The Judge has admonished Trump not to try to influence jurors. Does that essentially stop him from campaigning in the DC area?

There is nothing wrong with Trump that a couple of yards of heavy duty duct tape couldn’t cure.

I was wondering if that is common language a judge tells all defendants standing trial? The new made it sound like the judge felt compelled to tell Trump that warning, like the judge finds him in some more likely to try to influence jurors.

To answer your question, I don’t see how it can prevent him from campaigning. The jurors need to avoid Trump and news about Trump as much as humanly possible. They were probably instructed that they have a responsibility not to listen to hype about the trial or anything else related.

@JLeslie There is currently no jury. Telling Trump not to try to influence a jury that doesn’t exist yet must mean potential jurors.

@filmfann Got it. I see your point now. It still might be standard warnings though. I haven’t been watching much, because I really don’t care to see the 24/7 about it.

NO…he sees it as a challenge to see how many different ways he can influence as many jurors as possible!!!

For candidates who aren’t indicted, campaigning generally doesn’t need to involve talking about their own criminal cases.

In theory, if Trump had any self-control, he could still campaign without saying anything relevant to a jury.

Isn’t influencing the jury the whole point of having a trial? Unless the judge meant not to make promises of what he would do if he is acquitted.

@LostInParadise Teh implication is that he shouldn’ttry to influence a juror outside of the courtroom.

And here’s the answer to @JLeslie about it’s been a standard warning. Apparently, it is not:

After Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya read the counts against him, Trump entered a plea of not guilty on all four charges. The judge warned him that one of the conditions of his release was that he must not commit new crimes. Then she added to that standard warning an unusual one, warning him that any attempts to influence a juror would be a crime.

@LostInParadise “Isn’t influencing the jury the whole point of having a trial?”
– NO!
– The point of a trial, is to serve justice. In a criminal trial, it’s to determine guilt of innocence of the accusations.
– While each side in a trial may want to influence the jury, there are rules about how that happens, so that the trial can justly serve its purpose. Those rules include that the accused is not allowed to testify without being subject to cross-examination.
– Another such rule is that the jury should be selected from peers who aren’t already unduly influenced outside the trial, and that’s what the judge’s proscription was about.

Is there a link for the original question?

@seawulf575 I don’t know what your’e asking. I qouted what the judge admonished him with in my post above.

@janbb I’m looking for an article that gives the story, not just a snippet of it. What you listed, if that is all that this question is about, would leave me to believe the judge is a nut job. That warning to not have “attempts to influence a juror” is vague to the point of being ridiculous. AND it is biased since she did not give the same warning to the prosecution. Because let’s be honest, if he says to a crowd “They are on a witch hunt, I’ve done nothing wrong” then he could be accused of trying to influence a juror. Likewise, if the prosecution says to the press “We have some very serious charges that we are looking at” they could also be seen as trying to influence the jurors.

But the devil is in the details. So really, a link from the OP to a site that has the exact exchange he is trying to discuss would be appreciated.

@seawulf575 You tend to universally reject the sources we cite as too liberal, so why ask? We’re all using the same internet, I am guessing you could find some.

For the same reason I will leave it up to you to defend his “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I AM COMING AFTER YOU” post on Truth Social.

Unless, of course, you want to deny that he would lack the resources and the means to identify prosecutors, jurors, and any others that might be part of pursuing a conviction, then releasing that information to his legion of devotées who would happily threaten and hurt them and their families.

And please, the whole “protected free speech” thing was not designed to protect the likely instigators of the kind of actions that harm innocent citizens.

Ack! Typo! I meant to say “declare” instead of “deny”. Ugh

@canidmajor The point is, I CAN look these things up, but when I come up with a different answer than the echo chamber has, I start getting blasted for links. I provide them and all I get are deflections about the sources and how you need “reliable” sources. So I’m asking the OP for the sources. Let him/her post them, I can read them, follow stories to base sources and then make an informed decision.

As for a Truth Social post, I am not part of Truth Social. But if I were, I’d be willing to bet that quote was just part of what was in the conversation and likely just a piece of the post he made. It seems awfully imprecise as to who would be going after him or anything. It might be evil or it might be okay. We’ve had this discussion before where you all want to give a pass to Democrats that make similar statements (or worse) and defend their rights to free speech to the end. Sorry…you all set the rules., I’m just playing by them.

Given the contents of your first paragraph, I can’t figure out why you are here. You don’t like what we post, you say that we won’t like what you post, and unless you are naïve beyond all reasonable believability, you can’t honestly believe you will change our minds, so basically it is just about you bashing us and us bashing you with no hope of ever reaching a middle ground. And yet you keep posting on these political threads with opinions that you must realize we will never agree with.

There’s a whole thing about repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different outcome…

@canidmajor Why I’m here is not in line with the question. Maybe you shouldn’t try derailing this thread.

So flag and move on.

@seawulf575 That’s what psychologists call deflection.

@Hawaii_Jake Even the students? :-D

@Hawaii_Jake Asking for a citation so we are all looking at the same thing is a deflection? Or calling out another jelly that was deflecting? I guess suggesting we get back to the question is a deflection now. Darn! There I go again.