A New York appeals court has reinstated a gag order that barred Donald Trump from commenting about court personnel after he disparaged a law clerk in his New York civil fraud trial.
Indeed, a normal defendant would have been treated much differently. Then again, a normal defendant doesn’t have an army of enraged violent dipshits with a tenuous relationship with reality, eager and willing to end democracy on his behalf, supporting them. That’s why he gets treated with kid gloves.
Ah I see, well he’s clearly being treated differently than a normal defendant and I speculated on why, but after reading this comment I agree with @PM_Your_Nudes_Please that it’s probably more about denying him a case for appeal even if it means treating his behaviors with more leniency than a normal defendant. Getting it right is important because of the damage he can cause, (due to said army and the scary possibility of reelection,) if he gets off with a technicality. I’m referring to his legal woes in general and not just this trial, he’s been trying stochastic terrorism in many of them.
Indeed, a normal defendant would have been treated much differently. Then again, a normal defendant doesn’t have an army of enraged violent dipshits with a tenuous relationship with reality, eager and willing to end democracy on his behalf, supporting them. That’s why he gets treated with kid gloves.
Sooo… you’re saying that negotiating with terrorists is the best thing to do here?
I’d say they’re more insurrectionists than terrorists, and no I do not.
Speculating why they are doing something is not endorsing it.
Not acting out of fear is essentially allowing them to negotiate the outcome of his trial.
Can you elaborate? I don’t follow.
You’re suggesting he’s getting treated with kid gloves because of his army of terrorists.
I’m saying that’s not how things work.
Ah I see, well he’s clearly being treated differently than a normal defendant and I speculated on why, but after reading this comment I agree with @PM_Your_Nudes_Please that it’s probably more about denying him a case for appeal even if it means treating his behaviors with more leniency than a normal defendant. Getting it right is important because of the damage he can cause, (due to said army and the scary possibility of reelection,) if he gets off with a technicality. I’m referring to his legal woes in general and not just this trial, he’s been trying stochastic terrorism in many of them.
Holy shit I was about to copy/paste that exact same comment in response if you question further. I totally agree!