Trump's Criminal Trail Begins Monday

Another case but you get the point:

The 11 judges from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday declined to touch the case after a three-judge panel previously upheld the gag order against Trump. There were no statements or dissents made by any of the judges.

www.cnn.com/2024/01/23/politics/gag-order-trump-appeals-court-en-banc/index.html

The concern for violation of the gag order would nothing to do with using the statements to make the Defendant look bad in front of the jury.

Its very common for Defendants going into trial to show their butts to the court. I don’t get to tell the jury about it as ammunition against the Defendant. Now if the Defendant choses to show out in front of the jury, then the jury can draw their own conclusions as to in-court-conduct that happens in front of them. But I don’t get to showcase evidence of the Defendant’s character that has happened procedurally outside of the jury’s presence and I don’t even get to comment on things the Defendant does in front of them except on the substance of his testimony and his demeanor when doing so.

Again, that has nothing to do with using allegations of violations of the gag order against him in the jury trial.

Gag orders are allowed to exist. Violations of gag orders are not allowed to be used to show the jury what bad guy the Defendant is.

We're talking about two different things, and I agree with you as there is so much other impeachable conduct that using the gag order violations in front of the jury is high risk, low reward.

My original point is that I don’t think there is validly impeachable conduct at this stage. The unrelated civil suits shouldn’t be impeachable.

Now a Defendant on the stand, by his own volition, can open the door to all sorts of “prior bad act” evidence that normally isn’t admissible. I could foresee Trump opening said doors and all of the stuff and more that the prosecution would like to put in front of the jury that simply makes Trump look bad as a human being. But the way to do that isn’t by having the judge make incorrect rulings up front. Because Trump can now say that he relied on the judge’s incorrect ruling when preparing to testify. Therefore things he will volunteer that makes the prior bad act fair game will no longer be deemed to be Trump opening the door.

This is 4-D chess. Trump is winning on the legal side already. But the upholding of the conviction is not likely the prosecution’s end-game. Its influencing the November election. Trump won’t get his conviction overturned before then.

^^^This

Aren't there consequences if you repeatedly defy the orders from a judge? Any other defendant would probably spend at least the night in jail. Special privilege for the orange one? Why?

OK, that's the reason he can say whatever he wants even though he's been told to shut up. They would have to lock up his Secret Service detachment too. Thanks for explaining why the law doesn't apply to him. I was afraid it had something to do with his complete and utter immunity.

It’s a miscarriage of law just placing a gag order on him. Just one more reason this BS charge won’t stick.

That will work so long as he isn’t in with anyone else.

in all honesty, locking Trump up would be the worst thing they could do. It would play into his political persecution complaint. For people like Trump, hitting them in the pocketbook is a better option. Fine him $1,000 per violation count every single utterance as a separate violation. 

He wants to be locked up. It plays on his schtick of being a victim and his mantra that if they can do it to me, they can do it to you. 

I like the monetary fine idea better. 

From what I have heard so far he should not testify. It’s a completely bull crap case. I don’t think it can stand up on its own. Testifying would not be necessary to destroy the entire case against him. Testifying would open up doors that need not be opened. I think it’s already falling apart.

Just my 2 cents

What doors "need not be opened"?