316

Court limits Trump social media use (thehill.com)

submitted 10 months ago by BagOfHammers@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 67 points 10 months ago

I feel like they’re intentionally giving him a wide berth, so that when he inevitably violates the court-imposed restriction, the judge can turn around and say “look, I gave him as much consideration as I reasonably could, and he still violated the court’s orders, so I have no choice but to exercise punitive action”.

I positively cannot wait for the inevitable violation and consequent punitive action.

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 44 points 10 months ago

I positively cannot wait for the inevitable violation and consequent punitive action.

Strange way of saying "and the courts doing exactly nothing about it."

No judge is going to be willing to endure the shitstorm that would be associated with putting him in jail until the trial, and Trump isn't going to shut up until they do. So expect a lot of the legal equivalent of "I'm going to count to three......"

And expect the results to be the same.

[-] snooggums@kbin.social 8 points 10 months ago

You will be waiting indefinitely. When has he ever been punished for his antics? Why would that change now?

[-] Elderos@lemmings.world 3 points 10 months ago

Because of the criminal charges?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 65 points 10 months ago

Didn't go far enough. He shouldn't be allowed to post a thing. That's worse than house arrest to him at this point.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago

That would border too close to government censorship, though. I hate this guy's posts as mixhtas the next person, but full restriction should apply if he keeps breaching previous agreements only.

Having said that, I hope he does breach this one.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 47 points 10 months ago

They didn't let Kevin Mitnick use a computer for years. They can do the same to Trump.

[-] treefrog@lemm.ee 12 points 10 months ago

When and if he's convicted.

If the judge goes to far before he's convicted the right is going to scream about first amendment rights.

I'm sure they're already screaming about it tbh. But they'd have more ammunition if the judge limits him before he's convicted.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago

I'm tired of this walking on eggshells bullshit. They can scream whatever they like. It's the judge's discretion. Their "ammunition" is useless.

Trump is a danger on social media. He has used it to get his fans to threaten and attack people and foment insurrection. He needs to be banned from using it before he does it again.

[-] inquisitor1965@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago

I do too, but so many R moves are designed to eventually escalate appeals to the cherry picked SCOTUS. Fucking scum, IMO

[-] Encode1307@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

But it's not the judges discretion to violate First Amendment rights.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago

They're going to scream anyway, if they aren't already. Who gives a shit what they think anymore?

[-] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Well we better not hurt the feelings of the people who are perpetuating all of this, that would be mean.

[-] Pips@lemmy.film 8 points 10 months ago

Kevin Mitnick was convicted. Trump is not yet convicted.

[-] BagOfHammers@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

R.I.P.

[-] keeb420@kbin.social 10 points 10 months ago

if he cant be trusted not to break the law he should be in custody.

[-] snooggums@kbin.social 7 points 10 months ago

Since he has breached previous agreements already I think we are to the taking away all his electronics step.

Or we would in a just society.

[-] keeb420@kbin.social 7 points 10 months ago

or maybe he could be held in custody if he cant not break the law. like you or i would be if we were intimidating witnesses and judges.

[-] Neato@kbin.social 33 points 10 months ago

Fulton County Superior Judge Scott McAfee signed the order banning Trump from contacting his codefendants or witnesses in the case, except through their attorneys. It also bans the former president from intimidating codefendants or witnesses in the case, including through posts on social media.

I thought witness tampering and jury intimidation were already crimes...

[-] nl_the_shadow@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Gotta ELI5 for this guy.

[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 27 points 10 months ago

3...2...1...and he breaches the restrictions.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago

And now for the enforcement!

... Infinity... Infinity minus one... Infinity minus two...

[-] bazus1@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Waaait, infinity minus two is still infinity.

Oh.

[-] Eufalconimorph@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 10 months ago

But (for the non-limit ordinal infinities only) it's a different infinity.

[-] expatriado@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago

like parenting a 12 y.o. at this point

[-] baronvonj@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

At best it's more like a ~9 year old, as he speaks at a 4th grade level. My boys are twelve and they're much more capable of being reasoned with than Trump is.

[-] Navarian@lemm.ee 19 points 10 months ago

How remote are the chances that this stops him even slightly from spouting absolute nonsense into the void?

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

He'll shut up until he's goaded into giving an answer. And by goaded I mean "mildly questioned in any way". Then he'll violate the court order and probably confess to about 37 new crimes in the process.

Should take about 2 days. Max.

EDIT: He's got that interview with Tucker Carlson coming up. I don't know what the over/under is for how many crimes he'll confess to during that interview, but whatever that number is, I'm taking the over. And I have a better shot at getting blown by the entire Dallas Cowboys cheerleading squad in alphabetical order than him walking out of that interview without violating the court order at least once.

[-] rbhfd@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

The interview is prerecorded.

Not doing the Republican debate is probably partly not to incriminate himself further. Either by confessing to crimes, or committing more crimes by violating the court ordered restrictions (like jury intimidation).

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Do you honestly think those dimwits are going to be smart enough to edit out anything incriminating? This is Trump we're talking about. The easiest way to edit out anything Trump says is to just cut Trump out of the interview entirely and replace him with a cardboard cutout.

And him not doing the debates is one of those situations where his personal goals just happen to line up with legitimate campaign advice. The man is up 40+ points in the polls, and showing no signs of slowing down. Showing up to the debates would do exactly nothing for him except make him an even bigger target than he already is, along with the legal jeopardy of confessing to crimes live on stage. Any campaign advisor worth a damn would advise him to avoid the debates like the plague even if he was squeaky clean. There's no reason to put yourself at risk of being caught up in a gaffe or some kind of "gotcha" moment when you already have an insurmountable lead.

[-] HWK_290@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

What are the chances I blink in the next 10 seconds?

[-] bazus1@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

This popcorn is so frickin’ good

[-] RooRLoord420@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Who has "pending contempt charge" on their bingo card?

[-] mookulator@mander.xyz 9 points 10 months ago

Yeah, this time he will actually demonstrate restraint 🙄

[-] dwalin@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Lets hope he doesnt

[-] BioDriver@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

They need precedent to do anything beyond that. And Trump will give it to them within the next 24 hours.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 8 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

A judge on Monday limited former President Trump’s social media use in connection to the an indictment in Georgia that charged him with 13 counts related to his and his allies’ efforts to overturn the 2020 election in the state.

Fulton County Superior Judge Scott McAfee signed the order banning Trump from contacting his codefendants or witnesses in the case, except through their attorneys.

“The Defendant shall perform no act to intimidate any person known to him or her to be a codefendant or witness in this case or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice,” the order says.

This is not the first time the former president has been warned to limit his social media use and public statements in one of his ongoing legal battles.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s federal 2020 election case, warned both sides of the case to take “special care” to avoid making any statements that could intimidate witnesses or prejudice the jury pool earlier this month.

The former president and 18 others were charged last week in Fulton County, Ga., for their actions related to alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election in the state.

The original article contains 326 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 40%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago

He should be in jail and all they made him do is lower screen time?

[-] ScrollinMyDayAway@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago

It's like taking a phone away from a child as punishment, but the kid throws a screaming tantrum so you give it back to them.

[-] havokdj@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Loooooool

Uncle Sam basically grounded this motherfucker.

[-] xc2215x@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Good move by the court.

[-] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

The only thing funny he ever said on Twitter was the Diet Coke thing, it's all complaints and nonsense other than that.

So, no big loss there.

this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023

316 points (98.2% liked)

politics

18075 readers

3804 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News