And now you know…
…
…
… the rest of the story.
7 Likes
Thank you for introducing me to this term. Increased vocabulary FTW.
5 Likes
can we PLEASE have some fucking consequences already?
Let him cool his heels in jail for a while.
6 Likes
Of course, it never crosses his dementia ridden brain that HE’S the one on trial. He’s the one that may go to prison (please, please), he’s the one that may be put on a leash until trial. And, of course, everyone is too scared, cowardly or spineless to call him to account.
4 Likes
I’ve read elsewhere that the judge is not included in the gag order.
Reading the linked order it specifically excluded the D.A. from ‘counsel’ that he has to shut up about and includes court ‘staff’. I’m guessing that the judge is not considered ‘staff’ and is therefore excluded from the order.
Trump’s diatribe is stupid but I don’t think it violates the court order.
He rants again about the judge’s daughter, clearly off limits in the gag order (and generally threatening at the same time as being particularly stupid).
4 Likes
I’m not so sure about ‘clearly’. Again, if the judge is considered ‘court staff’ then, yes, clearly off limits. Otherwise…
I remember Paul Harvey from back when, but I’m more familiar with Rich Hall’s impressions around the time he was on SNL
(Video says 1987 but fairly certain this was '85)
3 Likes
“Family members.”
2 Likes
Of the people included in the order.
Of anyone working on the case, not just court officials.
It also has a provision to protect the family members of anyone working on the case from being targeted by public statements that could hinder the fair administration of justice.
3 Likes
… well it doesn’t protect anybody if the judge is too chickenshit to lock the guy up 
4 Likes
THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED, that the People’s motion for a restriction on extrajudicial statements by the Defendant is GRANTED to the extent that Defendant is directed to refrain from the following:
a. Making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding;
b. Making or directing others to make public statements about (1) counsel in the case other than the District Attorney, (2) member:s of the court’s staff and the District Attorney’s staff, or (3) the family members of any counsel or staff member, if those statements are made with the intent to materially interfere with, or to cause others to materially interfere with, counsel’s or staffs work in this criminal case, or with the knowledge that such interference is likely to result; and
c, Making or directing others to make public statements about any prospective juror or any juror in this criminal proceeding.
This is what the order actually says. (and you wouldn’t believe the amount of corrections required after the copy/paste, lol)
It’s a losing argument to think that the order doesn’t include the judge’s daughter. For one, she’s the only one Fuckface mentioned in his previous rant who wasn’t explicitly excluded in the gag order. The only other people T**** mentioned in the rant that triggered the gag order were Bragg, Judge Merchan, and Merchan’s daughter. Brag and Judge Merchan were specifically excluded in the gag order. There was no cause for the gag order if it didn’t include the only other person mentioned in the rant!
Second, Judge Merchan didn’t even need the gag order to hold T**** in contempt for threatening his daughter. That was grounds in an of itself, without the order. He’s playing it cautious, but people need to take off the kid gloves when it comes to Don Cannoli.
4 Likes
It may be a losing argument on a public discussion board but I’m not sure it is as a matter of law. In reading the order it doesn’t seem like she’s included, whether or not she should be is a different matter entirely.
1 Like
Judge Merchan is the one who decides whether his gag order has been violated! He doesn’t take into account what you or I say. It’s not a question of law at this point - it’s a question of whether he thinks it’s been violated.
2 Likes
Well sure, but it’s a court order, is that not a matter of law? And, indeed, the judge will decide.
But the OP and following comments are pretty much in agreement that it has been violated. I’m simply pointing out, unhelpfully apparently, that this may not be the case.
… I imagine that depends on whether it can be appealed or not 
3 Likes
I have no idea why you would think the judge is excluded from “court staff.” The order specifically says it was caused by “the statements made against this Court and a family member thereof”, which seems clearly to be the judge and his daughter. It takes a strained reading of that to presume his definition of “court staff” really means all court staff but the judge
3 Likes
What the eff does it matter anyway he’s getting away with it without any consequence.
2 Likes
