I think some of those consequences are on the table: mandated appearances, questioning by judge, and jail time - just like violating any court order. But there is this 1st Amendment issue

Trump has posted degrading lies about many people over the years that led to threats by some of his devoted deranged followers. This is protected free speech (I presume). But now he's in a civil court, and this apparently gives the judge some discretion to restrict that speech.

Supporters of maximal free speech (like the ACLU) defend Trump's right to disparage people, irrespective of any consequences that follow from that disparagement, and deny that involvement in a court proceeding makes any difference.

The gag order in the criminal court has different circumstances. When someone's indicted, they aren't entitled to all freedoms: they're often jailed pending trial, but usually offered the opportunity to post bail to stay out of lockup. But in this case, there can be conditions of release. I think this gives a judge in a criminal case broader discretion. Nevertheless, the ACLU still insists 1st Amendment rights "trump" judge's discretion.

It's tempting to criticize the ACLU for caring more about free speech than the risks posed to the people Trump is disparaging. But they are just defending a principle of maximal, unrestricted free speech. So it's a fair Constitutional question (IMO). But setting aside this Constitutional technicality, I think there's something inherently wrong with allowing people to be endangered by false and inflammatory public language.

I'm interested in hearing your assessment of what I just wrote, since you're a lawyer.

That is a curtailment of free speech — AmadeusD

The broad legal issue is: are any judicial gag orders constitutional? Trump isn't special.

Following up on what I said in the prior post, Trump's attorneys are appealing the gag order to the next level. They say:

""Without expedited review, [the defendants] will continue to suffer irreparable injury daily"
(https://news.yahoo.com/trump-seeks-urgent-review-gag-162355358.html)

Consider what this means: Trump is "injured" by being restricted from making false statements attacking the judge's clerk, judge's wife, and others. This is his forte, and his best path to getting elected, but I wish his supporters could make this connection.

I expect Trump supporters will continue to complain that this is infringing Trump's free speech. They apparently lament Trump's being restricted from hurling ad hominem attacks, and feel this unfairly hurts his election chances.

Great points.

I think the 2 biggest causes of the 1960s counter culture were the Viet Nam War and Civil Rights.

It's debatable about whether or not Kennedy would have jumped into the war to the extent Johnson did. He was not Johnson, but McNamara was there either way.

Civil Rights legislation may not have passed. Getting them passed was Johnson's primary positive legacy, and he utilized Kennedy's death to help push it. History would have been different..No telling how things might have evolved.

IMO, our emotional reactions to events are the product of genetics and experiences - so these feelings are still part of an algorithmic process, although unpredictable because of the hidden, internal processes of a unique organism. But the actual feelings (pain, fear, lust...) don't seem reducible to the physical- so we can't build a machine that has them.

What is the fundamental difference between information processed by a mechanical computer and a brain? — Restitutor

Feelings. These play a significant role in the choices we make. We could simulate the role of feelings in software, but neither the hardware nor software would actually experience feelings.

:cool:

People who are opposed to fossil fuels, are against a cheap, reliable, and powerful source of energy. If you take away fossil fuels it will hurt everyone economically, and essentially decrease everyone's quality of life. — Kasperanza

You're right, but only if fossil fuels were banned overnight. The best perspective is to consider projections based on the current status quo.
(See: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49876). Energy use is projected to grow substantially, and most of that growth in demand will be met with non-fossil fuels. Meanwhile, there will continue to be modest growth in the consumption of fossil fuels. Policy change could reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, without eliminating it, by increasing use of renewables. This would be gradual, and not have the negative impacts you suggest. There would be a gradual shift in workforce from the fossil fuel industry to renewable energy jobs, and at no time would there be a sudden change that displaces workers or causes energy cost to jump up.

You omitted the fact that no one was found with bombs at the riot. So the "real threat" was in fact not real. — NOS4A2

That's irrelevant to the police actions at the time. They aren't clairvoyant. There was a credible threat when the actions were taken.

The context includes much more than hypothetical threat. A good outline of events is clear from radio dispatches presented at the trial of some Proud Boys. See:

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/proud-boys/our-situation-here-is-dire-radio-dispatches-reveal-police-scrambling-as-jan-6-rioters-break-into-building/

When protesters stormed the police barriers during the Kavanaugh hearings, and tried to break into the building, they were arrested. When they broke into the Hart Senate building and protested illegally, they were arrested. When Isreal/Gaza protesters got into the Cannon House Office Building and protested there, they were arrested. That sort of enforcement is justified. What they didn't do was fire "less-than-lethal" weapons into the crowd indiscriminately. What they didn't do was shoot an unarmed woman in the neck. — NOS4A2

The other situations were different. For example, in the Kavanaugh protests there were maybe a couple hundred protesters banging on the door of the Supreme Court - they didn't break in, and the number was small enough it could be dealt with by arresting them.

It think it is appropriate to stop people from entering the capitol. Go ahead and arrest them. — NOS4A2

Here's a quote from a Capitol police officer:
"You couldn't have arrested anybody. You could not. We were surrounded. Normally in mass-arrest situation, they comply under arrest. But (the attackers had) already proven to us they wanted to beat our asses. No way arrests could have been affected at that moment. Just get these people out and survive."

Who cares about official proceedings? It's a stupid point. — NOS4A2

It's highly relevant, and it seems that's why you choose to disregard it. It was a key proceeding mandated by law, one that Trump wanted to corrupt (through Pence) or to stop (through the actions of his unthinking minions).

The whole thing was an show trial. I've said this many times. They implicated nothing but their use of public funds to spread propaganda. — NOS4A2

Propaganda? I asked you to identify some lies, and you couldn't find any. Important facts were presented. We learned about the role of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, of Rudy's lies, of Trump trying to get the acting AG to lie for him, of Eastman's unconstitutional scheme, and of Trump's pressuring Pence to illegally reject the certified results. It presented an accurate timeline showing Trump's inaction (save for condemning Pence) as the Capitol was broken into. And many more. Your only concern was the fact that there were some presumably innocent people in the crowd that got hurt, while ignoring the context that led to the use of non-lethal force, and ignoring that these innocent people were there based on lies by a man who'd sworn an oath to defend the Constitution.

You've made it clear you don't care what anyone did except for the Police.

The irony: most Trump supporters were outraged that Biden had ostensibly stolen the election. What actually occurred is that TRUMP was attempting to steal the election with lies, but when Trump does this, you think it 's insignificant. Are you disappointed he failed?

The capitol police believed their own actions were justified. Big surprise. — NOS4A2

Big surprise: you disregard it because it doesn't fit your preferred narrative. Who would you have wanted to conduct the review? Steve Bannon?

Do you suggest that the external world is an inborn (a priori) concept? — Corvus

It's not an a priori truth in the traditional sense, because its falsehood is logically possible. I'm simply saying ~solipsism is a rational belief.

They were fired upon for passing through a barricade erected by police, and for moving toward the capitol during an official proceeding. — NOS4A2

You omitted the fact that they were fired upon with non-lethal weapons to prevent their entry into the Capitol, that would jeopardize the proceding, and there was a real threat that they could have bombs. They weren't fired upon to stop them protesting.

I haven't shifted. It is wrong to use force so indiscriminately, especially when those people are only guilty of waving flags and middle fingers. Nothing has changed. — NOS4A2

Was it inappropriate to stop people from breaking into the Capitol? You have sidestepped this point. Explain how police could discriminate between those who would be harmful from those who were harmless.

I'm just making the side point that the entire year prior was filled with far worse violence and destruction, up until and including an attack on the white house — NOS4A2

Sure, worse violence and destruction, but the Capitol situation is unique in that an official proceding required by law to take place on that date was being jeopardized. You treat this as irrelevant, though it was the key point.

my only point that this footage wasn't found in the inquiries,

So you agree the J6 committee told no lies, but you would have liked them to have shown this guy who inadvertantly got hurt by police. The committee was focusing on crimes, but I agree it would have added to the story, implicating Trump's immorality even further. Had he not inflamed his followers with lies (e.g. election was stolen and certification could be prevented) and had he not encouraged them to come to the DC that day, the innocent protestors would not have been hurt. You completely ignore this.

BTW, police actions were scrutinized and deemed justified. See: Www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104829.pdf

No one is born a solpsist. We innately know (non-verbally) there exists an external world, and proceed to learn how to interact with it. Two issues arise:
1) Is there a defeater of the belief in an external world?
Answer: there is no defeater. Solipsism is merely a logical possibility, and possibility is insufficient to defeat a belief.
2) Is belief in an external world rational?
Answer: yes, because it is an undefeated properly basic belief. It is basic, because it is not grounded in other beliefs. It is "properly" basic, because it was caused by a mechanism that would necessarily produce this true belief.

Typical objection: this doesn't prove ~solipsism is true.
Response: Yes, but that's because solipsism is logically possible. See #1.

If these people were guilty of something, then they might have deserved such treatment. If they weren’t guilty of any such thing, then they didn’t deserve such treatment. Some people were simply exercising their fundamental rights. The suggestion all of the people there were doing something illegal or were associated with a potential pipe-bomber is unwarranted, as was the indiscriminate application of force. — NOS4A2

The right to protest does not confer the right to break the law. It is illegal to pass through a barricade erected by police. Everyone fired upon was guilty of that, and they were fired upon because the crowd was moving toward the Capitol, during an official proceding - a proceeding that (it was known) many in the crowd wanted to stop, and there were good reasons to suspect some might have bombs. It was the duty of police to stop the crowd from illegally entering and disrupting the proceeding.

Undoubtedly, many were just following the crowd- they didn't personally push through the barricades or personally break into the Capitol. But it was nevertheless stupid and dangerous to follow.

Recall that when violent protesters attacked the whitehouse in 2020, removing barriers and violently harming officers and secret service with bricks and urine, defacing monuments, toppling statues, and the like, the press and politicians sang a different tune.

You have shifted from an allegation the police did wrong to complaining about a perceived double standard in the media and some politicians. Violence, vandalism, and breaking&entering is wrong in all cases - do you agree? The 2020 crowd engaged in those crimes, but they did not break into the White House or disrupt an official proceeding.

they were unwarranted because it is not clear who is or is not guilty of the crimes you imply they have committed.

100% had crossed the barricades, and it is impossible for the outmanned police to distinguish the violent from the nonviolent. In 2020, tear gas cannisters were thrown into the crowd - was that also inappropriate?

What should police have done on 1/6? What do you think they would have done had they tried breaking into the White House in 2020?

I am asking about the J6 committee show trial in particular, the one tasked with investigating and informing the public on the matter. Did you see any of this video in the footage that was sewn together by the Hollywood producer, or at any time throughout the hearing?

Yes, I saw it. It wasn't a trial, it was closer to a grand jury proceeding pusuant to an indictment. I'm waiting for you to identify what lies it contained.

They’re throwing concussion grenades into the crowd of people... — NOS4A2

...who had breeched the barricades and police lines and after pipe bombs had been found. Are you suggesting the actions of these undermanned police wasn't warranted? Do you think it was a legal act to break into the Capitol?

They’re shooting less-than-lethal rounds into people’s faces.

The video appears to show one guy who took a shot to his face, presumably from police shooting from a distance. Again, were the cops unwarranted in doing so? What would you have them do, under the full context of circumstances? (A context you've ignored)?

Did you see any of this in the J6 show trial?

Are you referring to Stewart Rhodes trial? J6 committee hearings? Please explain what falsehoods came out.

We didn’t get to see any of this in the J6 inquiry, which used Hollywood producers to gin up a slick narrative, but with the release of the footage we’re finally allowed to see what they hid. Here’s some footage showing Capitol officers using indiscriminate violence against protesters, inciting violence. — NOS4A2

If the time stamp on the video is correct, these "provocations" by police officers began at 1:15PM. By then, the following had already occurred:

12:45 p.m - FBI, Capitol Police, and ATF responded to a pipe bomb that had been found outside RNC HQ,
12:49PM - Police found a vehicle that contained home-made napalm, a loaded M4, and molotov cocktails
12:53PM - the outer perimeter of barricades at the Capitol had been breached
1:03PM - 3 layers of barricades had been breached
1:07PM - A pipe bomb was found outside DNC HQ

So it looks to me like the poster of that video is still trying to rationalize his irrational denialism regarding 1/6. Not one shred of that "slick narrative" you refer to is debunked.

This case was always a longshot, but this ruling may actually set the stage for good outcome on appeal. Findings of facts from a trial are rarely overturned on appeal, and it seems to me the finding that Trump engaged in insurrection may be a finding of fact. On the other hand, interpretations of law and constitution are the typical basis for an appellate court overturning a ruling.

Michael Luttig and Laurence Tribe made this point on MSNBC this morning. They suggested this may have even been the strategy of the trial judge. (I realize MSNBC tends to tell Democrats what they want to hear, but nevertheless it's an interesting theory).

On the one hand I'd implore you tell me in your own words what was wrong with Trump's speech, but on the other hand I don't need you to because I know what you're going to say. — NOS4A2

I followed the trail back a bit, and it appears you're referring to his 1/6 speech. If so, it's a red herring. The context is relevant: Trump had been publicly proclaiming the election was stolen since the election night, which ginned up anger in his supporters - including the crazy and violent, like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys (remember Trump's callout to them during a debate: "stand back and stand by"). They took him seriously then and when he invited his angered supporters to D.C. "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" This was despite the fact he'd been told by DOJ leadership, and White House Counsel the fraud allegations were bogus.

the idea that one statement about a link proved all his claims were false is itself false — NOS4A2

No one said the link proved all the claims false. The link was offered in response to the claim Trump had just made.

Trump’s lawyer made this claim following Trump’s “I have a better link” comment:

“I will tell you. I’ve seen the tape. The full tape. So has Alex. We’ve watched it. And what we saw and what we’ve confirmed in the timing is that. They made everybody leave, we have sworn affidavits saying that. And then they began to process ballots. And our estimate is that there were roughly 18,000 ballots.” — NOS4A2

Notice the lawyer said nothing about the pertinent claim about the boxes of ballots being fraudulent. She only mentions the timing.

Gabriel Sterling gave a press conference on Jan 4, 2021 in which he walked through the allegations and discussed the fact that links to the videos were posted online.

Despite this, in his Jan 6 speech, Trump again referenced the debunked "suitcases of ballots" claim.

If there was an investigation and a report, Trump’s team had clearly not seen it and Raffensperger wasn’t offering any.

The evidence was not offered. The lawyers and Mark Meadows requested many times that the two parties meet and compare the numbers, the data, the evidence. But apparently none was forthcoming. — NOS4A2

The state, not the Federal Government, is responsible for election operations. Fraud claims were made to the State and they were investigated. Nevertheless, the FBI also investigated (see this), and confirmed there was no fraud. Barr testified that he reviewed this with Trump. Then on Dec 27, 2020, deputy AG Richard Donoghue also refuted the claims. These are relevant parts of the context.

) The president of the united states refused to look at a link to a video, and you surmise this as Trump declining to view "refuting evidence". — NOS4A2

Absolutely. Read the context. The purpose of the link was explicit - that it showed this fraud claim was false, and Trump clearly declined to see it.

What about the video refuted Trump's claim?

It showed the ballots were packed into the boxes by the election workers when they were told to end their day, and then they were told to stay and continue- so they opened them back up.

It is not a lie because you do not know whether Trump believed otherwise. — NOS4A2

Trump specifically mentioned the "ballots under the table scam" - which is the State Farm ballot boxes I discussed in #1. The fraud claim was disputed and the evidence offered, and yet Trump claimed the Secretary of state was unwilling or unable to answer questions about it. How could Trump have not remembered that exchange from the day before?

3) He either insinuated such or you are surmising, without evidence, that he did make such threats. Criminal offenses are in fact big risks. — NOS4A2

Yes, criminality carries obvious risks, and Trump explicitly said they'd broken the law:

Trump: "Well, under the law you're not allowed to give faulty election results, OK? You're not allowed to do that. And that's what you done."

My first point was: 1)Trump didn't care to see the evidence that disproved his fraud claims

From the indictment:
The Defendant raised allegations regarding the State Farm Arena video…In response, the Georgia Secretary of State refuted this: “You’re talking about the State Farm video. And I think it’s extremely unfortunate that [Giuliani]…sliced and diced that video and took it out of context.” When the Georgia Secretary of State then offered a link to a video that would disprove [Giuliani’s] claims, the Defendant responded, “I don’t care about a link, I don’t need it. I have a …much better link.

Clearly, Trump declined to see the refuting evidence. How can you disagree with what I said?

My second point: 2) Trump lied about what was said, the day after the call.
From the indictment:
The next day, on January 3, the Defendant falsely claimed that the Georgia Secretary of State had not addressed the Defendant’s allegations, publicly stating that the Georgia Secretary of State was “unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ‘ballots under table’ scam…He has no clue

How was Trump's Jan 3 statement NOT a lie, when the Secretary of State had actually responded to every claim Trump made?

My third point:3) Trump threatened the governor & Secretary of State.

From the indictment:
The Defendant said that he needed to “find” 11,780 votes, and insinuated that the Georgia Secretary of State and his Counsel could be subject to criminal prosecution if they failed to find election fraud as he demanded, stating, “And you are going to find that they are-which is totally illegal-it’s,…more illegal for you that it is for them because you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a …criminal offense…That’s a big risk to you and to your lawyer.

How is that NOT a threat?

You didn't answer my questions: do you agree with the 3 points I made, and if not- why not?

Yes.

I have responded to your three points. — NOS4A2

Your "response" was to evade the points.You had asked:

What do you infer from the Georgia phone call and why? — NOS4A2

I answered:

1)Trump didn't care to see the evidence that disproved his fraud claims. 2) Trump lied about what was said, the day after the call. 3) Trump threatened the governor & Secretary of State. — Relativist

You responded:

Trump said some things. — NOS4A2

This is the only "response" you made to my points, and it said nothing - it was neither an agreement nor dispute of the inferences I made. So I tried to prompt a real answer:

Do you agree with my points? If not, then explain why. — Relativist

And you never replied. If you won't answer, I am left with the impression you have no interest (and perhaps no ability) in having an honest discussion.

I wanted to give him a chance to be reasonable, but so far he hasn't made the effort.

We are not confident, however, that this is the case. Our investigation gathered evidence that showed that a number of those closest to the investigation believed that the standard arguably had not been met. For example, both
Supervisory Special Agent-1 and UK ALA T-1 described the predication for the investigation as "thin." Even Strzok, who both drafted and approved the Opening EC, said that "there's nothing to this, but we have to run it to ground." Strzok' s view would seem to dictate the opening of the matter as an assessment or, at most, as a preliminary investigation.

Durham fails to mention that at least a preliminary investigation had to be opened to pursue the Papadopoulous lead. He does allude to it being a judgement call as to whether or not it would be preliminary or full. Durham judged a preliminary was more appropriate (he made this judgement before his investigation); but FBI leadership made a different judgement - and it was within their right to do so. He also fails to note that it would have to be raised to full when the Steele material became available- so it's really a non- point. He also fails to note that Crossfire led to the fruitful Mueller investigation, after Trump fired Comey - for the stated purpose of ending the Russia investigation. During Mueller, Trump behaved suspiciously and obstructed justice by dangling pardons to keep people quiet (like Manafort and Stone). The investigation confirmed illegal Russian interference, the Trump campaign's receptiveness to getting the assistance, and the collusion with Julian Assange on release of the stolen DNC emails. These violated no statutes, but it was sleazy - and closer fits the definition of "cheating" than anything done in 2020. Why did Trump want Stone and Manafort to keep quiet? It's suggestive of wanting to hide something, but we'll never get an answer to that because Barr killed it.

You have not responded to the 3 points I gave you about the Georgia call. What's the problem?

John Durham’s report in combination with the IG report shows it was a hoax and an utter failure in bureaucratic competence. — NOS4A2

Wrong. Some errors were made, but the investigation was warranted. It exposed crimes, exposed corrupt activities by the Trump campaign, and hit a brick wall because of Trump's obstruction of justice.

Are you going to respond to the corrupt acts of Trump's that I referenced in my last comment to you?

I'll get there, but first- please respond to the 3 points I made (refer to paragraphs 31& 32 in the indictment). Do you agree with my points? If not, then explain why.

Here's 3 key points from the Georgia call, which seem undeniable:

1)Trump didn't care to see the evidence that disproved his fraud claims. 2) Trump lied about what was said, the day after the call. 3) Trump threatened the governor & Secretary of State.

this is something that Trump and NOS deny is possible — Fooloso4

Even if NOS believes it not possible for the judge and jury to be objective, he could, still evaluate the evidence and help assess what an objective judge/jury would decide, if it were possible. This would then be a better basis to judge whether or not the process was, or wasn't, fair - in the end.

None of us are truly objective, but it helps us be more objective when we have an honest exchange with someone with an opposing viewpoint - if they're willing to be reasonable. I'm giving him an opportunity to be reasonable.

The evidence suggests his inferences are utterly baseless. — NOS4A2

Trump's Georgia phone call, and subsequent lies about it, suggest otherwise. I brought up specific details earlier, and you ignored them. This is what I mean: you don't engage with the details of the case, but simply make general, dismissive claims.

Smith undoubtedly believes Trump knew the election was not stolen, but that's moot at this point. What matters will be the jury's evaluation of the evidence. As I said, we can try to make educated guesses of the jury result by evaluating the evidence ourselves. You've displayed no interest in doing that, and instead just respond like a conspiracy theorist saying, "prove me wrong".

I don’t know. Unlike Benkei I don’t pretend to know the future. — NOS4A2

Of course you don't "know", but most of us are trying to make an educated guess about the future. This entails trying to objectively evaluate the evidence and the laws, and (I suggest) assuming an objective judge and jury. That's what I've been hoping you would do, but you haven't really engaged directly with the evidence.

What you HAVE done is to argue that we can't "know" what's in Trump's mind, while also proclaiming what's in prosecutors' minds:

They knowingly made false accusations that Trump knowingly made false claims. — NOS4A2

[

I don’t care if God himself told him the election was legit. You, like Smith, are trying to read Trump’s mind. You in fact do not know that he knowingly made false claims. You know you don’t know because you in fact cannot read minds. You’re guessing, making it up, or being told what to believe, and I’m not sure which is worse. — NOS4A2

Personally, I'm interested in hearing a Trump supporter's perspective of the evidence. I had thought NOS4A2 might provide that. I've been disappointed so far.

There is no evidence of any crime or criminal activity — NOS4A2

. Are you therefore predicting the charges will be dismissed? If not, why not?

Before the election, Steve Bannon said Trump would declare victory before all the votes were counted. See: this

The president has the authority to fire who he wants, and for whatever reason. Zero corruption there. You have to show that he corruptly defrauded the United States or denied people their rights, all of which is piffle. — NOS4A2

The firing was secondary. He wanted them to LIE. How is that not corrupt, irrespective of the (il)legality?

In fact, Trump told a number of lies - including lying about what Mike Pence said and lying about the Georgia Secretary of State. Do you acknowledge he lied about them?

You’d have to prove he did so corruptly. Any quote or admission would suffice, given proper context. Inference by projection or conspiracy theory just doesn’t cut it. — NOS4A2

A blatant example of corruption was Trump's asking Rosen (the acting AG) to lie, and "say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congress". (This came AFTER Trump went through a litany of fraud allegations that deputy AG Donaghue refuted one by one). After the AG refused, Trump pursued replacing him with Jeffrey Clark, who had drafted a letter to be sent to State Legislatures falsely stating exactly that.

I don’t care if God himself told him the election was legit. You, like Smith, are trying to read Trump’s mind. You in fact do not know that he knowingly made false claims. You know you don’t know because you in fact cannot read minds. You’re guessing, making it up, or being told what to believe, and I’m not sure which is worse — NOS4A2

Prosecution doesn't require the certainty of mind-reading, it merely requires establishing corrupt intent based on evidence. I presented some of the evidence, and you ignored it - labeling all of it "political speech". Perpetrating a fraud is not protected political speech. Asking the acting AG (who clearly knew the election wasn't stolen) to lie entails fraud. If Trump truly believed the election was stolen, it reflects a truly reckless disregard for the truth. The 2 counts of conspiracy to disrupt an official proceeding do not depend on Trump's knowing there was no fraud. By Jan 6, there was no legal recourse even if there actually had been fraud.