MSNBC for one described the gag order the judge in NY levied against
trump as "refreshing", but I want to know why he only prohibited posts
etc. about his "staff". Why did he not also include the prosecutor and
his staff and their families? Does the judge not know what's happened
already and what trump has done already?

micky wrote:
> MSNBC for one described the gag order the judge in NY levied against
> trump as "refreshing", but I want to know why he only prohibited posts
> etc. about his "staff". Why did he not also include the prosecutor and
> his staff and their families? Does the judge not know what's happened
> already and what trump has done already?

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.

Why do Democrat tyrants want to censor We the People?  FJB

--
If the left could compete in the realm of ideas, they wouldn't want to censor us.

If the left were truly a majority, they wouldn't need to censor us.

On 10/4/23 10:49, Oscar wrote:
> micky wrote:
>> MSNBC for one described the gag order the judge in NY levied against
>> trump as "refreshing", but I want to know why he only prohibited posts
>> etc. about his "staff".   Why did he not also include the prosecutor and
>> his staff and their families?   Does the judge not know what's happened
>> already and what trump has done already?
>
> First Amendment
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>
> Why do Democrat tyrants want to censor We the People?  FJB
>
Lets replace the star field on our flag with a giant banana

On 2023-10-04, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
> MSNBC for one described the gag order the judge in NY levied against
> trump as "refreshing", but I want to know why he only prohibited posts
> etc. about his "staff". Why did he not also include the prosecutor and
> his staff and their families?

Outside his purview, perhaps. Who does the prosecutor work for?

> Does the judge not know what's happened
> already and what trump has done already?

Of course he does.

--
Cindy Hamilton

Cindy Hamilton <hamilton@invalid.com> writes:
>On 2023-10-04, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>> MSNBC for one described the gag order the judge in NY levied against
>> trump as "refreshing", but I want to know why he only prohibited posts
>> etc. about his "staff". Why did he not also include the prosecutor and
>> his staff and their families?
>
>Outside his purview, perhaps. Who does the prosecutor work for?
>
>> Does the judge not know what's happened
>> already and what trump has done already?
>
>Of course he does.

And if it had been a jury trial, instead of a bench trial,
the Judge would have already gagged Trump vis-a-vis the
trial, just to avoid jury tampering.

For a bench trial, poking the bear is not a smart tactic.

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 04 Oct 2023 21:02:27 GMT, Cindy Hamilton
<hamilton@invalid.com> wrote:

>On 2023-10-04, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>> MSNBC for one described the gag order the judge in NY levied against
>> trump as "refreshing", but I want to know why he only prohibited posts
>> etc. about his "staff". Why did he not also include the prosecutor and

I think I meant not prosecutore, but Attorney General or assisstent or
whatever. In this case. I may have similar comments if any of the
judges, in cases with prosecutors, get off their duff and start to gag
him.

>> his staff and their families?
>
>Outside his purview, perhaps. Who does the prosecutor work for?

They're still parties to the case, and the case is the judge's
responsibility.

And what about the wives, husbands, children, and parents of the staff?
Why did he leave them out. Does he not know about John Pelosi?

Plus I forgot the witnesses, their families, and I think it should also
including their bosses and their employees. Because that's who trump
will go after. if you can't attack the witness or the witnesses spouse,
he'll attack the spouse's boss etc. If he wasn't going to do that,
doesn't even know who they are, telling him not to attack them doesn't
have any effect.

>> Does the judge not know what's happened
>> already and what trump has done already?
>
>Of course he does.

Scott, we shall see what some other judge does about that. I think they
have all been too slow.

On Wed, 04 Oct 2023 21:15:20 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

>Cindy Hamilton <hamilton@invalid.com> writes:
>>On 2023-10-04, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>>> MSNBC for one described the gag order the judge in NY levied against
>>> trump as "refreshing", but I want to know why he only prohibited posts
>>> etc. about his "staff". Why did he not also include the prosecutor and
>>> his staff and their families?
>>
>>Outside his purview, perhaps. Who does the prosecutor work for?
>>
>>> Does the judge not know what's happened
>>> already and what trump has done already?
>>
>>Of course he does.
>
>And if it had been a jury trial, instead of a bench trial,
>the Judge would have already gagged Trump vis-a-vis the
>trial, just to avoid jury tampering.
>
>For a bench trial, poking the bear is not a smart tactic.

And according to Judge Engoron, it could have been a jury trial, versus a bench
trial, if Trump's defense team had requested it, but they didn't.

Speculation seems to be just about evenly divided between Trump's defense
lawyers being incompetent, or the possibility that they wanted a bench trial to
perhaps help with the inevitable appeal. It's probably easier to say that a
single judge was unfair versus saying that an entire jury got it wrong.