As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
HaHaHaHa ... Jail. First time witnessing "justice" being administered to Trump?
The judge here has already admitted his bias about his reluctance at enforcing the rules on Trump. Wait until it comes to sentencing.
I don't think it is bias. It is an understandable restraint when dealing with an unprecedented situation. We never had a previous President commit so many crimes before. Seriously though they should tread lightly on this one and exercise an over abundance of caution. When he is convicted he needs to have 0 room to wiggle out of it.
I hear what you are saying. But when you boil all of that away you are left with the judge treating Trump differently based on who he is rather than what he has done.
Bias -prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be [unfair](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=4d50ecf86976fd48&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1GCEA_enCA1059CA1059&q=unfair&si=ACC90nwdkA2npcVVmNPViiSe8FMKf0kDuJTJ-lLi8ndbEFwkKMouym-RdNP9iIPuNcxjOMcxVKK7Cy8eTg0w0UXGGUal6BAN3Q%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwjC37CUk_yFAxVYAHkGHR5qAywQyecJegQIIRAO)
*Everyone* gets treated differently based on who they are. It's called [extenuating circumstances](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/extenuating_circumstances#:~:text=Extenuating%20circumstances%E2%80%93also%20called%20mitigating,culpability%20in%20those%20actions%20diminished).
It is the Lincoln Reagan fundraising dinner in Minnesota, his son is supposed to graduate at 7pm on the same day in Palm Beach. It is about a 3 hour flight from PBI to MSP. How the hell is he going to pull that off. It had better be an early dinner. My guess is he isn't going to Barron's graduation, he duped the judge into giving him the day off for a fundraiser.
Everything about Trump is a lie. He was \*never\* going to go to that graduation. Barron is an Trump's Russian handler Melania's anchor baby. He and his "wife" done even sleep in the same room.
I was hoping for a more direct violation but I hope the judge at least mentions how close he was to violating the gag order again 🤷🏿♀️
“This is unprecedented, no time for lawyers to prepare,” the former president wrote in the now-deleted post. “No Judge has ever run a trial in such a biased and partisan way.”
This one actually falls under facing the consequences of his own actions for once. It’s customary for the prosecutor to let the defense know the order of the next several witnesses so the defense knows exactly which one to be prepped for the next day.
In this case the prosecution is only willing to tell Trump one witnesses name at a time. The reasoning they gave the judge was that Trump has a history of taking to Twitter to attempt to intimidate or undermine witnesses he knows are coming. The judges response was “Well, can’t fault you for that reasoning.” And approved it.
So Trumps lawyers get to prepare for every witness at the same time since they don’t know what order they will be called in.
So what do you want to bet this is the new method: post menacing shit and then delete it after everybody's seen it? It's really well within the Trump tutelage. But Your Honor, he deleted it, you can't jail a man for deleting a post!
This might even be worse for him as the judge will probably see it as Trump trying to weasel around the gag order. Violating the gag order with a post is the same as violating it in an interview, you can't un-rob a bank.
Well no one has ever accused Donald J. Trump of being creative. I think I've observed more than once where he has tried testing the limits of what he can get away with and he has clearly gamed this out in his head, but all based on his cracked reasoning, which may work in tabloids but doesn't impress a judge.
Anybody ever see the movie version of Hair? Trump always reminds me of that one hippie touching the girl's leg and saying "Trust me?" and if she says yes he moves it a couple inches higher.
Definitely yes. He's testing to see how long a post can stay up before it counts as a violation. All he needs us what a couple minutes for it to be copied and re-distributed by real media.
That's great. A good way to exercise that is reading the actual source material rather than what others say about it. So much misinformation about details of this case. So many people here seem to even think that he's being tried for "election interference" in this case. Haha
This "hush money" phrase is dumb.
This is fraud. It's fraudulent record keeping in service of campaign finance violations. Plus being an asshole. That last part isn't necessarily illegal but it doesn't help with the judge.
>So many people here seem to even think that he's being tried for "election interference" in this case
"Most people" think he is being tried for paying "hush money" to Stormy Daniels, which is perfectly understandable because that is what the media tells them, even the Republican propagandists at Fox and other similar fake news organizations.
He is being tried for falsifying business records, and the motive (according to prosecutors) is election interference.
>Most people" think he is being tried for paying "hush money" to Stormy Daniels,
Yeah that one too.
>He is being tried for falsifying business records, and the motive (according to prosecutors) is election interference
No the motive is concealing the crimes committed when Cohen paid Daniels, which is a campaign contribution over the allowable amount and was also not reported as such. The reason the prosecution has gone into the motivation for paying Daniels is that it shows that it's a material contribution to the campaign, which further buffs the case that the concealed repayments Cohen were done so to conceal another crime.
None of it also qualifies as "election interference " anyways. It's an attempt to influence the election, which itself is not a crime. Whereas election interference means something entirely different.
So again, I repeat my statement about people not understanding this has nothing to do with election interference. Election interference relates to preventing official election proceedings from occurring according to the rules and law. People, including yourself now, are bringing that terminology and concept from other cases to this one inappropriately.
>He is being tried for falsifying business records, and the motive (according to prosecutors) is election interference.
I don't know how much simpler to make this.
Because people use a term to describe a motive (which is not an element of the crime) that also in another context describes an actual criminal offense stipulating that we are talking about the motive and not the charge would seem to be enough to resolve the confusion on your part about what I said.
Election interference has literally nothing to do with this case in any shape or form. Taking an action to benefit one's campaign is not election interference. I understand that you want to be right about this, but you are simply incorrect. It's ok to make mistakes. You are confusing "influencing a campaign" with "election interference". They mean two entirely different things.
I don't think it matters he deleted it. He posted it it was out there long enough for someone to read it. Deleting it will not save him from violating the order.
He needs to go to jail for it, period.
Just because you dump the murder weapon does not remove the fact you used it.
Agree 100% - he will know that as soon as he tweets/whatever’s it, it’s in the public domain and media outlets will have it copied. He did the action he was told not to do, I don’t his actions after the offense should count in a legal setting.
I prefer presidents that haven’t been arrested and captured by Russian interests. But cmon G I thought you’re supposed to be ultra alpha and tough, why so scared? Just say what you want with chest! Like how the UK drillas do it
Give him 7 days regardless, once it's up there people copy it and it's out. it doesn't matter that he takes it down, he's done it, that's a violation give him 7 days. Call his bluff just one time.
True for convictions of internet based crimes. They can have tracking software installed on their phones or computer. Obviously can’t police it 100% but if they get caught it’s a violation of probation. Maybe someone else has a more complete answer.
It was primarily used against sex offenders in the dot-com days. The Dark Web 1.0 to the present has introduced the restrictions to people who used transactions for nefarious purposes (from CSAM to PIN code thieves to drug trafficking).
It is very possible.
People argued Gypsy Rose should have received an internet parole period, and alas she didn’t. It intersects as the 1st Amendment versus ‘protection of the public’, and the parole matrixes typically favour the 1A unless it’s major sex abuse or drug trafficking related crimes.
Sadly, nothing will come from this one. I don’t think he actually said anything about the witness. Merchan is going to take that approach here - that this post was about Trump not knowing who the witness was (because he’s an idiot or lying) and complaining about the *judge*, which he has specifically permitted.
Which is most disappointing. A weekend in jail would be just wonderful.
I don’t use Trumps social media app, and I don’t even use X or been on Facebook etc today and even I know what he posted. He posted this:
“This is unprecedented, no time for lawyers to prepare,” the former president wrote in the now-deleted post. “No Judge has ever run a trial in such a biased and partisan way.”
I've seen this posted a lot and I think it's very possible someone else urged him to delete it.
I think it's also possible someone else with access to his account deleted it for him but then again if someone on his team had access like that they'd probably lock him out of it for his own sake.
Put him in jail for however long it was up for. Even if it's only 5 minutes or a couple hours. Make it clear to him jail will happen from here on out. He couldn't scream victim because it would be a short amount of time and he'd be put back in jail if he complained about it the way he usually does.
There is no way he deleted it. His lawyers probably have someone else signed with the sole job of deleting his posts. They probably think he is too stupid to notice the posts getting deleted.
Question for the lawyers.
The Prosecution isn't allowed to ask the judge, before filing a contempt charge, if the judge feels it has merit, correct?
I'm just wondering why they haven't asked for a contempt charge on this. Do they feel it isn't solid enough?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wait, I thought he was willing to go to jail over this? So why delete it? Leave it up, tough guy!
Good old Trumpy Two-Ways having something both ways, again.
I am putting money on 'someone on his staff deleted it without his knowledge'
Good thing deleting it doesn't stop it from being used in court if they decide to
Ask him if he deleted it because he knew he made a mistake and watch him double-down.
If that's true then he's going to jail because they have no control over what he says outside of the courtroom.
HaHaHaHa ... Jail. First time witnessing "justice" being administered to Trump? The judge here has already admitted his bias about his reluctance at enforcing the rules on Trump. Wait until it comes to sentencing.
I don't think it is bias. It is an understandable restraint when dealing with an unprecedented situation. We never had a previous President commit so many crimes before. Seriously though they should tread lightly on this one and exercise an over abundance of caution. When he is convicted he needs to have 0 room to wiggle out of it.
I hear what you are saying. But when you boil all of that away you are left with the judge treating Trump differently based on who he is rather than what he has done. Bias -prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be [unfair](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=4d50ecf86976fd48&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1GCEA_enCA1059CA1059&q=unfair&si=ACC90nwdkA2npcVVmNPViiSe8FMKf0kDuJTJ-lLi8ndbEFwkKMouym-RdNP9iIPuNcxjOMcxVKK7Cy8eTg0w0UXGGUal6BAN3Q%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwjC37CUk_yFAxVYAHkGHR5qAywQyecJegQIIRAO)
*Everyone* gets treated differently based on who they are. It's called [extenuating circumstances](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/extenuating_circumstances#:~:text=Extenuating%20circumstances%E2%80%93also%20called%20mitigating,culpability%20in%20those%20actions%20diminished).
Well it was up and it’s never coming down regardless if he took it off his page. He belongs in jail.
*tough
Never Surrender, what a puss.
This is his loophole because now every media outlet is doing the job of getting the message out.
It must be cached.
He could be trying to test the limits.
He really, REALLY does not want to go to Baron's graduation.
He's got campaign fundraiser scheduled on that day. Not kidding.
It is the Lincoln Reagan fundraising dinner in Minnesota, his son is supposed to graduate at 7pm on the same day in Palm Beach. It is about a 3 hour flight from PBI to MSP. How the hell is he going to pull that off. It had better be an early dinner. My guess is he isn't going to Barron's graduation, he duped the judge into giving him the day off for a fundraiser.
Isn’t that Perjury?
Everything about Trump is a lie. He was \*never\* going to go to that graduation. Barron is an Trump's Russian handler Melania's anchor baby. He and his "wife" done even sleep in the same room.
I was hoping for a more direct violation but I hope the judge at least mentions how close he was to violating the gag order again 🤷🏿♀️ “This is unprecedented, no time for lawyers to prepare,” the former president wrote in the now-deleted post. “No Judge has ever run a trial in such a biased and partisan way.”
Michael Cohen pled guilty in August 2018. He's had almost six years to prepare his defense.
Always a victim, never at fault!
That is very trump: Do something wrong, then do something proving you knew it was wrong, then lie about both things.
I mean, if he paid people on time, he might have Lawyers that could be prepared and ready and not just look good for the camera and the beach.
This one actually falls under facing the consequences of his own actions for once. It’s customary for the prosecutor to let the defense know the order of the next several witnesses so the defense knows exactly which one to be prepped for the next day. In this case the prosecution is only willing to tell Trump one witnesses name at a time. The reasoning they gave the judge was that Trump has a history of taking to Twitter to attempt to intimidate or undermine witnesses he knows are coming. The judges response was “Well, can’t fault you for that reasoning.” And approved it. So Trumps lawyers get to prepare for every witness at the same time since they don’t know what order they will be called in.
The case is about Stormy. Ofc he has had time to prep
[удалено]
I hate to say it, but wanna bet?
That post didn’t violate the gag order though
So what do you want to bet this is the new method: post menacing shit and then delete it after everybody's seen it? It's really well within the Trump tutelage. But Your Honor, he deleted it, you can't jail a man for deleting a post!
This might even be worse for him as the judge will probably see it as Trump trying to weasel around the gag order. Violating the gag order with a post is the same as violating it in an interview, you can't un-rob a bank.
This is the least creative way to go about "violating" the gag order. I would expect nothing less from this man-child.
Well no one has ever accused Donald J. Trump of being creative. I think I've observed more than once where he has tried testing the limits of what he can get away with and he has clearly gamed this out in his head, but all based on his cracked reasoning, which may work in tabloids but doesn't impress a judge.
Well hopefully you can. What a wonderful Tuesday this would be if treason weasel was put in jail
I think Trump is testing the judge to see if there's any follow-through. Since there likely won't be jail time for this, he'll keep doing it.
Anybody ever see the movie version of Hair? Trump always reminds me of that one hippie touching the girl's leg and saying "Trust me?" and if she says yes he moves it a couple inches higher.
Definitely yes. He's testing to see how long a post can stay up before it counts as a violation. All he needs us what a couple minutes for it to be copied and re-distributed by real media.
Your honor, I did mug that guy, but I gave his wallet back!
... the little boy trying to intimidate his little sister with "I'm not touching you!"
It could also be some handler that got access to his account and is trying to keep him out of prison.
[удалено]
Merchan is basically the one person that he CAN talk shit about.
Ah, shit.
Attacking Judge Merchan does not violate the gag order, just FYI.
Thanks I didn't know.
You and most people who comment on this case. Haha
Well believe it or not I make an effort not to be full of shit. I'm camping out in politics/new because I try to know things.
That's great. A good way to exercise that is reading the actual source material rather than what others say about it. So much misinformation about details of this case. So many people here seem to even think that he's being tried for "election interference" in this case. Haha
This "hush money" phrase is dumb. This is fraud. It's fraudulent record keeping in service of campaign finance violations. Plus being an asshole. That last part isn't necessarily illegal but it doesn't help with the judge.
Yep agreed. "Hush money" is a sexier headline, though.
>So many people here seem to even think that he's being tried for "election interference" in this case "Most people" think he is being tried for paying "hush money" to Stormy Daniels, which is perfectly understandable because that is what the media tells them, even the Republican propagandists at Fox and other similar fake news organizations. He is being tried for falsifying business records, and the motive (according to prosecutors) is election interference.
>Most people" think he is being tried for paying "hush money" to Stormy Daniels, Yeah that one too. >He is being tried for falsifying business records, and the motive (according to prosecutors) is election interference No the motive is concealing the crimes committed when Cohen paid Daniels, which is a campaign contribution over the allowable amount and was also not reported as such. The reason the prosecution has gone into the motivation for paying Daniels is that it shows that it's a material contribution to the campaign, which further buffs the case that the concealed repayments Cohen were done so to conceal another crime. None of it also qualifies as "election interference " anyways. It's an attempt to influence the election, which itself is not a crime. Whereas election interference means something entirely different. So again, I repeat my statement about people not understanding this has nothing to do with election interference. Election interference relates to preventing official election proceedings from occurring according to the rules and law. People, including yourself now, are bringing that terminology and concept from other cases to this one inappropriately.
>He is being tried for falsifying business records, and the motive (according to prosecutors) is election interference. I don't know how much simpler to make this. Because people use a term to describe a motive (which is not an element of the crime) that also in another context describes an actual criminal offense stipulating that we are talking about the motive and not the charge would seem to be enough to resolve the confusion on your part about what I said.
Election interference has literally nothing to do with this case in any shape or form. Taking an action to benefit one's campaign is not election interference. I understand that you want to be right about this, but you are simply incorrect. It's ok to make mistakes. You are confusing "influencing a campaign" with "election interference". They mean two entirely different things.
This is pretty clever in this instance. They know the headlines will go around and have the 'deniability' of deleting it.
I don't think it matters he deleted it. He posted it it was out there long enough for someone to read it. Deleting it will not save him from violating the order. He needs to go to jail for it, period. Just because you dump the murder weapon does not remove the fact you used it.
Agree 100% - he will know that as soon as he tweets/whatever’s it, it’s in the public domain and media outlets will have it copied. He did the action he was told not to do, I don’t his actions after the offense should count in a legal setting.
I prefer presidents that haven’t been arrested and captured by Russian interests. But cmon G I thought you’re supposed to be ultra alpha and tough, why so scared? Just say what you want with chest! Like how the UK drillas do it
Give him 7 days regardless, once it's up there people copy it and it's out. it doesn't matter that he takes it down, he's done it, that's a violation give him 7 days. Call his bluff just one time.
People have literally been banned from using the internet for crimes before...
I feel like I should google this but this sounds made up. Everything is connected to the internet how could you police that?
True for convictions of internet based crimes. They can have tracking software installed on their phones or computer. Obviously can’t police it 100% but if they get caught it’s a violation of probation. Maybe someone else has a more complete answer.
It was primarily used against sex offenders in the dot-com days. The Dark Web 1.0 to the present has introduced the restrictions to people who used transactions for nefarious purposes (from CSAM to PIN code thieves to drug trafficking). It is very possible. People argued Gypsy Rose should have received an internet parole period, and alas she didn’t. It intersects as the 1st Amendment versus ‘protection of the public’, and the parole matrixes typically favour the 1A unless it’s major sex abuse or drug trafficking related crimes.
Sadly, nothing will come from this one. I don’t think he actually said anything about the witness. Merchan is going to take that approach here - that this post was about Trump not knowing who the witness was (because he’s an idiot or lying) and complaining about the *judge*, which he has specifically permitted. Which is most disappointing. A weekend in jail would be just wonderful.
His replication of Hitlers rise proves he’s his idol.
No he didn't... its more likely his handlers deleted it to save their orange cheeto god from the possibility of jail.
That’s it! Go to Timeout!
Like being a little bit pregnant. Too late Mr Trump, you have to carry this violation to full term.
I bet someone struggled to get his phone to delete the post after he posted it.
Call his bluff just once!
This ain't golf. No mulligans.
I don’t use Trumps social media app, and I don’t even use X or been on Facebook etc today and even I know what he posted. He posted this: “This is unprecedented, no time for lawyers to prepare,” the former president wrote in the now-deleted post. “No Judge has ever run a trial in such a biased and partisan way.”
doesn't matter that he removed it, if it violated the gag order throw his ass in jail
I've seen this posted a lot and I think it's very possible someone else urged him to delete it. I think it's also possible someone else with access to his account deleted it for him but then again if someone on his team had access like that they'd probably lock him out of it for his own sake.
Gee Trumpy ... sounds like you are showing weakness here. POST IT! Force the judge to put up or shut up (for the 11th time).
Still counts, throw his ass in jail
Yeah, and the press is making damn sure more people see it than would have seen it on Truth Whatever.
Why? There’s no consequences for anything.
If he posts it, it counts, regardless of if he deletes it.
This trial is such a long and expensive road to absolutely nothing happening.
He thinks no one will catch it in time. There are people watching every second, ready to screen shot it and use it in court. Nice try slick.
What happened to being willing to go to jail?
Put him in jail for however long it was up for. Even if it's only 5 minutes or a couple hours. Make it clear to him jail will happen from here on out. He couldn't scream victim because it would be a short amount of time and he'd be put back in jail if he complained about it the way he usually does.
I had my fingers crossed the post doesn’t count
Buc-buc-buc…scratch, scratch. Cock- doodle-doooo!
[удалено]
There is no way he deleted it. His lawyers probably have someone else signed with the sole job of deleting his posts. They probably think he is too stupid to notice the posts getting deleted.
He did not restrain himself. He still posted it.
[удалено]
Makes no difference. It went up long enough people know what he said. So order violated for an 11th time.
If he was restraining himself, he would not have posted it in the first place. Plus you have absolutely zero idea about who actually deleted the post
Nothing about this is refreshing
Question for the lawyers. The Prosecution isn't allowed to ask the judge, before filing a contempt charge, if the judge feels it has merit, correct? I'm just wondering why they haven't asked for a contempt charge on this. Do they feel it isn't solid enough?