It doesn't seem odd to the normies that they are trying to stop the person being charged from presenting proof that they're innocent? Shouldn't that scream bogus charges?
Bullshit on it being about "protecting witnesses". They know that Trump is getting huge gains in popularity because of these sham indictments. They are trying to mitigate that by preventing Trump from taking about it with the public.
I agree, I was not supporting the courts reasoning, just clarifying why they are trying to silence the discovery for the general populace, that was their excuse for doing so.
This would fly in the face of having a public trial, where court reporters would be present. What are they going to do? Search the reporters for notes, or forbid recordings? (Odd, if the trial would be on camera.) Whether or not there may be "precedent," I think this stands out as suppression of the defense. Since when has evidence been made secret to the disadvantage of the defense? Since when has the identity of witnesses been secret?---inasmuch as the defendant has the right to challenge witnesses in trial.
I think they should refuse to do it on the basis of Constitutional protection of the rights of the accused and the right of free speech---and let them all be sent to prison to stop the trial. That would get public notice. "Your honor, we decline to follow this request. It violates our client's rights under the Constitution. What are you going to do? Throw us all in jail?"
hopefully there are some that can " seem " or " feel " or " sense " for themselves anymore, because a lot of them certainly can't ponder things on their own.
It doesn't seem odd to the normies that they are trying to stop the person being charged from presenting proof that they're innocent? Shouldn't that scream bogus charges?
I don’t think normies are even aware of details like this, MSM certainly doesn’t cover that part.
I think they are fine with presenting it to the court, they do not want him disclosing to the public, to protect witnesses, is my understanding of it.
Bullshit on it being about "protecting witnesses". They know that Trump is getting huge gains in popularity because of these sham indictments. They are trying to mitigate that by preventing Trump from taking about it with the public.
I agree, I was not supporting the courts reasoning, just clarifying why they are trying to silence the discovery for the general populace, that was their excuse for doing so.
Muh National Securitayyy.
Muh Sources n' Methods.
Faggot loser liars.
This would fly in the face of having a public trial, where court reporters would be present. What are they going to do? Search the reporters for notes, or forbid recordings? (Odd, if the trial would be on camera.) Whether or not there may be "precedent," I think this stands out as suppression of the defense. Since when has evidence been made secret to the disadvantage of the defense? Since when has the identity of witnesses been secret?---inasmuch as the defendant has the right to challenge witnesses in trial.
I think they should refuse to do it on the basis of Constitutional protection of the rights of the accused and the right of free speech---and let them all be sent to prison to stop the trial. That would get public notice. "Your honor, we decline to follow this request. It violates our client's rights under the Constitution. What are you going to do? Throw us all in jail?"
hopefully there are some that can " seem " or " feel " or " sense " for themselves anymore, because a lot of them certainly can't ponder things on their own.