🇳🇱
I am really mixed on this one: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-in-jail/
On the one hand seeing Trump in jail would please me greatly. On the other I'm left asking how a judge has the right to restrain free speech at all. saying someone should "rot in hell" outside of court and having that land you in jail seems like a huge violation.
Idk it seems like the whole point of having a court system is the first place is to prevent parties from being pressured to withdraw, drop the dispute, with public letter writing campaigns
Just STFU. When it’s over you can tell everyone how you’re poor now and your life is ruined. That’s free speech.
@jenny_wu Threatening people is illegal with or without a court order. If he said "this man should be murdered" then I would agree with you. But "he should rot in hell", no thats not even a threat.
@freemo @jenny_wu Taken very literally, "X should be murdered" is not a threat: it's simply a statement about a world you'd prefer to live in. Obviously that approach makes no sense, because then well-understood codes speech becomes a way to skirt around any laws prohibiting threats.
If one tries to include various coded threats, then the statement itself is not enough to detemine whether it's a threat: the whole point of coded speech is to make it easy to read for intended recipients and hard to convincingly convey to others, so it relies on lots of context.
@realcaseyrollins @jenny_wu @freemo @robryk Vocally supporting violence is protected by the first amendment. Committing or inciting violence is not.
@LouisIngenthron @realcaseyrollins @freemo @robryk
Narrow place-and-time restrictions. Wishing that the complainant would be murdered and burn in hell is a given, really. That cathartic speech can wait until after the lawyers are paid.
It says “Congress shall make no law” but the judiciary can impose reasonable restrictions with proceedings in motion.
If a law is what grants the powert to the judiciary then its a violation.
Obviously I do agree with the general consensus here that directly intimidating a witness goes beyond free speech of course. My issue is not with him going to jail for legit threats, in fact I'd **want** that. My issue is that the judge talked about it being legitimate to send him to jail for saying "rot in hell", to me that feels like a violation. Even if we can argue legally it isnt, it should be.
@freemo @LouisIngenthron @realcaseyrollins @robryk
2. The capitalization in the message suggests that Trump wants the prosecutor in hell, preferably immediately, and ideally without leaving God or the prosecutor any choice in the matter.
3. Saying it on Christmas adds another layer of nastiness that reflects poorly on the office of the former President, his family, caregivers, and the professional competence of legal counsel who are duty bound to protect his and their own reputations.
> The capitalization in the message suggests that Trump wants the prosecutor in hell, preferably immediately, and ideally without leaving God or the prosecutor any choice in the matter.
That seems like an aweful lot you are infering without cause from a simple capitalization. Courts are suppose to act on facts, not assumptions.
> Saying it on Christmas adds another layer of nastiness that reflects poorly on the office of the former President, his family, caregivers, and the professional competence of legal counsel who are duty bound to protect his and their own reputations.
Being nasty isnt illegal. It is a totally valid reason to dislike the man, not a valid reason, in and of itself, to justify jailing him. Besides there are plenty more legit reasons that could cause him to wind up in jail, best we stick to those IMO.
@freemo @jenny_wu @LouisIngenthron @robryk I would also argue that if we’re going to jail people for nastiness, there might be better targets for prosecution, such as #RichardSpencer, #NickFuentes, or #ye (depending on whether or not he’s currently in a state of mania ofc)
@realcaseyrollins @freemo @LouisIngenthron @robryk
I’m not saying Trump should go to jail for nastiness alone, or that he should go jail at all. But there’s a few non negligible legal questions raised:
1. Whether or not the trial is a campaign event
2. Whether or not the trial is media performance art
3. Whether or not his legal representatives are fit to practice law
4. Whether his legal representatives can be relied upon to give effective counsel to future clients
For points 1 and 2, #Trump did not orchestrate the trial, his political enemies did, and furthermore if trials are viewed as campaign events, that's not entirely the fault of the courts, and is not illegal either.
For the 3rd and 4th point, none of that is illegal. You can have a bumbling oaf providing awful legal advise and lose your case, nothing illegal about that at all.
@realcaseyrollins @freemo @LouisIngenthron @robryk
If I had a mental breakdown and shot up a liquor store, it would be my right as an American to have a lawyer plead for mercy on my behalf.
That right - MY right - is subverted if the court doesn’t patrol and control lawyers who do less than the bare minimum.
That means I shouldn’t be allowed to have a lawyer who is like, “but who doesn’t want to shoot strangers at a liquor store? Sounds fun!”
@jenny_wu @realcaseyrollins @freemo @robryk He chose his lawyers. He can fire them at any time if he's not happy with their service.
@LouisIngenthron @jenny_wu @freemo @robryk Yeahhhhhh I don’t think there’s a law that makes it illegal to be a bad lawyer
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @jenny_wu @robryk That's not illegal, though; just a basis for appeal.
Dealing with incompetency in lawyer circles is generally left to the bar associations, from what I understand.
Yea the ineffectivbe lawyer would not go to jail... maybe you could sue him, but thats civil.
Only way I could see a lawyer going to jail is if they **intentionally** under-performed in order to see their client loose. Im not sure that has ever happened though.
I mean it would be hard to prove. But if you could somehow prove it I am willing to bet it would be criminal. Just speculating though.
@freemo @LouisIngenthron @realcaseyrollins @robryk
No it’s more of a professional licensing issue I think
Well I think that would come down to intent. If you are negligent but otherwise didnt intend to be, then yea I'd expect youd loose your license.
But as I said if you **intentionally** throw the case and loose because you wanted your client to loose for some reason that benefits you, then I'd be willing to bet youd go to jail.
As they say, intent is 9/10ths of the law.
@freemo @jenny_wu @realcaseyrollins @robryk I mean, maybe you could charge them with fraud? But I doubt there's a criminal law specifically for that.
@LouisIngenthron @freemo @realcaseyrollins @robryk
You can be a martyr for your client, and sacrifice your professional career for the most longshot defense imaginable.
The incentives are just not aligned.
@freemo Also, the saying is "Possession is 9/10ths of the law", lol
@LouisIngenthron Thats what I intended to say, :)
@LouisIngenthron Some reason i got my wires crossed with Mens Rea, you are right.
Possession is my favorite crime! #sillyWu #doingCrimes
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @jenny_wu @robryk Even then, I doubt it. Now, if the lawyer was there at the robbery holding a gun with their client... 😀