Comments by "B Bodziak" (@B_Bodziak) on "Appeals Court Leans Toward Reimposing Trump Gag Order—At Least Partially—In Federal Election Case" video.

  1. There's definitely no need for you to even bother studying for the Bar exam.
    3
  2. ​ @marywhite3885  He made 200 case-related tweets on TS in just 4 days. That doesn't include his TV interviews and rallies. I haven't heard Jack Smith say anything before or since announcing the indictment.
    3
  3. There are 3 judges and that's how appellate court judges are. They almost always argue both sides with the attorneys from each side
    3
  4. ​ @edwardgiovannelli5191  I'd go so far as saying the defense's attorney isn't listening. He is quick to start responding to a question before the entire question has been asked!
    2
  5. ​ @TheTroopersCorner  He is one of the worst attorneys I've heard argue an appeal. Who goes into court suggesting we have a test but not be able to give even a single example. He would do well to not be so quick to respond that he interrupts the judges before they finish asking their questions.
    2
  6. ​ @theresa6640  Disbarred? You haven't listened to many appellate court hearings, I take it.
    2
  7. ​ @AnitaAdamski  He's a criminal defendant vs a civil defendant. The distinction has to be made because some laws are related to only one or two the other instead of both.
    2
  8. Maybe, we should wait until we see the evidence before determining someone's guilt OR innocence. It's innocent until proven guilty, but if someone is found guilty (or is acquitted), especially when it's by a unanimous jury, both sides need to accept the verdict.
    2
  9. One judge continues to give the defense's attorney an opportunity to provide an example, ANY example of what he's referencing, but he cannot provide one. He's claiming there needs to be a new test, but he can give no example, not even a hypothetical one, that isn't already covered by law. She's giving him far more opportunities than most appellate judges I've seen when asking the same question without receiving an actual answer.
    2
  10. You do understand that someone who is a criminal defendant loses some of their rights, whether out on bond or not, until there's a verdict in the case, right? That's how our laws are. For example, someone who has been indicted for abusing children may be banned from being within 1000 feet of a school while on pre-trial release. These conditions are agreed to by each defendant under their bond order. Defendants don't have to accept these conditions. It's purely voluntary.
    2
  11. Campaign statements don't include witness intimidation. Why does he continue to break the conditions of his bond? Anyone else would have had their bond revoked for doing it just once.
    2
  12. This is the district appellate court in DC regarding the DC trial.
    1
  13. One of the lawyers is not responding to a particular question by the female judge. (RE- His suggestion of a Clear and Present Danger Test he keeps referencing, but cannot give a single example that's not already covered by law).
    1
  14. I know He should follow the conditions of his pre-trial release.
    1
  15. Exactly. If he just abided by the conditions of his bond, this wouldn't be necessary.
    1
  16. He still cannot try to intimidate witnesses. That's a huge no-no. It's a crime, actually, and comes with mandatory prison sentences in most cases
    1
  17. ​ @jerrycarter1928 Full Stop!
    1
  18.  @jerrycarter1928  I meant to reply to the comment above yours!
    1
  19. ​ @davidlesley8884  Jack Smith is "the other side" of this case, and he hasn't said anything since announcing the indictment. In fact, he didn't say anything before the indictment, either. Just because you don't like something, it's not helpful for you to purposely present false statements as though they're factual.
    1
  20. There's a big difference between trying to intimidate witnesses and not trying to intimidate witnesses.
    1
  21. Well, Trump continues to keep Alina Habba and she got him (and herself) sanctioned for $960,000 a few months ago. He doesn't have the best decision making when it comes to picking attorneys, unless the pickings are slim.
    1
  22. This was also available on C-Span and their YT channel, as well.
    1
  23. ​ @nancycrisman7496  We shall be finding out soon.
    1
  24. There's more than one judge in district appellate courts (bar one in TX), and appellate judges usually "argue" both sides of the coin with each side's attorneys. This is no different than 98% of appellate hearings.
    1