If he continues this conduct the judge will issue a gag order and if Trump persists, hold him in contempt.
New York literally had to change the law so that this trial came to pass.
LOL!
NYS created a Brand NEW law that overlooks ALL statutes of limitations....so going back about 30 years...is okay....just for this once.
Should probably wash the dress every once in a while
The “women must always be believed” clowns are at the DUmpster website.
Again, DJT can’t shut up.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law….you know.
And then the more general axiom, “better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt”.
This is another politically motivated case being paid for by Trump's political enemies.
You would allow a nut job with fantasies about rape to air her case publicly to condemn Trump in the court of public opinion but not allow trump to defend himself publicly against her crazy accusations CNN pushed in a televised interview?
I personally have had enough of this one-sided lawfare and two-tiered system of justice. Until everyone is held to the same standard, I see nothing wrong with what Trump is doing, she made it public first and relished in it.
The Judge is the one in contempt.
The issue is clearly stale and politically motivated. The plaintiff had generations to say something and didn’t.
Case should have been thrown out long ago. Kaplan is the political opportunist here, not Trump.
Has Kaplan brought in Reid Hoffman? He’s the real “plaintiff”. Carroll is just a strawman.
Sham case, Sham judge.
Trump has to be careful with this. I’m sure she’s lying, but Trump had met Carroll socially on at least one other occasion, so tweeting “I don’t know her” isn’t true. That could be excluded from the trial, but if it’s allowed it hurts his case. Yet another time when tweeting makes trouble for Donald Trump.
Gag orders are supposed to be used tp protect citizens against the government.
I'll put you down as one who doesn't like the first amendment.
Does ANYONE believe they already snagged his DNA from the Mara Lago Raid (or a multitude of other places), and that DNA of Trump was found on her dress? Unless there’s semen stains, the DNA could have been (and probably was) PLANTED, or, incidental brushing against the material proves NOTHING other than being there in proximity. HOWEVER, with the NY Jury, he has no chance of a Fair Trial, anyway. (ALL of this charade in NY on Trump is merely to provide talking points to their Media Arm, and try to keep Trump off the Ballot.
This is another Russia farce.
I wonder which government traitor or doctor will provide the DNA FROM Trump to be placed on the testing of the dress.
The “Trump” exception to every norm, law, and regulation is getting a bit old.
Notice how the left has the First Amendment right to say what they wish, but Trump and anyone on the right is held to a different standard? It is like that on every damn issue!
The media can lie non-stop and make up accusations against Trump with no accountability. But if a conservative makes a slight spelling error, it’s off to the gulag for you. And lets not get into the difference in the way the January 6th defendants are treated.
People are going to get pissed enough that our nation’s split is going to be deadly.
He is a nightmare client.
Well for him to be trying to influence the jury, they would have to have a log on to that social network, right? Otherwise it sounds like it’s a judge’s fantasy
‘Your client is basically endeavoring to speak to his public, but more troublesome, to the jury in this case,” Kaplan said.’
a) The 1st Amendment guarantees Trump’s right to speak to the public, so big whup
b) If the judge doesn’t want the jury to be reading social media posts about the trial, then it’s the judge’s responsibility to take measures to prevent the jury from doing so. It’s not Trump’s, or the rest of society’s responsibility to not speak about the trial while it is going on.
Changing a law to charge someone after the fact and bring him to trial is called an “Ex Post Facto” law which is unconstitutional.
There are two clauses in the U.S. Constitution which prohibit this outrage.