🇳🇱
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.
@realcaseyrollins @jenny_wu @freemo @robryk Vocally supporting violence is protected by the first amendment. Committing or inciting violence is not.
@LouisIngenthron @jenny_wu @freemo @robryk Hrmm. I don’t like it, but you’re probably right.
@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.
@jenny_wu @LouisIngenthron @freemo @robryk Did #Trump say that the judge should be murdered?
@jenny_wu @realcaseyrollins @freemo @robryk Of course they can, but restricting a defendant from voicing an opinion is generally an unreasonable restriction. Restricting him from intimidating witnesses, otoh, is reasonable.
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
1. It can be assumed that every criminal defendant wants every public prosecutor to burn in hell. If Congress explicitly passed an unconstitutional law that says “Thou shalt not say burn in hell in such and such scenario” the practical epistemic violence of such a law would be nil. No information has been lost.
Information loss is a pretty weak mechanism to justify (or not) a law or judicial act.
@freemo @jenny_wu @LouisIngenthron @robryk It’s hard to see Jenny’s case here, she’s not demonstrating that #Trump advocated, supported or condoned violence against the prosecutors, onlytha
@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.
Is it general knowledge that “burn in hell” means “burn in hell expeditiously”?
I don’t think it’s the judiciary branch’s job to keep #Trump from doing things that make him look bad. It’s a free country.
@realcaseyrollins @jenny_wu @freemo @robryk Bingo. "Burn in hell" is classic expressive speech and protected opinion, and that's before you add the context that it was posted on social media by a known blowhard.
@realcaseyrollins @freemo @LouisIngenthron @robryk
It is not the court’s job to prevent the defendant, of all people, from embarrassing himself or others from feeling ashamed of associating with him. But it is the job of counsel; failing to do so can constitute elder abuse as well as offending our general sense of patriotism and good taste.
The lawyers can wash their hands of the negligence if they said “we tried to have him committed, but the doc said he’s fine!”
That’s not their approach.
@jenny_wu @realcaseyrollins @freemo @robryk No, that's also not the job of lawyer. Their job is to inform him. If he then makes the decision to act like a jackass, that's not the lawyers' fault at all. They're not social workers.
@jenny_wu @freemo @LouisIngenthron @robryk Why are you presuming that #Trump is under the formal care of caretakers? There is no evidence of this, and even if you are right, going after whoever might be handling #JoeBiden for elder abuse might be a tad bit more urgent considering that over the past year alone he’s embarrassed himself far more than #Trump has.
I mean to be fair, Trump is a raging moron, but doesnt show signs of senility. On the other hand pretty much everyone, even those who hate Trump like me, can easily see Biden is senile and getting worse by the day.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @LouisIngenthron @robryk
Respectfully as a woman I think maybe you aren’t the best judge of senility. You haven’t considered whether his wife, daughters, and housecleaning staff are bearing the brunt of it
Not sure I follow. How much his wife and associates "bear" of his senility doesnt change how senile he is.
@jenny_wu @freemo @LouisIngenthron @robryk Can’t say that I’m shocked that you’re doing a heel turn into sexism tbh
I didn’t have a rando saying “you can’t judge senility because you’re a man” on my 2023 bingo card but okay
@freemo @jenny_wu @LouisIngenthron @robryk Eh, #Trump is showing slight signs of senility. He has occasional verbal flubs that he never used to have before.
> 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)
If we started arresting people for nastyness New York City would be empty.
@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 @jenny_wu @LouisIngenthron @robryk Ooh, very interesting, I did not know this!
@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.
@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... 😀
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.
@realcaseyrollins @jenny_wu @freemo @robryk At best, you can appeal a judgement on the basis of incompetent counsel after it's been rendered, but from what I've heard, that's a *very* uphill battle.
Yea its possible, and you may win, but its not very easy from what I hear. And yea, it would be an appeal.
@realcaseyrollins @freemo @LouisIngenthron @robryk
“As a lawyer, I’ve encountered lots of types of people. It’s a fascinating profession and I’ve learned that for some people, shooting strangers is fun. It’s hard to believe, but it takes all types, doesn’t it? We celebrate diversity. Only #God knows the future, and only God knows if one day the #SupremeCourt will recognize the right of every American to...”
@realcaseyrollins @freemo @LouisIngenthron @robryk
Young men with no professional development and too much social media ragebait are a different animal entirely. They are not senile, and they are not disqualified from ever serving office by the Insurrection clause. Also they are not criminal defendants at the moment
@jenny_wu @freemo @LouisIngenthron @robryk #Trump isn’t disqualified from ever serving office by the Insurrection clause since he did not participate nor orchestrate an insurrection. Setting that aside, are you saying that if you have the qualifications and experience to hold public office, being “nasty” should be illegal? That’s kind of a weird take.
Well more to the point, in order to use the insurrection caluse he would have to actually be found guilty in a court of law, a **federal** court of law, and possibly need to be impeached by congress itself. But regardless someone at a federal level would have to make that ruling.
That said, the 14th amendment specifically says "incite". So assuming they can prove he incited it then they could have a case. But they do have to prove it.
@realcaseyrollins @freemo @LouisIngenthron @robryk
The slippery slope is just not worthy of consideration.
“But if we tell Trump to maybe stop being a shithead then what will happen to all these other shitheads on tiktok? Every American has the right to be a shithead on the China app”
对、是的. They sure do. Shangdi help us all.
@jenny_wu @realcaseyrollins @freemo @robryk Yep, the 1st Amendment protects all our right to be a shithead.
@LouisIngenthron @realcaseyrollins @freemo @robryk
Fuck, I need booze. I’ll be back soon hopefully, wait
That doesnt sound like what he was arguing for at all...
@freemo @jenny_wu @LouisIngenthron @robryk She’s close to what I’m arguing against; I think that saying that #Trump being a jerk should be illegal not only would violate the constitution, it would also mean restricting the freedoms of others.
Not to put words in Jenny’s mouth, but it sounds like her point is she doesn’t care, she wants #Trump barred from office and buried under the jail no matter the cost to democracy.
Its ok as long as the law is "trump being a jerk should wind him up in jail"... the second it becoems "anyone who is a jerk should go to jail" .. which would have to include people who are jerks towards Trump and his supports... all of a sudden that proposal sounds a lot less appealing :)
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @LouisIngenthron @robryk
I was literally saying the opposite. It doesn’t matter is Trump is a banned candidate because the Republicans are not a banned party. And it doesn’t matter if Trump’s lawyers are fined for him being a jerk online; there’s billions of us, we’re all being jerks online and we get away with it and we always will. 你好吗！
Well I certainly would support banning of all political parties in the USA. Only independents should be allowed to run.
@freemo @jenny_wu @LouisIngenthron @robryk Well political parties should exist somewhat, but more in the form of the #Dove Approved seal or an #OscarAwards nomination. They should be labels private organizations can slap on people, but otherwise don’t affect anything.
While I see why you would say that it just doesnt work. If they have parties then media will focus on which candidate they cover given preference to parties. This in turn requires a candidate to join a party to be electable. This furthermore requires a candidate to be subservient to the party because should they be kicked out of the party they wont get media coverage and again be unelectable.
We have already shown the media do this to silence the many third party candidates we have each year, so we already know its a problem.
@freemo @jenny_wu @realcaseyrollins @robryk Then PACs would become the parties. <shiver>
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @LouisIngenthron @robryk
(The existence of the #GreatFirewall of China is an #orientalist myth btw) #OneLove 🥰
Huh? I've seen it at work more than once, so not sure what that means.
@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.