May 21, 2024
Share this post!

NBC News CNN Live updates

Incidentally, Trump has spent most of his court free days without public campaign events

Trump is apparently afraid of going to jail, so he got a bunch of his Republican stooges to come in and do his witness tampering for him outside the courtroom, including hilarious, Mike Johnson, who decided instead of pretending to be a moral christian, he would go defend a rapist who had sex with other women, including a porn star, behind his wife’s back. What a guy!

Also, Snoozy Don

For several minutes, Trump appeared to be sleeping in his seat as Blanche continued to conduct his cross-examination of Cohen. Trump was motionless, his head hanging down.

His lawyer Susan Necheles, who sat two seats away from him with an empty seat between them, appeared to attempt — unsuccessfully — to get his attention. Failing to do so, she moved into the empty seat between them, at which point Trump appeared to awaken.

Necheles then whispered in Trump’s ear before moving back to her original seat.

This made me laugh

Judge admonished Trump lawyer after first cross-examination question

Ginger GibsonSenior Washington Editor

Reporting from Washington, D.C.

Moments after Todd Blanche’s first question to Cohen, the prosecution objected and Judge Juan Merchan called the lawyers to his bench.

“Mr. Cohen, my name is Todd Blanche,” Blanche had said to Cohen and then added, “You went on TikTok and called me a ‘crying little s—.’”

Merchan started the meeting, known as a sidebar that is recorded by the court reporter and included in the transcript but not audible to the rest of the courtroom, by asking Blanche, “Why are you making this about yourself?”

Blanche tried to argue he was attempting to show Cohen was biased.

“It doesn’t matter if he has bias towards you; it doesn’t matter,” Merchan said. “The issue is whether he has bias towards the defendant.”

He added, “Just don’t make it about yourself.”

Liz Cheney ‘Surprised’ by Mike Johnson’s Latest Move

“Have to admit I’m surprised that @SpeakerJohnson wants to be in the ‘I cheated on my wife with a porn star’ club. I guess he’s not that concerned with teaching morality to our young people after all,” Cheney wrote.

Trump appealed his gag order, because he wanted to say anything he wanted, including ugliness and threats, to the witnesses. DENIED PDF

Petitioner brings this petition because he disagrees with where the circuit court
drew the line in balancing the competing considerations of his First Amendment rights
to free expression and the effective functioning of the judicial, prosecutorial and defense
processes (id. at 1027-1028, citing Landmark Communications v Virginia, 435 US 829
[1978]). Weighing these concerns, the circuit court ultimately concluded that, given the
record, the court had “a duty to act proactively to prevent the creation of an atmosphere
of fear or intimidation aimed at preventing trial participants and staff from performing
their functions within the trial process”
(Trump, 88 F4th at 1014). This Court adopts the
reasoning in the circuit court’s Federal Restraining Order Decision.
The Federal Restraining Order Decision properly found that the order was
necessary under the circumstances, holding that “Trump’s documented pattern of
speech and its demonstrated real-time, real-world consequences pose a significant and
imminent threat to the functioning of the criminal trial process” (id. at 1012). First, the
circuit court concluded that petitioner’s directed statements at potential witnesses
concerning their participation in the criminal proceeding posed a significant and
imminent threat to their willingness to participate fully and candidly, and that courts
have a duty to shield witnesses from influences that could affect their testimony and
undermine the integrity of the trial process
(id.; see also Sheppard v Maxwell, 384 US
333, 359 [1966]). Justice Merchan properly determined that petitioner’s public
statements posed a significant threat to the integrity of the testimony of witnesses and
potential witnesses in this case as well.
The constitutional objections that petitioner lodges against the Restraining
Order’s restrictions on his statements relating to Mr. Colangelo and Ms. Merchan are
unavailing. Notably, petitioner does not argue that the Restraining Order has impinged
upon his Sixth Amendment rights, or that he is unable to receive a fair trial because of
the Restraining Order.
Instead, he argues that the restriction of his statements relating
to any real or perceived impropriety posed by Mr. Colangelo’s and Ms. Merchan’s
actions and employment history restrict his ability to engage in protected political
speech and may have some adverse impact on his campaign. We find that Justice
Merchan properly weighed petitioner’s First Amendment Rights against the court’s
historical commitment to ensuring the fair administration of justice in criminal cases,

Leave a Reply