Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Trump Gagged Harder ft. Liz Dye" video.

Inciting violence is not protected speech.
66
@dlsisson1970 Let us know what you think AFTER watching the video -- which addresses ALL THREE gag orders, and their being UPHELD by appellate courts, AND addresses and refutes the Trump lawyer's LOSING argument AGAINST the gag order. Which LOSING argument they tried in more than one jurisdiction and appellate court. The reason their "argument" lost is that the law on which it was based DOES NOT APPLY. Not so by-the-way: violating a gag order is CONTEMPT. And the court response to violation of a gag order is a CONTEMPT CHARGE. Now WATCH THE VIDEO for the FIRST time.
2
@IMPOTUSx2 Be prepared for Judge Merchan to begin putting the screws to Trump in full compliance with law and in enforcing of the gag order. I've repeatedly explained how such penalties work -- and this is the reality in ALL cases: It is INCREMENTAL: first there is a warning to the defendant. If that isn't sufficient, it may go to fines -- assuming the defendant is able to pay such. If that isn't sufficient, then fines are increased, or the defendant is put in jail for a set period of time. The penalties incrementally increase up to the point at which the defendant no longer violates the gag order. There is always a BALANCING of interests: on one side the defendants right of free speech; on the other, the necessity that decorum and civility be preserved in the court for the benefit of all. Those who assert that Trump should simply be "locked up" are no different than Trump: no charges, no trial, no conviction -- just "lock up". That is unAmerican.
2
@vikingdrengenspiders7875 The prosecution is based on EVIDENCE, fool -- that is not political. By contrast, Trump consistently LOSES in court because he hasn't a legal leg to stand on so ONLY does politics -- which do not belong in court. "Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John. Grow a pair: learn to adhere to facts and law instead of repeating Trumps LIES against the rule of law.
2
@KendraEMoyer When did cops "incite violence" by means of SPEECH!? Did you actually watch the vieo!? Or are you another law-rejecting Trump brainwashee?
1
@Chihirolee3 Exactly. Those who focus exclusively on the claim that Trump is simply exercising his freedom of speech are those who attack the messenger in order to avoid and ignore the message. Trump isn't attacking the evidence; he is attacking the messenger in effort to shout down the message. Attacking the witnesses in effort to shout down their substantiated testimony. Some don't know the difference; but many Trump defenders adopt the same tactic -- instead of respecting the rights of the persons attacked -- the right not to be targeted by Trump's incitements of violence -- the falsely claim, by implication., that Trump has the right to incite death threats and violence against his critics. Our system of laws is based on a balancing interests -- Trump's right of free speech is only one interest; the other is the right not to be subjected to verbal abuse and incitements of death threats and violence. To reject that foundation is to reject the rule of law, which is indefensible.
1
That's Trump making the lawyer present his "argument" instead of them actually representing his best interests -- which is why he consistently LOSES.
1
@Grimjow88 But that isn't the situation, so there is no reason for the judge to recuse. Period. Full stop. End of reality refuting the fantasy. You PROBLEM is the same a liar Trump's: you ENTIRELY omit the need for FACTS to prove the allegation true. Trump is all lies and mouth, verbal abuse, and personal attack. NONE of that is relevant to legal process. But it DOES -- and HE KNOWS this -- incite his dupes to VIOLENCE. This is in the First Amendment -- and only ONE of the provisions in the Constitution PROHIBITING political violence: "Congress shall make no law . . . the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble." OBVIOUSLY, Congress CAN enact laws PROHIBITING, PROSECUTING, AND PUNISHING VIOLENT assembly. And it did so long ago.
1
And it appears that Trump's "bond" issue for the fraud trial is also a scam: it seems he got the bond without himself paying the institution that gave him the bond. And that institution isn't licensed to operate in New York state. And the insurer of that insurer is registered in the Cayman Islands. So that insurance institution couldn't be trusted if required to post a bond for itself. Does Trump know ANYONE that isn't Mafia?
1
WATCH THE VIDEO and LISTEN to the explanation -- perhaps THEN it won't be beyond you.
1
@j3i2i2yl7 And he isn't talking about the evidence of this case -- he is verbally abusing the witnesses, and anyone else he can lay his mouth to -- none of which has anything to do with the case or the evidence. The evidence includes the RECORDING of Trump, Cohen, and Weaselberg arranging the hush payment. Trump supporters want to stay as far away from the evidence as they can get so they can pretend with Trump that he's a "victim". Trump is a "victim" of his own criminality. And the bond issue is now being investigated, but there are peculiarities about that, beginning with the fact that the business that "posted" the bond isn't licensed to do business in New York. Apparently Trump and tat business didn't expect inquiring journalists to be all over it.
1
@mathewcole827 He isn't rich -- he's constantly robbing Peter to pay Paul. But he is losing control of his abilities as a juggler. Follow what is happening with the "bond" from the company not licensed to do business in New York.
1