Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Potentially violates both of these conditions from the GA bond conditions.
The Defendant shall make no direct or indirect threat of any nature against any codefendant;
The Defendant shall not communicate in any way, directly or indirectly, about the facts of this case with any person known to him to be a codefendant in this case except through his or her counsel.
Rapey McCrimeboi can't stop doing crimes.
Why should he? He's demonstratively above the law.
I’m not an attorney, but I think the judge can either fine the Attourney, take the bond money and make Trump repost to stay out of jail, or just revoke bond and put him in jail.
None of those are legitimate options.
Trump's attorneys are not responsible for his actions. The bond posted - through a bail bondsman, by the way - would be returned if Trump was detained pending trial. (Returned to the bail bond office, not to Trump. His payment of 10% of his bond amount is the fee paid to the bail bondsman.)
An appropriate response from the Court would be to call Trump into a hearing, address his inflammatory, jury-pool-polluting, and tampering public statements, followed by a Consequence. Ideally, said Consequence should be severe enough to prevent Trump from making future statements of the kind he has made to date. Because it appears that there is no "bottom" to Trump's potential actions, the only sure way to prevent his continuing to make these kinds of public statement is to detain him.
Detention pending trial will not be the first consequence the Court gives. If anything happens at all, the first consequence will unfortunately be a stern talking to and a furrowed brow. The second consequence (because we know Trump will say more things which should prompt a second, third, fourth consequence) would be a fine. And we all know that if the punishment is a fine, it's only illegal for poor people. The third consequence would be ... another fine. The fourth consequence would be ... another fine. Et cetera.
It will never get to the point where Trump is jailed for contempt (in the "one to three days'" timeframe). It will never get to the point where Trump is detained pending trial.
Because it's only illegal if poor people do it.
The fact that he's not immediately arrested for constantly threatening witnesses sure highlights how unequal and corrupt our justice system is.
Yeah Jack Smith is gonna rub his hands in anticipation of the next motion for stricter bond conditions for Trump.
What trump doesn't realize: SBF did the same thing and took it to far, he now has bond revoked and has to prepare the case behind bars which costs him a lot of time and resources and probably sanity as well. Trump will end exactly at the same spot if he continues.
Hmm, I could see how you could say this dodged those specific terms, but this is general witness tampering which I thought defendants couldn't do.
But this is Trump and everybody must cower before him in the home of the brave.
oh.... it definitely does
I don't think it violates either, technically, but still a scummy thing to do, and totally not what an innocent man would say.
An innocent man would say "I hope he tells the truth". Loyalty is bullshit in a criminal case.
This is about as blatant as you can get with witness tampering.
Agree 100% but is it witness tampering if Meadows is also charged in the same case?
Trump is telegraphing to Meadows that Meadows should not flip. He is acting to prevent Meadows from becoming a witness against him. That's tampering.
At some point Meadows will get a death threat from some idiot that explicitly links it to Trump's remarks. The question is if that is brought forward or kept under wraps. If they arrest that person and charge them they would probably happily yell "I did what Trump said to do and I'd do it again" in court. That might lead to consequences for Trump but it's a lot to chain together and nothing moves quickly here.
Well he's specifically barred from communicating with him...
Right, I was just wondering if there was a legal term (and penalty) for intimidation of indicted co-conspirator
Meadows is only charged in one case - Georgia
If you were innocent and honest, the only thing you would say and hope for is that all witnesses tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Anyone who has to threaten witnesses to maintain their loyalty is a literal crime boss.
Witness tampering
Revoke bail.
So, basically, judges don't care about their terms of release.
They're cowards too.
No pressure Mark
I hope he does stay loyal, and I hope he gets fucked because of it.
I grew up near Highlands NC, and I have a particular hatred for Meadows because of it.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Former President Donald J. Trump said he hoped Mark Meadows — his final White House chief of staff and a co-defendant in a sweeping racketeering indictment in Georgia stemming from efforts to thwart the 2020 election — was still “loyal” to him.
Mr. Trump has been warned by the federal judge in a case also stemming from his efforts to stay in office, brought against him by the special counsel Jack Smith, to avoid saying anything that might affect the testimony of witnesses.
On Friday, a day after the interview, prosecutors asked the judge in the federal election interference case, Tanya S. Chutkan, for a limited gag order against Mr. Trump after weeks of attacks on the special counsel, among others.
“Like his previous public disinformation campaign regarding the 2020 presidential election,” they wrote, “the defendant’s recent extrajudicial statements are intended to undermine public confidence in an institution — the judicial system — and to undermine confidence in and intimidate individuals — the court, the jury pool, witnesses and prosecutors,” Mr. Smith’s office wrote in the request, which they said they wanted to be narrowly tailored.
Mr. Trump attacked Mr. Smith again shortly after the request was made, writing on his social media site, “I’m campaigning for President against an incompetent person who has WEAPONIZED the DOJ & FBI to go after his Political Opponent, & I am not allowed to COMMENT?
In his “Meet the Press” interview, Mr. Trump extensively reiterated his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen, despite facing indictment in both Georgia and Washington on the matter.
The original article contains 708 words, the summary contains 262 words. Saved 63%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
These guys can choke on a bag of syphilitic dicks. Can’t wait to see them in orange jumpsuits.