• We will be rebooting the server around 4:30 AM ET. We should be back up and running in approximately 15 minutes.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump’s bond in Georgia election interference case set at $200,000

He can't threaten a witness, but he certainly can criticize them. He can say a witness is lying or is a freak. He's allowed to criticize Pence all he wants. That's not "intimidation." Intimidation requires threats against the witness or witness's family or property, trying to prevent the witness from testifying, etc. However, he is certainly allowed to say stuff like "Pence is full of it, a liar, etc."
 
MrNiceGuy said:
It's always a free speech issue when a court prohibits or tries to prohibit someone from speaking. That doesn't mean the Court can't prohibit certain things. It just means that when dealing with speech, it's always a free speech issue.
Click to expand...
Not all speech is protected. Witness intimidation is a crime all on it's own.
 
He's allowed to say derogatory things about a witness. He absolutely can say Brian Kemp is a liar who betrayed Georgians, just as much as Kemp can say that Trump is a liar and betrayed Americans. Trump is a potential witness, too, and if it's intimidation for him to say X, then it's intimidation for anyone else to say similar things about him. Protection of witnesses does not mean that the defendant is fair game, and the witnesses can't be criticized. Nobody can threaten the witneeses, including Trump and others, but a threat is not the same thing as a criticism.
 
Callen said:
Not all speech is protected. Witness intimidation is a crime all on it's own.
Click to expand...
Yes, but intimidation requires threats to the witness or to others, etc. It's not just "Witness X is an asshole and a liar." That's not intimidation. That's free speech.
 
There is a thin line there I agree, but I think he would be walking that thin line if he was addressing the specific testimony of Pence the witness, ie Pence is lying I never asked him to do that. I'm sure the judge will give him latitude as it relates to Pence.
 
In my quote of Kemp I included the threat of payback at election time. That is the type of thing that takes it over the line...I think. No doubt we will see because Trump will push it.
 

Is he allowed to say stuff like,

"Pence [or other relevant person] must be stopped"​
Or,
"Pence [or other relevant person] is an enemy of the people"​
Or,
"Pence [or other relevant person] is a danger to America"​
?
 
If Pence can call Trump a liar and if others can call Trump a liar, he can call them a liar. Trump is also a "witness" in the case. Whether he will testify is an open question, but if other witnesses can speak publicly and say that Trump told me X, Y and Z, and Trump is lying about X Y and Z, then he can say "oh, no, f u buddy, you're a liar and I never said that."
 
I don't think the judge would move on comments like that. There will have to be an element of intmidation or threat.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Is he allowed to say stuff like,

"Pence [or other relevant person] must be stopped"​
Click to expand...
Stopped from doing what?

If just "must be stopped." Yes. Pence must be stopped, just as every one of Trump's opponents is saying iterations of Trump must be stopped. People are saying he should be barred from running for President, FFS. And Trump is a witness, too.

Simon W. Moon said:
Or,
"Pence [or other relevant person] is an enemy of the people"​
Click to expand...
Free speech. You can say Trump is an enemy of the people, too.

Simon W. Moon said:
Or,
"Pence [or other relevant person] is a danger to America"​
?
Click to expand...
Free speech. Same can be lawfully said about Trump, despite his status as a witness in his own cases, and others. He's a witness in 1/6 cases - he might not have been called, but we don't know if Pence or others will testify in the Trump cases, either. So, if potential witnesses cannot be alled "enemeis of the people, and dangers to America, then be careful what you wish for, because the same rules would have to apply to Trump when he is a witness.

And it's not just defendants in cases that can't engage in witness intimidation. If saying those things toward a witness is intimidation when a defendant says it, then it's intimidation when anyone else says it. If Newsmax or the Wall Street Journal published those statements that you just wrote about Pence, would you say they are intimidating Pence?
 
Callen said:
I don't think the judge would move on comments like that. There will have to be an element of intmidation or threat.
Click to expand...
I agree the judge shouldn't move on language like that. But, Trump's opponents think everything the guy says is an intimidation. Calling someone on the phone and asking a question is, to a Trump opponent, an intimidation when Trump does it.
 

You're pretty liberal in your allowances.

I wonder if your opinions have any traction IRL
 
Simon W. Moon said:
You're pretty liberal in your allowances.

I wonder if your opinions have any traction IRL
Click to expand...
How so? Do you think Pence should be able to call Trump a danger to America while the campaign is going? What about "Trump must be stopped?"
 
trouble13 said:
The problem is how broadly they try to stretch the definition of those words as a means to violate his rights. I hope Trump force's their hand by ignoring the judges order and continues to do what he has been doing.
Click to expand...
ok
 
MrNiceGuy said:
It's always a free speech issue when a court prohibits or tries to prohibit someone from speaking. That doesn't mean the Court can't prohibit certain things. It just means that when dealing with speech, it's always a free speech issue.
Click to expand...
That made no sense at all.
 
reflechissez said:
That made no sense at all.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Courts restrict the 1st amendment all the time on defendants before trial. And the 2nd. And others. Don't know why that's suddenly an issue for them with this one defendant.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
How so? Do you think Pence should be able to call Trump a danger to America while the campaign is going? What about "Trump must be stopped?"
Click to expand...

Have we had any examples of folks committing acts of violence based on Pence's messaging and statements, yet?

If not, then
obviously Pence's statements and Trump's statements fail to carry the same potential to incite violence.

Feel free to believe otherwise if it helps your argument, though.
 
trouble13 said:
He is being charged with non-crimes. He should not comply. They are violating his rights.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the ticket.
Excellent advice.
Don't comply, Trump.

Willful non-compliance is always is the best practice for dealing with the American legal system as a defendant.

It'll work out great.

Willful non-compliance is always so much better than trying to work things out legally.
 
Just ask Darrel Brooks or Trevor Summers.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
It's always a free speech issue when a court prohibits or tries to prohibit someone from speaking. That doesn't mean the Court can't prohibit certain things. It just means that when dealing with speech, it's always a free speech issue.
Click to expand...
These sorts of restrictions are not new, they're quite common in fact. Witness intimidation and tampering isn't free speech. This is all part of due process, which is the system we use to allow government to limit rights. But that being said, witness intimidation and tampering isn't part of free speech.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
I agree the judge shouldn't move on language like that. But, Trump's opponents think everything the guy says is an intimidation. Calling someone on the phone and asking a question is, to a Trump opponent, an intimidation when Trump does it.
Click to expand...
.......and some Trump supporters see no wrong not matter what he does, no matter what he says....they see no bad intent intent. We'll see how the jury sees it.
 
No he's using 'free speech' as a crutch in the court of public opinion because he knows the suckers will fall for it.

In a real court, his lawyers won't try to argue something as preposterous over breaking bail conditions.
 
Looks like he's going to get some airtime.


Trump’s Georgia arraignment expected to be televised, Fulton County judge says

The state judge overseeing former President Trump’s Georgia case ruled that cameras will be allowed in the courtroom for the defendants’ arraignments, marking the first time that one of Trump&#8217…
thehill.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…