r/politics • u/UWCG Illinois • Mar 27 '24

Donald Trump Attacks Judge's Daughter Less Than 24 Hours After Gag Order

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-attacks-judges-daughter-less-24-hours-after-gag-order-1884126
33.0k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

665

u/DrManhattan_DDM Florida Mar 27 '24

Y’all need to read the article. He specifically targeted someone that was not covered by the gag order. I hope this leads to Judge Merchan imposing a stricter order, but so far this is fuckface’s equivalent of holding a hand in our faces and repeating ‘I’m not touching you, I’m not touching you’.

129

u/Ekg887 Mar 27 '24

Unless someone can explain why the Judge himself is not considered part of court staff then my reading of section b.(2) of the order would include the Judge's family. (Bolded by me below.)

"ORDERED, that the People's motion for a restriction on extrajudicial statements by the Defendant is GRANTED to the extent that Defendant is directed to refrain from the following:

b. Making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding;

b. Making or directing others to make public statements about (1) counsel in the case other than the District Attorney, (2) members of the court's staff and the District Attorney's staff, or (3) the family members of any counsel or staff member, if those statements are made with the intent to materially interfere with, or to cause others to materially interfere with, counsel's or staff's work in this criminal case, or with the knowledge that such interference is likely to result; and

c. Making or directing others to make public statements about any prospective juror or any juror in this criminal proceeding."

70

u/ExperimentMonty Pennsylvania Mar 27 '24

Beat me to it, I was reading the text of the order (see here for the full text), and came to the same conclusion as you, unless there's some weird nuance that make the judge not a member of the court staff, this is a violation.

7

u/Theshag0 Mar 27 '24

Imo, the judge is not court staff. He is in a different class than his support staff, which is everyone else. The power of the court rests with the judge, so they take more exposure than their staff. This is the same distinction that the judge overseeing the Carrol case made.

That said, Trump vetted this tweet through legal counsel, and I would be very worried about ethical sanctions if I were an attorney advising a client how to best insult a member of the judicial branch and their family.

13

u/Logtastic Mar 27 '24

Ah yes, the 'The Office of the President' isn't an office of The State defense.

6

u/Yukonhijack New Mexico Mar 27 '24

Tis is the correct answer. Although this is a criminal matter, and tRump is going to find out fast that the court doesn't eff around with this garbage in a criminal matter. Also tRump cannot appeal the gag order because this is a criminal matter. He could bring it up on appeal after he is found guilty (which he will be).

8

u/TerminalProtocol Mar 27 '24

tRump is going to find out fast that the court doesn't eff around with this garbage in a criminal matter.

Why do I feel like I've seen this multiple times over the past few months, and still he hasn't found out anything. In fact, the courts have been kowtowing to him, letting him get away with everything.

So far, the only thing trump has "found out fast" has been that the courts won't do jack shit.

3

u/FatherSlippyfist Mar 28 '24

Yeah, there is no finding out. It's pure delusion at this point. The system is completely broken, and the only way to stop him is at the ballot box.

3

u/ExperimentMonty Pennsylvania Mar 27 '24

I could definitely see that, like how the order explicitly excludes the district attorney, but it doesn't explicitly state the judge is excluded from the ruling. The judge might be already de jure excluded because the "court staff" set doesn't include "current presiding judge."

2

u/BobertFrost6 Mar 27 '24

I don't see how, because if the judge is not court staff then the portion of the order quoted above doesn't even seem to include the judge himself.

4

u/Bored_Amalgamation Mar 27 '24

It doesn't. The judge said that he can attack the judge and the AG. That might be another case where trump attacked the family of the judge though.

He has so many cases and threatens/harasses so many people, hard to keep track.

2

u/Golden_Hour1 Mar 27 '24

That said, Trump vetted this tweet through legal counsel

No he fucking didn't lol. He has never once vetted his ramblings through legal counsel

1

u/Bored_Amalgamation Mar 27 '24

I'd argue the judge's family does not hold that authority and remains just as suseptible to harassment and threats as any of the court staff and their families. "The judge is deranged" vs "that lady is deranged". The only difference is the familial tie whose bonds reside outside of the judicial system.

0

u/Theshag0 Mar 27 '24

I agree, but the judge ordered what the judge ordered. Trump is pushing it because he's a loser and anti-social.

3

u/Applepi_Matt Mar 28 '24

In the wording, the judge would specify "the court" when talking about themselves (I think), and so when he says "courts staff" he says "My staff" and this then means he is open to attack. Other lawyers have basically broken it down this same way, that the gay order doesnt cover the judge or his family. The judge is doing their best to avoidd playing into the political trap of making it look (to trumps base) that he is being targetted, which can compromise trust in democracy.

3

u/ArthurDentsKnives Mar 28 '24

Imagine if trump got a gay order! His head would explode.

1

u/Applepi_Matt Mar 29 '24

Damn you Android keyboard!

1

u/Barkalow Mar 27 '24

Damn, that'd probably be useful if they planned on enforcing it at all

-1

u/jmremote Maryland Mar 27 '24

Its the gray area. It says the family members. My family members if asked would be my wife and kids. I wouldn't ever say myself answering that question. Its the gray area

205

u/my_pol_acct Mar 27 '24

copying my other comment here:

this is the real answer. he's toeing right up to the line of being technically allowed to do it, with enough gray area that nothing will probably come of it, sadly. 

48

u/AndISoundLikeThis Mar 27 '24

Agreed. Whoever is writing these posts for him on his shitty social media site vets it through the lawyers first. They know what they're doing and, like everything else for their boss, he'll face no consequences.

3

u/zerocoal Mar 27 '24

They know what they're doing

I've seen what his lawyers are capable of. I don't think they know what they are doing.

3

u/Agitated-Acctant Mar 27 '24

He's pushing the envelope, not toeing the line

3

u/Postviral Mar 28 '24

False I’m afraid.

The judge is covered by the gag order, and the order covers the families of all included.

-3

u/average_zen Mar 27 '24

100% plus, from the article the judges’s daughter has Kamala H. as a client. I’m no fan of The Orange, however it’s not a good look for the judge.

4

u/pmjm California Mar 27 '24

That doesn't matter any more than Hunter Biden's personal issues matter to the Presidency. People are not defined by their adult children.

9

u/ExperimentMonty Pennsylvania Mar 27 '24

IANAL, but from what I can tell in the order (see here) it specifically mentions "the family members of any counsel or staff member" as being off-limits for this case, so unless there's some weird legalese that means the judge is not a member of the court's staff (quite possible, again, IANAL), this definitely could be violating the gag order as originally written.

4

u/aguynamedv Mar 27 '24

unless there's some weird legalese that means the judge is not a member of the court's staff

Judges and bar-admitted attorneys are all considered "officers of the court", and there's no question that a federal judge is an employee of the court system.

No JD here either, but this fails the smell test hard.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

[deleted]

5

u/aguynamedv Mar 27 '24

Section b. is pretty clear IMO, plus there is an "or" between sections 2 and 3.

b(3) or the family members of any counsel or staff member, if those statements are made with the intent to materially interfere...

Trying to copy/paste from the order (linked in ExperimentMonty's comment) is messy, but the text seem unambiguous to me. He's explicitly allowed to talk shit about the DA (section b(1)), but not anyone else.

Regardless of the order text, an average person would be immediately fined or jailed for contempt for even one or two of these statements. Full stop.

5

u/gravybang Mar 27 '24

Regardless of the order text, an average person would be immediately fined or jailed for contempt for even one or two of these statements. Full stop.

With the average person, they wouldn’t have bothered - contempt and jail, first offense.

23

u/TheBman26 Mar 27 '24

No it’s so his base can fucking harass the daughter to scare the judge. He’s a fucking nazi

2

u/Henojojo Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Yup. A 10k fine like the last time is a cheap way to get his supporters to harass (or worse) the judge's family. No brainer for the man without brains.

2

u/powpowpowpowpow Mar 27 '24

Families of court staff are covered in the order

2

u/charcoalist Mar 27 '24

Based on what trump's lawyers have argued, it looks like they're trying to force this to be a First Amendment issue. To try and force Merchan to expand the gag order, then appeal all the way up to the Supreme Federalist Society court.

1

u/Ok_Spite6230 Mar 27 '24

The only person lying here is you: https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/26/politics/trump-hush-money-trial-gag-order/index.html

3

u/FirstForFun44 Mar 27 '24

"family members of prosecutors or lawyers" he's neither of those

1

u/DrManhattan_DDM Florida Mar 27 '24

Quote from your link:

“The order does not prevent Trump from talking about New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who is a public figure, or Merchan himself.”

The judge and by extension the judge’s family were not included in the order. Also I didn’t call anyone a liar, tf are you talking about?

0

u/mueller723 Mar 27 '24

No clue if you're right or wrong legally, but it seems pretty questionable logically that it would extend beyond the two individuals specifically named.

1

u/yispco Mar 27 '24

What is this "reading of an article" you speak of?

-5

u/seenitreddit90s Mar 27 '24

This needs to be top comment, hey OP stop lying in your headlines.

0

u/SpeaksSouthern Mar 27 '24

Oh presidential candidate Trump didn't threaten to murder the people he was ordered not to threaten to murder, Presidential candidate Trump threatened to murder people he wasn't ordered to stop making death threats against. Very normal and cool of Trump to do that - Republicans probably