Trump Rhetoric...

My Christian friends say the following:
A true Christian is humble, looks for fault in him/herself, non-judgmental, forgiving, and turns the other cheek.
The Gospels have much to say about greed, money, and riches. "No one can serve two masters"
While they would welcome Bibles and prayer and are pro-life etc., they also say politicians using fears rooted in prejudice to promote a specific
Christian ideology is frightening and alarming of authoritarianism in the name of Christianity, that is a very scary to them.
I also add it's scary also to those who are not Christian. Non Christians and Christians
(diversity within Christianity) concerned about the effects of nationalism.

 

Talking about Trump rhetoric in general. He got a new gag order set on him and then he immediately attacked the judge's daughter. This can't be earning him Brownie points with the judge. To me this just seems to be a bad plan to make the judge upset at you when about to start a trial.

The other thing I'm wondering is whether or not the judge might just put him in jail for contempt of court for violating a gag order? Some pundits have said that if it were just a common criminal doing this kind of stuff they likely would have already been jailed for contempt of court. How true is that?

 

Probably not. Most accused felons lack the public platform Trump uses. Also, Trump isn't likely to get prison time upon conviction (this time), so I would think the judge would be reluctant to send him to jail for contempt.

I suspect the judge will expand the gag order, then begin fining Trump. The key is to get Trump to stop, and Trump tends to stay within the parameters of his gag orders. Barely.

 

Expand the gag order? Sounds good. If Trump tends to stay within the parameters - then put EVERYTHING under the gag order. FOREVER. A silent Trump. How peaceful that would be.

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

If Trump did get put in jail for contempt of court couldn't it just be for a day or two?

 

I would think it would be indefinite until he apologized and promised not to do it again. But this is all hypothetical; this judge does NOT want to lock up Trump. He just wants to run a trial.

 

Contempt is a complex and clumsy device for forcing obedience. Basically, it comes in two types and two sorts. There's criminal contempt and civil contempt and each of those types can be either direct or indirect. Nice diagram but the truth is, the nature of any given contempt is rarely obvious.

Direct contempt is the result is any act contrary to the Court's order that takes place within the five senses of the judge. Indirect contempt is contempt that doesn't and must therefore be proven by a separate trial. Your rights at that trial depend on whether the contempt is civil or criminal and whether it is direct or indirect and what penalty the judge is considering.

Criminal contempt is by nature a punishment and it is a crime. Civil contempt is a means of compelling obedience and is not a crime. Both civil and criminal contempt can result in fines or jail but the civil contemnor (new legalese word for you there) can stop the penalty by complying with the Court's order. So for instance if you as the prosecutor insist on announcing to a jury panel that the defendant is guilty and that if selected they won't need any evidence to convict, that could be criminal contempt. You could be made to pay a fine or spend the week in jail. If you are liable to pay child support and you refuse to testify as to your employment, the judge might jail you until you agree to testify. That's civil contempt.

Telling the two apart gets complicated quickly. Direct criminal is probably the most common. If you start yelling during a hearing and won't quiet down I might have the sheriff take you into custody for some kind of contempt but in an hour or so I will have the sheriff bring you back into court and ask you if you are ready to behave yourself. If the answer is "yes" I'd probably just warn you and have you released rather than trying to figure out the paperwork.

Right now, I'm conducting contempt hearings as a Special Master in domestic violence cases. (I'm working on a short term contract). I take evidence and make recommendations to the assigned judge, but these are bench trials because the contempt did not occur in the courtroom.

 

I feel like we hit the jackpot with that explanation of contempt. THANK YOU!

 

Not directly related, but just seen it:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-supreme-court-weighs-trumps-050959680.html
US Supreme Court justices in Trump case lean toward some level of immunity

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled sympathy on Thursday to the argument that presidents have some immunity against criminal charges for certain actions taken in office as it heard arguments over leaving the page.

 

I guess this means Biden should start planning to take out Trump’s kneecaps soon.

 

I'd suggest Biden wait for the SCOTUS ruling. That ruling should be returned before the election. Just to make sure that his order is couched properly so that it's an official act.

 

Never too early to plan…

 

Bill,

Responsible yes, I don't dispute this.
But the attackers Hamas, Islamic Jihad with overwhelming support of Gazans are the ones who actually commited the atrocities, and firing rockets at Israelis.

Ha Arets:


The public did not pay enough attention to the fact that the group at the political and military level that failed and is directly responsible for the October 7 disaster, continues its corrupt conduct and continues to control the army and the country without a time limit.
The senior command in the IDF, which bears direct blame for the disaster, appoints the next generation of the senior command, in his image and likeness, even though some of the appointed people bear direct and comprehensive blame for the terrible failure. And if that is not enough - the senior command decides to investigate itself, So that his severe failures will not be exposed. The senior IDF and the political echelon continue to fight the war until the end in order to keep the memory of the events of October 7 away from them. They cling to the horns of the altar with all their strength and strengthen their control - for their survival.
Already today they are conducting themselves as if nothing had happened: there is no learning and application of lessons, and there are no discussions in the cabinet and the government on the formulation of a strategic policy in the field of security for the short term and the long term. They continue with the same military plans formulated before the war: buy new planes for 14 billion dollars, and neglect all other means of warfare on land. After all, in a few years the planes will not be relevant on the battlefield, because they will be replaced by unmanned aircraft and missiles. The whole world already understood this a long time ago. This is already happening in the Ukraine-Russia war and with our enemies who are fighting us. And despite this, the lesson, which is also the main lesson from the current war, is not being applied - the land army is not being increased, with the exception of establishing new units here and there, a drop in the sea.

 

I admit that if I were dealing with Defendant Trump and his antics I'd have a more than passing concern that he is mentally incapable of behaving any other way. In short, I'm starting to question his competence.

 

Lerner, I assume that you accidentally posted that in the wrong thread. I can't figure out what the first sentence means. Which public are you talking about? USA? Israel? Or? Maybe if you reposted it in the proper thread it would make more sense?

 

Woops, my error.
I thought it didn't post so I reported a similar post under Shumer tread.

 

You're just NOW questioning his competence? LOL!

I wonder whether the judge can ask for a mental health evaluation for him, and if he could ask, and did ask, whether trump and his attorney would go along with it

 

He is immune from that as well

 

Legal competence isn't a mental health diagnosis. It's a legal conclusion based in part on expert evaluation and part on how the defendant interacts with the Court and his lawyers.

In answer to your question, if the Court begins to doubt the defendant's competence, the Judge MUST suspend a criminal case and refer the defendant for evaluation.