DOJ Requests Protective Order After Trump Threat Online

[skews13]

What kind of gobblety gook is you talkin' about, Kawliga?

 

[ThisIsMe]

What leaks? They were PUBLIC hearings. As for his taxes. That's one instance of a leak that most likely came from Democrats. I can probably name about a hundred that have to have originated from his own administration simply because Democrats weren't privy to the information.

I’m talking about the leaked information from the investigation, findings and testimony, that were leaked to the media with the goal of influencing public opinion

 

[ThisIsMe]

So only Democrats can be biased in the Trump trials? Just curious have you read the indictments?

I just stated there is bias on both sides. Absolutely there is bias on the right when it comes to trump, it’s why i said I don’t think trump can get a fair trial. Almost everyone has heard of this case and almost everyone has an opinion and pre conceived notions.

 

[forkup]

I’m talking about the leaked information from the investigation, findings and testimony, that were leaked to the media with the goal of influencing public opinion

Again the findings of the investigation and the testimony were public. Hence PUBLIC hearing. By the way, hell of a way to complain about bias. "it's not fair that the public learns about the investigation, findings and testimony"

 

[skews13]

Don't worry, Chief. We The People will enact revenge. We The People are fed up with Commiecrat bullshit.

 

[forkup]

I just stated there is bias on both sides. Absolutely there is bias on the right when it comes to trump, it’s why i said I don’t think trump can get a fair trial. Almost everyone has heard of this case and almost everyone has an opinion and pre conceived notions.

In a trial you only need one not guilty ruling from any juror. It seems to me that if you're right Trump will have an easier time to get off because only one person needs to be biased towards him in order to do so.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Again the findings of the investigation and the testimony were public. Hence PUBLIC hearing. By the way, hell of a way to complain about bias. "it's not fair that the public learns about the investigation, findings and testimony"

The leaks came out before the hearings. They were coming out during the investigations.

Avalanche of leaks imperils Jan. 6 committee’s delivering on blockbuster hearings

The source of the leaks has become the subject of Washington speculation.

www.nbcnews.com

It doesn’t matter that the hearings were public, select information was leaked to the public, almost all of which was leaked to left wing media…to damage trumps image and galvanize as many people against him as they thought they could

 

[forkup]

The leaks came out before the hearings. They were coming out during the investigations.

Avalanche of leaks imperils Jan. 6 committee’s delivering on blockbuster hearings

The source of the leaks has become the subject of Washington speculation.

www.nbcnews.com

It doesn’t matter that the hearings were public, select information was leaked to the public, almost all of which was leaked to left wing media…to damage trumps image and galvanize as many people against him as they thought they could

I think Trumps image was sufficiently damaged by having a PUBLIC HEARING, as in public, also known as open to the public.
That wasn't select information, that was simply information, and it was all damaging. And now according to the indictment criminal.

You simply assert by the way it was "the left" that leaked. It could just as easily be the myriad of witnesses tasking their lawyers to alert the public.

But I did notice you didn't answer my question. Did you read the indictments? Maybe actually addressing the charges would alleviate this game of claiming bias, and we could actual discuss how we feel about the specifics of the case? After all isn't it more useful to defend our own position instead talking what we think the position of other people is?

 

[Lakhota]

In case you missed the BIGGEST STORY of the weekend.



OCCUPYDEMOCRATS.COM
FULL STORY: The saga of Donald Trump, the DOJ, and a protective order

Two patriots and a treasonous insurrectionist.

 

[Hossfly]

In case you missed the BIGGEST STORY of the weekend.



OCCUPYDEMOCRATS.COM
FULL STORY: The saga of Donald Trump, the DOJ, and a protective order

Two patriots and a treasonous insurrectionist.

Two traitorous future rotting corpses and a future President.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

If you think that what upset Jackie boy was a threat, then you are a pussy.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

In case you missed the BIGGEST STORY of the weekend.



OCCUPYDEMOCRATS.COM
FULL STORY: The saga of Donald Trump, the DOJ, and a protective order

Two patriots and a treasonous insurrectionist.

Kemosabe trying hand at stand-up comedy. Hi ya ya ya! Hi ya ya ya! Hi ya ya ya!!

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

We all know that Mr. Trump was threatening retaliation, no ifs ands or buts.

However, I ask everybody to go on record as to accepting the jury's decision. I will.

Hossfly, you are veteran and should not utter threats.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[ThisIsMe]

I think Trumps image was sufficiently damaged by having a PUBLIC HEARING, as in public, also known as open to the public.
That wasn't select information, that was simply information, and it was all damaging. And now according to the indictment criminal.

You simply assert by the way it was "the left" that leaked. It could just as easily be the myriad of witnesses tasking their lawyers to alert the public.

But I did notice you didn't answer my question. Did you read the indictments? Maybe actually addressing the charges would alleviate this game of claiming bias, and we could actual discuss how we feel about the specifics of the case? After all isn't it more useful to defend our own position instead talking what we think the position of other people is?

I’m not addressing the indictment because that’s isn’t relevant to my position on the bias the left has in certain venues. It doesn’t matter what the indictment says, a left leaning jury is going to convict , no matter what.

Yes, I understand that there will be vetting of the witnesses, but how that selection plays out, especially in a place like DC, could be an issue.

Let’s put it like this, if what you read in these forums is representative of what a jury would be like, it’s going to be a guaranteed conviction.

 

[Lastamender]

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

It is not a threat, it is a promise.

 

[Lastamender]

We know our politicians endorse scum. Tell us something we do not know.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Lastamender]

 

[scruffy]

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.

So what?

It's about goddamn time someone went after the psychos in the Derp State.

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.

Bullshit.

No one else gets a gag order in a public case.

You're full of shit

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.

The more important question is whether the message is getting through to YOU.

If not, we may have to come after you.

Take it any way you want.