DOJ Requests Protective Order After Trump Threat Online

[scruffy]

So, Crooked Donald is not WARNING witnesses he knows like Meadows etc, that if they testify against him, HE'S GOING AFTER THEM... is not a threat?

It may not reach that level of threat, but we ALL KNOW this is what Trump means and wants.... Just like Trump's Stand back and stand by comment to the Proud Boys.....

lol

You funny.

Have you seen any political murders committed by righties lately?

So they're standing back, right?

Have you heard any righties express their willingness to take on the deep state if it becomes necessary?

They're standing by, right?

Threat is an appropriate word in this context. People feel threatened by the leftards. They riot, burn their own neighborhoods, they're crazy. Character assassination isn't good enough, they have to straight to terrorism. Leftards are definitely a threat to the fabric of America.

 

[scruffy]

He gets away with so much stuff, while less "important" people go to jail.

I would bet even those fundamentalist imams that got arrested back in the early 2000s issued less open and much more veiled threats.

lmao

You mean like "death to America"

lol

 

[scruffy]

Not thin at all. J6 again and all of America will turn out, whether in DC or Tallahassee or whever, and crush your like forever.

lmao

You're nuts.

Looney tunes.

Next time the left pulls another George Floyd the Koreans will be on the rooftops. Literally and figuratively.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Trump's threat "If you go after me, I'm coming after you" is incredibly broad and can be reasonably construed to be a threat against the Judge, the Prosecutor, witnesses and anyone else Trump feels threatened by.

For everyone else in this country, if we made a threat like that after an indictment, the judge would simply revoke our bond and hold us in jail until the trial. That's really what she should do with Trump.

However, due to political considerations, she should throw Trump in jail for a week and make it clear that if he says or posts anything that can be remotely construed as a threat he will be held in jail until his trial.

Maybe that would get a message through to him...but I doubt it.

 

[Billiejeens]

lmao

You're nuts.

Looney tunes.

Next time the left pulls another George Floyd the Koreans will be on the rooftops. Literally and figuratively.

BLM is standing with the J6 political prisoners.
They say that they understand being persecuted by L.E.

 

[BluesLegend]

"Appeared to be promising revenge"? Pretty thin isn't it? What did Schumer mean when he said certain Supreme Court Justices "will pay the price"?

And the 2 tiered justice system surfaces, one for Dems and one for everyone else. Dem Senate leader makes an actual threat against SCOTUS justices, Dem mob shows up at their homes and it's CRICKETS.

 

[ThisIsMe]

If none of us can know what he meant. Doesn't it stand to reason that the witnesses don't know either? And as such can perceive this as a threat? Not just that. We know that Trump does go after those he perceives as having wronged him. In fact, that's part of his brand.

I think it’s obvious what he meant, unless you really think he has threatened physical violence. Also, he never mentioned who he was going after but you can reasonably assume he’s talking about those who are trying to bring law suits against him. The witnesses would not be considered “going after” trump, they are just stating things they saw, they are not the ones bringing the lawsuits.

people who are claiming he made physical threats are doing so just because that’s the story they want everyone to think, just to bring more harm to him.

As far as trump going after those who have wronged him, there is no evidence that he has called for physical violence against anyone. So, I’m not sure how you think that’s his “brand”.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The argument by ThisisMe above would get him put in jail until the trial.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It's not a gag order. It's a protective order. A gag order stops a person from speaking about the case altogether. The government is asking him to not speak about what is given in discovery. This is a substantial difference, and a courtesy I doubt they would extent to anyone else who they perceive as threatening witnesses. He's getting of lightly. In fact, I believe the judge will have something else to say when she rules.

Ok, if that’s the case then why didn’t the judge order the case sealed and put a protective order on everyone who has knowledge of the case. All I’m saying is, seems kinda odd that they would restrict trump in this way, but not anyone else. Left wing media always seems to get these “anonymous leaks”, and nobody ever says anything about it.

If the judge doesn’t want trump talking about it, then the judge needs to make sure nobody is talking about it.

Also, it’s the prosecutors that are the ones wanting the restriction. In the article it says it could have a “chilling effect” on witnesses, and could harm the case. If there is anything in there he could release that would be bad for trump, you’d think they would want him to talk about it. The fact that they don’t has to make you wonder what it is they don’t want getting out.

 

[ThisIsMe]

"Appeared to be promising revenge"? Pretty thin isn't it? What did Schumer mean when he said certain Supreme Court Justices "will pay the price"?

Yeah, they conveniently gloss over that…

 

[ThisIsMe]

Now do Schumer:

“….but…but….that’s different!”

 

[ThisIsMe]

The argument by ThisisMe above would get him put in jail until the trial.

Exactly how? I’m curious what I said that would have any legal ramifications whatsoever.

 

[ThisIsMe]

"The judge doesn't like me" is not a reason to recuse, neither is " the judge donated money to the Democratic party".

This whole idea that political affiliation or perceived dislike is a reason to recuse is BS. It doesn't work on judges, it doesn't work on prosecutors, it doesn't work on jurors.

The only thing that matters is that it is possible for people to let go of their bias in order to judge the facts presented to them. That's it, that's what's required to be able to serve the court.

There's absolutely nothing in the judges or for that matter Jack Smith's conduct that suggests they aren't doing exactly that.


I have to live with both Aileen Canon as a judge and the Southern District of Florida as a venue. I will respect whatever verdict she comes to, providing that verdict as based within the law. If it isn't, I expect the prosecution to appeal the verdict, after which I will respect the rulings under those appeal(s).

I will equally respect the defense filing any appeal if they don't like the Washington judges opinion. On whatever grounds they choose to do so.

The system has more than enough inherent protections for a defendant to defend themselves against unjust prosecution and rulings. In fact they are given all benefit of the doubt as a matter of law.


The funny thing is, that none of you would even think about asserting that they will respect the verdicts of any judge no matter what their political leaning before they've actually seen the verdict.

That tells me that all of you know that Trump is likely guilty. And that the problem isn't political bias, but rather a defense mechanism in order to guard against the likely adverse outcome.

I will respect whatever verdict she comes to, providing that verdict as based within the law

Therein lies the rub. Whatever verdict she comes to that isn’t a guilty charge with prison time, you, and other dems will say that she skirted the law. It’s your “way out” so to speak.

The funny thing is, that none of you would even think about asserting that they will respect the verdicts of any judge no matter what their political leaning before they've actually seen the verdict.

Up until a year or so ago, I might have been satisfied with whatever verdict that came about. Now? Not a chance, simply because this whole thing has been politicized to the n’th degree, and the dems have shown that they are more interested in seeing trump prosecuted so they can try to disqualify him from being president.

Their games and tactics, at least for me personally, would have me doubt any verdict that was rendered by any jury in a liberal state, or by anyone would is seen as a “never trumper”.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The protective order gives Mr. Trump some latitude, but it also gives him due not to "don't do it" when it comes to threats, etc.

 

[forkup]

I think it’s obvious what he meant, unless you really think he has threatened physical violence. Also, he never mentioned who he was going after but you can reasonably assume he’s talking about those who are trying to bring law suits against him. The witnesses would not be considered “going after” trump, they are just stating things they saw, they are not the ones bringing the lawsuits.

people who are claiming he made physical threats are doing so just because that’s the story they want everyone to think, just to bring more harm to him.

As far as trump going after those who have wronged him, there is no evidence that he has called for physical violence against anyone. So, I’m not sure how you think that’s his “brand”.

Oh, it's obvious what he meant? Why is it that I'm assuming, and you know the obvious truth?

And a threat doesn't need to be of physical violence. It can be firing a witness (Vindman), going after the family of the witness (Vindmans brother), Frivolous lawsuits, Cohen, Carrol, etc. etc. I also like how you seem to distinguish between threatening someone and "going after them", Nice rhetorical trick btw.

 

[forkup]

Therein lies the rub. Whatever verdict she comes to that isn’t a guilty charge with prison time, you, and other dems will say that she skirted the law. It’s your “way out” so to speak.



Up until a year or so ago, I might have been satisfied with whatever verdict that came about. Now? Not a chance, simply because this whole thing has been politicized to the n’th degree, and the dems have shown that they are more interested in seeing trump prosecuted so they can try to disqualify him from being president.

Their games and tactics, at least for me personally, would have me doubt any verdict that was rendered by any jury in a liberal state, or by anyone would is seen as a “never trumper”.

Lol I'm willing to go on the record stating that I will respect a verdict. You claim I won't, while at the same time acknowledging that whatever happens you won't. Who of us exactly isn't respecting the law?

 

[forkup]

Ok, if that’s the case then why didn’t the judge order the case sealed and put a protective order on everyone who has knowledge of the case. All I’m saying is, seems kinda odd that they would restrict trump in this way, but not anyone else. Left wing media always seems to get these “anonymous leaks”, and nobody ever says anything about it.

If the judge doesn’t want trump talking about it, then the judge needs to make sure nobody is talking about it.

Also, it’s the prosecutors that are the ones wanting the restriction. In the article it says it could have a “chilling effect” on witnesses, and could harm the case. If there is anything in there he could release that would be bad for trump, you’d think they would want him to talk about it. The fact that they don’t has to make you wonder what it is they don’t want getting out.

The prosecution hasn't talked at all. The only thing they did is put out their indictment. That's it. They aren't doing the Sunday show tours, they aren't communicating to the press. They do their talking via the courts just like they should. Trump however is doing a whole lot of talking.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Oh, it's obvious what he meant? Why is it that I'm assuming, and you know the obvious truth?

And a threat doesn't need to be of physical violence. It can be firing a witness (Vindman), going after the family of the witness (Vindmans brother), Frivolous lawsuits, Cohen, Carrol, etc. etc. I also like how you seem to distinguish between threatening someone and "going after them", Nice rhetorical trick btw.

When you say “if you come after me”, meaning, if you try to bring legal action against me…this would indicate the lawyers and the public officials, not the witnesses…”then I will go after you”, meaning, he will respond with lawsuits of his own. What’s wrong with that? If he feels he’s being wronged, he has an absolute right to bring counter suits to those who he feels have wronged him.

I also like how you seem to distinguish between threatening someone and "going after them", Nice rhetorical trick btw.

That’s because, knowing how the left operates, this whole story was broke because the left wing media wanted to portray it as trump will cause physical harm to those people, or cause his “throngs of followers” to do violence. In that case, there is a difference to a threat, as the left perceives it, and “going after someone” in the manner in which it was intended.

But, in technical terms, you’re right, I don’t “know” what he meant, because only he knows what he meant, but that doesn’t stop the political left from broadcasting their assumptions on the matter, so I’ll broadcast mine as well. It also means that you can’t start taking legal action against someone because you feel your definition of what he meant is the right one.

 

[jbrownson0831]

Breaking on MSNBC. No link yet. It has to do with Trump's threat: "If you go after me, I'm coming after you".
From the AP, Associated Press, late today:

"Prosecutors ask judge to issue protective order after Trump post appearing to promise revenge"
"The Justice Department on Friday asked a federal judge overseeing the criminal case against former President Donald Trump in Washington to step in after he released a post online that appeared to promise revenge on anyone who goes after him.

Prosecutors asked U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to issue a protective order in the case a day after Trump pleaded not guilty to charges of trying to overturn the results of his 2020 election loss and block the peaceful transition of power. The order — which is different from a so-called “gag order” — would limit what sensitive information Trump and his legal team could share publicly about the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith.

Such protective orders are common in criminal cases, but prosecutors said it's “particularly important in this case” because Trump has issued “public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys and others associated with legal matters pending against him.”

They pointed specifically to a post on Trump's Truth Social platform from earlier Friday in which Trump wrote, in all capital letters, “If you go after me, I’m coming after you.”

Prosecutors said that if Trump were to begin posting about details from grand jury transcripts or other information handed over by the Justice Department, it could have have a “harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”

DOJ cites Trump post in protective order ask.

Former President Donald Trump's apparent threat to "come after" those who "go after" him is "chilling," according to Stephanie Grisham, his former White House press secretary.

On Friday, just one day after Trump pleaded not guilty to January 6-related criminal charges at an arraignment hearing in Washington, D.C., the former president informed his followers on Truth Social that, "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!"

Multiple legal experts have suggested that the post could land Trump in hot water with the judge presiding over his case, including the possibility that he could be taken into custody over potentially having violated the conditions of his bond.

During the former president's arraignment in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya told Trump that it's a crime "to threaten or attempt to bribe a witness or any other person who may have information about your case, or to retaliate against anyone for providing information about your case to the prosecution." Trump responded that he understood.

Trump's "chilling" threat disturbs an ex-staffer: "Makes me nervous"

Trump promised to "come after" those who "go after" him on Friday, just one day after being arraigned on felony charges in Washington, D.C.

www.newsweek.com

Lakookta you need a Midol and a maxipad change I am afraid.....

 

[boedicca]

The protective order gives Mr. Trump some latitude, but it also gives him due not to "don't do it" when it comes to threats, etc.

If someone says: "if you attack me, I'm going to fight back" - that is not a threat. It's a very proper and justified promise.