dog whistles like that will respond to it. And as long as things are vague then it’s OK to keep pushing those buttons until someone gets attacked or killed. Where will the judges be then? They will say well, we weren’t there to decide after the fact cases, only before the fact, and because it’s free speech, and because Trump was vague, it’s not his responsibility what someone else did.
This is how liberals operate. They live in mortal fear that whatever they do to Trump, or his minions, will be seen by other liberals as too harsh. So, better to just walk away and let Trump be Trump. After all, elections are a political game, and often people say things they don’t mean in the heat of the battle. If someone gets killed, well that’s for the criminal that did it to pay for, not Trump.
A judge then noted it is problematic to hold a criminal defendant responsible for how some third party might react to a post when they may have no control over that. The prosecutor pointed out that the record was clear that the number and intensity of threats towards prosecutors and judges always spike immediately after inflammatory posts by Trump. The judge responded that restricting “inflammatory language” in social media posts was too broad and failed to balance Trump’s free speech rights, and a test more restrictive than that should be used.
Here is what will happen. The court will more than likely uphold certain parts of the gag order but may in fact decide that having a third party decide what Trump can say on the campaign trail is not a thing that can be done. Imagine some person being assigned to decide what Trump can say while he’s out in Iowa or Michigan. It just won’t work. So more than likely if they upheld any portion of the gag order it would be appealed and eventually thrown out as unworkable. So, better for them to just say that no one can manage Trump’s speech, so gag order dismissed.
It would be better if they just threw Trump in jail and kept him from being heard on an hourly basis, but liberal courts and judges, and even prosecutors have no stomach for that type of battle. Better to just let Trump do what he wants and hope they can try the cases they have and win. The cases of course have now been pretty much put off until after the election, except for the DC case. Nothing is yet set in stone, but few are going to battle with Trump before the election. Trump knows how to exploit their weaknesses, and he can delay and file motions and claim all sorts of stupidity until way past the election.
The we got him now crowd will continue their “we got him now” chants until they figure out that they never had him now, and never will have him now. Trump is a snake, and he will slither along until the McDonalds food he eats daily drops him where he stands.
It seemed clear from the arguments that each of the judges is wrestling with this difficult and unique situation, and that they are aware their decision in this case could affect other criminal defendants that just Trump. They seemed to suggest that they are seeking to fashion the most restrictive and narrow test possible that will protect the parties and witnesses while giving great latitude to Trump to speak freely since he is a presidential candidate.
Here is my question of the day. Where will these judges be when Trump is elected, and people are then thrown into jail for speaking out against him? Will they claim that they have no rights to speak, because speaking against the leader violates Trump’s edicts?