Mastodawn

Hours After Gag Order, Trump Launches Fresh Vitriol Against New York Judge

https://lemmy.world/post/6319867

Hours After Gag Order, Trump Launches Fresh Vitriol Against New York Judge - Lemmy.world

Donald Trump on Wednesday launched fresh vitriol against the judge and prosecuting attorney in his New York business fraud trial, carefully skirting a gag order imposed on him just a day prior. Trump tried Tuesday to bully a court clerk, sharing false conspiracies about her as well as her personal information. Presiding Judge Arthur Engoron issued a gag order later that day prohibiting all parties involved in the case from publicly discussing court staff. While Trump avoided mentioning court staff on Wednesday, he went all out with attacks against Engoron and New York Attorney General Letitia James. “This is election interference. They made up a fake case, these fraudulent people,” Trump told reporters. “And the judge already knows what he’s gonna do. He’s a Democrat judge. In all fairness to him, he has no choice.… He’s run by the Democrats.”

Grant_M Oct 5, 2023

Has there ever been a whiny crybaby like this guy before?

zeppo Oct 5, 2023

He’s the biggest victim-player in the entire world. Sure is odd how his fans think he’s ultra-masculine just because he’s also an overconfident bully.

normanwall Oct 5, 2023

I heard the term cry-bully a while ago and it seems appropriate.

People like him thrive on drama and I hate them.

oddspinnaker Oct 5, 2023

Oh damn cry-bully is so good

b00m Oct 5, 2023

They also think his complete disregard and sexual misconduct towards women is super masculine

Methylchloroisothiazolinone Oct 5, 2023

You just said it. People with npd have 2 modes, bully or victim. There is no middle, they are always in one mode or the other. The entire game is to harass and bully everyone around them until they get a reaction. At this point they immediately turtle and go into victim mode. When you respond in a justifiable way they accuse you of being the bully. Its fucking exhausting and the cycle never ends. Just best to avoid folks with this flavor of mental illness.

zeppo Oct 5, 2023

Yep. I’ve had a couple relationships with people like that. Most recently, a gf who acted exactly like that… she’d blame all of our problems on me, never take accountability, never acknowledge that her actions or behavior could influence me too, was thrilled to criticize me but if I said anything about her (even very fair things where I shared blame) she’d either change the topic to something irrelevant to criticize me, or clam up or leave and then blame me for finding the conversation frustrating. Expected me to do all the housework, then blamed me for not doing enough. Spent most of her time on social media, blamed me for her not getting work done, was obsessed with things like “221 people wished me happy birthday on facebook!”. Incredibly dysfunctional and infuriating after a while. Not like I’m an expert, but after watching 50 hours of NPD videos on YouTube she ticks all the boxes.

Methylchloroisothiazolinone Oct 5, 2023

Ding ding, sounds like you had a bingo. Congrats on escaping

afraid_of_zombies Oct 5, 2023

Nothing is ever their fault, they have never been wrong, and you are never good enough for them. Every story is either them being a badass or being a victim. Everything you do was to hurt them, you can’t just be tired you are being lazy. You can’t just want some alone time you are separating yourself from them.

afraid_of_zombies Oct 5, 2023

Oh I didn’t know one of my siblings had a lemmy account

pixxelkick Oct 5, 2023

Alex Jones pretty much pulled the same stunt and we all saw how well that played out for him

Bibliotectress Oct 5, 2023

Kinda fine so far? As of a couple of weeks ago, he still hadn’t paid a dime to any of the Sandy Hook families because he declared bankruptcy. He’s still spending a bunch of money and still doing Info Wars. It’ll probably catch up to him eventually? I hope? apnews.com/…/alex-jones-sandy-hook-shooting-bankr…

Alex Jones spent over $93,000 in July. Sandy Hook families who sued him have yet to see a dime

Lawyers for several families of victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting are criticizing Alex Jones' personal spending as they seek nearly $1.5 billion they won in lawsuits against the Infowars host. Court filings by Jones in his bankruptcy case in Texas show the conspiracy theorist who called the 2012 shooting a hoax dished out more than $93,000 in July. That includes $15,000 to his wife, $7,900 for housekeeping and more than $6,300 for meals and entertainment. The families' lawyers said in a recent court filing that they will seek court orders to control Jones' spending if he doesn't himself. Jones denies financial wrongdoing but acknowledges an affinity for eating out.

AP News

SkyeStarfall Oct 5, 2023

It’s wild how gentle the courts are with the rich and powerful doing absolutely abhorrent shit on massive scales

But find a joint roach on a poor person unfortunate enough to not have light skin, and they’re near instantly thrown into jail for years and years

I don’t know how anybody can not think that the justice system is broken

SCB Oct 5, 2023

So first off, yes rich people have HUGE advantages in court. That being said, the clear difference here is that civil trials and criminal trials function very differently and on wildly different timetables.

It’s QUITE fast, generally speaking, to start a civil processing and much slower to actually see restitution, and the exact opposite is true for criminal cases.

Nightwingdragon Oct 5, 2023

Considering he openly admitted that he was going to hide his money in offshore accounts so the victims won’t get it, he’s still spouting conspiracy nonsense on infowars, and has maintained exactly the same lifestyle he had before, I’d say it went pretty well for him.

frizop Oct 5, 2023

This is what I keep telling people. If you lose in court and the effective outcome is nil, nothing really happened.

afraid_of_zombies Oct 5, 2023

Meanwhile the rest of us aren’t treated like we are drugking mafia dons for missing a hundred dollars on our tax return or bring slightly over the limit. It’s fucking pathetic, they bully downwards.

nucleative Oct 5, 2023

Usually mankind doesn’t give them a platform… but yeah of course there a lot of people who’s lives run on blaming others.

TechyDad Oct 5, 2023

He’s the whiniest. People come up to him. Big, strong men with tears in their eyes. They say “Sir, you whine more than anyone else!”

Grant_M Oct 5, 2023

I tried to give you an extra upvote for this one 😆

zeppo Oct 5, 2023

“Sir, it is very unfair how they treat you!!”
“Yes, unfair, very unfair…”

Fr❄stb☃️te Oct 5, 2023

Elon Musk kinda comes to mind, but Trump shits all over what Musk has done…

Grant_M Oct 5, 2023

So far… lol

afraid_of_zombies Oct 5, 2023

What a trainwreck of a man. He could have just let SpaceX do it’s thing and pretend he was the super tech genius behind it and be loved for life. In a way I am glad, him messing around with Twatter and Tesla keeps him distracted from breaking the one smart investment he ever made.

Mossy Feathers (She/Her)Oct 5, 2023

I don’t know if it’d be considered legal under the constitution, but someone needs to issue a blanket gag order that basically says he’s not allowed to say anything to the public, directly or indirectly, until after his trials are over. Otherwise he’s going to keep finding loopholes that allow him to get past the gag order.

Nougat Oct 5, 2023

That would be a First Amendment violation, because it would also prohibit legal speech. The only way he's not able to reach the public is if he's in jail.

IHaveTwoCows Oct 5, 2023

Nobody should ever GAf a out what “his minions” think, say, or do. They are all violant anti-American fascists.

Nightwingdragon Oct 5, 2023

The keyword there is “violent”.

If they were just rambling on on Trump’s twitter-knockoff, then I’d agree with you. But we’ve seen January 6, along with several examples of lone wolves willing to act on their own. There’s a reason why virtually everybody involved with these cases have extra security detail and why these courtrooms continually go into virtual lockdown every time new charges are brought against Trump.

They might be idiots, but their bullets do just as much damage.

IHaveTwoCows Oct 5, 2023

Yes; my point was not to be held hostage by them. (queue Twilight Zone spoiled child reference here)

Piecemakers Oct 5, 2023

Thing is… they’re gonna do what pumped up idiots always do, no matter how much reality differs from their claims. It doesn’t matter if this asshat lands in jail or at the bottom of an empty elevator shaft. They’re going to erupt in violence and need to be put down in kind.

Just, yank the fuckin’ bandaid already, get this over with, FFS. Waiting doesn’t make it better for anyone.

TechyDad Oct 5, 2023

And although there will be short-term pain with the MAGA folks committing terrorist acts in the name of Trump, long term it would hurt the movement.

Say Trump is thrown into prison for life tomorrow. Who leads the MAGA movement towards their goals? Who even tells them what their goals are? Rob DeSantis? At one point, maybe, but now it isn’t likely. Don Jr? Perhaps but he’s not his father. Vivek Ramaswamy? Maybe, but he doesn’t have the support.

The most likely outcome would be that MAGA fractures. You’d have Don Jr MAGA, DeSantis MAGA, Vivek MAGA, etc. Each MAGA group would insist that THEY are the successor to Trump MAGA and would fight amongst themselves to prove who is the true Scotsman MAGAman. The movement would be weakened as a result.

Piecemakers Oct 5, 2023

That’s also what culling “the weak” could look like. You do realize that those among us who read for comprehension, think critically, and otherwise operate at what much of the world might consider a default level of intelligence have been underestimating the whole lot of these morons from the jump, right? What say we stop doing that, hmm?

Triskadelphia Oct 5, 2023

a martyred Trump is a national nightmare.

flossdaily Oct 5, 2023

Of all the types of speech protected by the courts, none is more highly valued than political speech. So there’s no way in hell a court would try to impose blanket silence on a political candidate.

VikingHippie Oct 5, 2023

Except for the fact that his “political speech” consists of threats and slander, both of which are illegal.

There’s a (ridiculous) law excempting lies told by politicians on the floor of Congress, but no such thing for someone who’s not even in public office committing stochastic terrorism almost every day

Melllvar Oct 5, 2023

There’s a (ridiculous) law excempting lies told by politicians on the floor of Congress, but no such thing for someone who’s not even in public office committing stochastic terrorism almost every day

You mean the Constitution’s speech and debate clause?

VikingHippie Oct 5, 2023

Yes, that ridiculous exemption. If you can’t make your political point without literal slander and fraud, you shouldn’t get special treatment for making it where that kind of thing is at its most destructive to society and the population as a whole.

Melllvar Oct 5, 2023

How would you change this protection in order to address your concerns while still serving the important purpose of protecting legislators from retaliation?

VikingHippie Oct 5, 2023

I would remove it.

You still have to prove intention and that it unfairly harms or enriches someone, which means that good faith errors and differences of opinion are already legally protected just like with everyone else.

As for politicians and their supporters using unwinnable lawsuits to harass and damage their opponents, that’s what anti-SLAPP laws are for.

Tl;Dr: there’s no valid justification for letting politicians say and do what would be against the law for regular people.

Melllvar Oct 5, 2023

Historically, this protection was a necessary limit on the prosecutorial power of the executive/king.

Simply throwing it out seems like an over reaction that doesn’t take into account the actual justifications for its existence.

VikingHippie Oct 5, 2023

Historically, this protection was a necessary limit on the prosecutorial power of the executive/king.

That’s not necessary now that there’s no king and a politically independent justice department. If either of THOSE things stop being the case, we have much bigger problems than politicians not being allowed to enrich themselves and destroy each other by lying.

Simply throwing it out seems like an over reaction that doesn’t take into account the actual justifications for its existence.

Scrapping a rule that causes more harm than good in a modern country with weaponized media is just common sense.

The “actual justifications” are invalid as they don’t apply to current reality and in fact that exemption has played a big in enabling the kind of demagoguery that makes an octogenarian who entered politics before the invention of the pocket calculator and thinks the solution to police brutality is to throw money at cops by far the LEAST bad realistic option for president.

Melllvar Oct 5, 2023

That’s not necessary now that there’s no king and a politically independent justice department.

Ever hear of the Pentagon Papers?

Scrapping a rule that causes more harm than good in a modern country with weaponized media is just common sense.

In what ways does it cause more harm than good?

VikingHippie Oct 6, 2023

Ever hear of the Pentagon Papers?

Yes. Pretty typical Pentagon and presidential behaviour that should come to no surprise to anyone who’s paying attention.

In what ways does it cause more harm than good?

In what ways DOESN’T it? If I had a dollar for every American who died as a result of politics based on one or more politicians deliberate lying, I’d be able to buy the Eiffel tower. If you included every American trapped in avoidable poverty, I’d be able to put in a fair bid for all of France.

As for the protection of honest speech, everyone has that without giving the already powerful and notoriously dishonest special lie allowance privileges.

Melllvar Oct 6, 2023

Yes. Pretty typical Pentagon and presidential behaviour that should come to no surprise to anyone who’s paying attention.

…exposed by a Senator reading classified documents into the Congressional record, thus entering them into the public record and being immune from prosecution.

Also, that’s not how Americans spell “behavior” ;)

VikingHippie Oct 6, 2023

There’s already whistle-blower protections for that. Granted, the exceedingly authoritative government shits all over such laws when it’s not one of their fellow rich and/or powerful people doing it, but that’s not the fault of the law.

Melllvar Oct 6, 2023

Congress isn’t covered by whistle-blower protection laws, and such laws generally only protect disclosure to the proper authorities rather than to the public. This also ignores the case when the “proper authorities” may be the very people being reported on.

I’m still interested in knowing what actual harms you’re alleging the speech and debate clause causes. You pointed to lying, but that’s generally legal anyway and not really enabled by the S&D clause.

VikingHippie Oct 6, 2023

Willfully and maliciously lying to harm the reputation of someone else and/or to exploit others financially is called slander and fraud. Both are usually illegal and this is the last time I’ll try to get it through to you that demagogues having carte blanche to slander and defraud people took the point of passing legislation based on said fraud ans slander is a bad thing with often catastrophic consequences.

I really don’t understand how that isn’t obvious to. Unless you’ve been wasting my time arguing in bad faith this entire time, of course…

Melllvar Oct 6, 2023

Unless you’ve been wasting my time arguing in bad faith this entire time, of course…

I’m actually being sincere. Something that you clearly don’t understand or appreciate.

VikingHippie Oct 6, 2023

You’re right. I don’t understand nor appreciate how someone could fail to see the problem with some of the most powerful people in the world, the ones that shape the rules of an entire country, just being allowed to make shit up as they go along out of spite and greed.

Especially not when living in a country with only two major parties, one of which has lied their way into inspirung a global resurgence of fascism and the leadership of BOTH parties continue to pretend that a bribe isn’t a bribe unless you specifically annonce that it is!

That’s mind-boggingly obtuse and evidence of some SERIOUS propaganda and/or unearned trust in authority figures.

pixxelkick Oct 5, 2023

The question is this: Sometimes its pretty solid to issue repeated gag orders (in front of the watching jury), and everyday have to drag the defendant up and once again talk about how they violated the gag order in spirit and have to get even further sanctioned… while the whole jury sits and watches it.

Everytime it happens the jury becomes further pitted against the asshole who is wasting their time.

philomory Oct 5, 2023

Yeah but there’s no jury in the New York civil fraud case. It’s just the judge, and he’s already ruled against Trump (on the most important claim, there are others), the remaining trial is just to see what the damages will be (and to determine the status of the other claims).

pixxelkick Oct 5, 2023

Ah, thats right.

Well, in that case its extra going to be a bad hand for Trump, I guess.

Everytime the Judge extends him an olive branch to shut the fuck up and Trump proceeds to double down on his rhetoric, I imagine the Judge is bumping up the amount owed he has in his head already as the trial continues.

Like it’s absolutely wild when you have this judge as the sole delegate as to just how hard you are going to get dinged, and you decide “ah yeah lets talk shit about this person”

Thats… not going to go well at all… lol

WHYAREWEALLCAPS Oct 5, 2023

He’s likely hoping one of his nutjob followers kills the judge. It also lines up to imprison the judge if he gets back into the White House.

BluJay320 Oct 5, 2023

And then him and his lackeys cry “unfair trial”

pottedmeat7910 Oct 5, 2023

“The judge doesn’t like me” “The judge was very unfair to me.”

Now you know why.

Nightwingdragon Oct 5, 2023

It may go better than you think.

There are reports already out that the judge in this case undervalued at least some of Trump’s properties when making his fraud ruling. Now if Trump can goad him into making any kind of personal comments that even give the appearance that the judge is biased, he can use all of that on appeal in hopes of getting the whole thing thrown out.

“This judge made numerous factual errors in his original ruling of fraud, grossly undervaluing the Trump brand and the value of our properties. And during the trial, he said X, Y, and Z in response to me exercising my First Amendment rights under the Constitution. He would not allow us to file for a jury trial even though amended filings are commonplace in our court system. Therefore, we ask the appeals court to throw the entire case out entirely.”

Adjust for legalese as necessary, but that’s pretty much what Trump is going to go for. And keep in mind that, contrary to the beliefs of some, Trump’s record in these cases isn’t nearly as bad as some claim. Will it work? At worst, I’d say the chances are nonzero. But those chances significantly increase if this judge actually does anything that an appeals court rules as even slightly improper. And that’s what Trump is trying to goad this judge into.

Our system of justice is not really designed to balance the First Amendment rights of someone who is expressing an opinion or otherwise just venting frustration when that same person’s word can literally cause nationwide violence. How do you handle someone like Trump when attempting to silence, gag, or jail him could spark nationwide violence at any time and put everyone involved with the case and their families at risk, but not attempting to do so only emboldens him and causes him to make even more violent threats?

2piradians Oct 5, 2023

The judge is not in real estate, he’s a judge. He didn’t dream up figures to fry Trump. James would have gotten them from sources who are real estate experts, and at this level the sources must have been deemed independent and unbiased by the judge to use them.

As long as the case took to build, and as it all rests on these figures, the people who matter must have full confidence in them under scrutiny.

Any suggestion that the figures are flawed likely comes from Team Trump, and would be in line with their long list of dubious claims both in and out of court.

Nightwingdragon Oct 5, 2023

Any suggestion that the figures are flawed likely comes from Team Trump, and would be in line with their long list of dubious claims both in and out of court.

Actually, it’s coming from articles such as this.

Even if the judge had a good-faith reason to believe the values that he was presented with, those values being wrong could easily be enough to have the case thrown out regardless of who’s fault the error was. (This assumes that the properties were undervalued in the first place, of course).

If the arguments made in that article are accurate, it becomes a question of whether an appeals court believes that the judge jumped the gun in issuing his ruling of fraud instead of giving Trump’s legal team an opportunity to make their case that the properties were undervalued. (IMO, this should have been done anyway, as there’s no way he can make this case without admitting to even more serious tax fraud charges, as he was simultaneously under-valuing the properties himself for tax evasion purposes.)

If these property valuations really are wrong, there’s a case for an appeal here. Now add Trump’s usual spin to it and the fact that eventually the case is going to end up in front of a Trump-friendly panel of judges (even if he has to appeal all the way to the SC to get there), and you end up with a case that may be messy and incoherent because it’s Trump after all, but still a case who’s chances of being successful are still uncomfortably above zero.

2piradians Oct 5, 2023

If those arguments have merit then they’ll have to sort out the details of how much Trump overvalued his properties. As I understand it that is the purpose of the trial at this point.

The Florida-based real estate pros referenced in the article didn’t throw out any estimated values of Mar a Lago, and they didn’t suggest it hadn’t been overvalued by Trump.

The lawyer in NYC quoted seems to have little concern over the whole thing.

| Cintron, the Harrington Ocko & Monk partner, doesn’t think the Mar-a-Lago valuation controversy moves the needle on the question of whether Trump committed fraud.

| “There is enough of a pattern of this practice that he’s engaged with in respect to his properties to support Judge Engoron’s conclusions that there was an intent to defraud,” Cintron said.

Nightwingdragon Oct 5, 2023

| Cintron, the Harrington Ocko & Monk partner, doesn’t think the Mar-a-Lago valuation controversy moves the needle on the question of whether Trump committed fraud.

This I agree with. In the end, what Trump’s team is arguing is that “hey, I only committed a little fraud, not the amount they’re accusing me of!”, as if that’s all that much better.

But it does open the door enough for Trump’s team to be able to use it as a basis for appeal, especially if those incorrect estimates are tied in any way to the verdict or damages he’s going to have to pay. And unfortunately, Trump has an amazing talent of being able to kick the door in if you leave it open enough for him to even squeeze in a toe.