• @dhork
      link
      English
      2419 days ago

      But I recall reading that the DAs office was in favor of a partial lifting of the order. There is no reason to keep the order in place for witnesses, for example.

      Trump’s lawyers wanted a full cancellation of the order and as far as I can tell the DA’s side got everything it asked for and Trump’s side only got the things the DA agreed to.

      • @ccunning
        link
        2619 days ago

        There is no reason to keep the order in place for witnesses, for example.

        I’d argue there is plenty of reason to keep it in place for witnesses until all appeals have played out…

        • @dhork
          link
          English
          2119 days ago

          As I understand it, though, the point of the gag order was to prevent the witnesses from being intimidated before their testimony. The trial is over, and there will be no more testimony. So a gag order on them is no longer necessary to protect the integrity of the trial process.

          • @ccunning
            link
            1419 days ago

            The trial is over, and there will be no more testimony

            I see - I assumed wrongly they would need to testify again in a retrial if an appeal was won.

            Wasn’t there also talk of declaring a mistrial at some point? Would they testify again in that case?

            • Nougat
              link
              fedilink
              1719 days ago

              Not only that - he’s got many other criminal counts still pending. The potential witnesses to those crimes are paying close attention to how much protection these witnesses get in the wake of their testimony.

              Lift this gag order, Trump goes on a rampage, witnesses get an increased level of threats or, god forbid, actual violence - that is a chilling effect on witnesses in all of Trump’s other cases, and to a lesser extent, for witnesses in any future cases involving any defendant.

              • @dhork
                link
                English
                319 days ago

                It’s not this judge’s job to police those cases, though. The other judges can apply whatever orders they need in order to protect the integrity of the trials they oversee. But this trial is over.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              519 days ago

              Not to mention retaliation; I would fear for my life if I was a witness and my name was made public for this case, ever.

              • @Ensign_Crab
                link
                English
                419 days ago

                Not only that, it sends a message to witnesses in ongoing cases that they will never be safe.

          • @Viking_Hippie
            link
            419 days ago

            a gag order on them is no longer necessary to protect the integrity of the trial process.

            But still necessary to minimize the risk of his crazed cult following violently targeting the witnesses he continues to demonize.

            Upholding that protection is ESPECIALLY important when it comes to a widely viewed event such as a presidential debate.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1019 days ago

      The fear (a rational fear, I think) is that if they didn’t, they’d potentially have an armed rebellion to deal with. Yea, it’s shitty for this asshat to get gift after fucking gift but if there was any appearance of him being targeted he’d never fucking shut up about it.

      I’m done with their bullshit and I feel, for democracy’s sake, we should just seize all the family assets to discourage future ass hattery and deal with the consequences now… but I also do appreciate my relatives not living in a war zone.

      • themeatbridge
        link
        2819 days ago

        If the rule of law leads terrorists to attack institutions, then we need to stop those terrorists with force. We should not bend over backwards to avoid angering the terrorists.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -519 days ago

          I think you’re being too black and white. The purpose of all this society shit isn’t to have laws that are justly applied - it’s to (ideally, late stage capitalism is fucking is here) provide the best life we can to as many people as we can. Being murdered, robbed or a bundle of other things fucking sucks so we use the law to guarantee (again, suckinh at this right now) safety and stability.

          If someone did a little asshattery I don’t want to start a civil war - as a parallel, if someone runs a red light and we could either let them go unpunished or start a high speed chase, I’m going to favor the former. There is a line somewhere, there is some amount of petty treason someone could commit and some quantity of armed fanatics backing them where I’d say “we should just not risk it.”

          Basically, sometimes it’s optimal to be non-confrontational even if it feels shitty.

          • themeatbridge
            link
            419 days ago

            Nah, fuck that noise. I don’t want to start a civil war, either, but I’ll be more than happy to end one. You’re conceding ground to effective terrorism.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    7
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    So Trump can attack witnesses that testified against him, but he can’t attack jurors because the judge left that in place?

    Why lift any part of the ban?

    He kept most of it in place, why lift any part of it?

    • @RunningInRVA
      link
      118 days ago

      Article says he lifted the part on the jurors, which seems dangerous?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        218 days ago

        The article seems to contradict itself.

        You are right, it says that the part on the jurors was lifted, but then a few paragraphs later it says:

        “While he lifted that piece of the gag order, the judge ruled that a prohibition on disclosing juror information will remain in effect until further notice.”

        So if that’s correct then it’s only the witness that the ban has been lifted on.

        But why is the article saying two different things about the jurors?

        And why the heck would any part of the gag order be lifted at all?

        Weird

        • @RunningInRVA
          link
          2
          edit-2
          18 days ago

          Thanks for pointing that out. You exposed me as a half reader of crappily written articles!

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            118 days ago

            I had to read it like six times before I concluded that there was something wrong with the article and not my reading comprehension.

            Maybe a third party will come along and help both of us out.

  • @Rapidcreek
    link
    419 days ago

    And the juror doxxing will commence in 3… 2… 1…

    • El Barto
      link
      019 days ago

      I hate that overused 3, 2, 1 meme.

      • SolidGrue
        link
        English
        119 days ago

        12 doxxing secrets jurors HATE

        • 🔍🦘🛎
          link
          English
          118 days ago

          Jurors HATE this one weird trick!

  • Fire Witch
    link
    fedilink
    3
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    The judge is giving him more rope to hang himself with