Judge Merchan to Trump: "If you disrupt the proceedings, you can be excluded from the courtroom and committed to jail based on your conduct and the trial will continue on in your absence…do you understand?"
@Kinnison If they keep threatening, but not doing anything, that just tells him he can do whatever he likes.
1. Told not to do thing
A. Trump does thing
2. Warned that specific thing above will result in penalty (jail)
3. Judge waits for Trump to hang himself
That is how legally it works and protects it being overturned on appeal
@Kinnison Yeah. Except we've been seeing judges warn him and not do anything for how long now?
That tells Trump is that there are no consequences, so he keeps doing the things.
And the rest of us get to watch this play out repeatedly, and it gives the impression that since we'd be in jail for it, and he's not, that there is different justice for the wealthy and powerful.
He's done dozens of things during these proceedings that anyone else would have been locked up for.
Not do anything? WRONG. Judge Edrogen fined $5000 for contempt in #NYvsTRUMPORG
and every trial has gag orders
Show me an example of Civil Trial where a person was jailed for contempt during the trial. and I will agree with your last point
The current trial is a criminal trial and Trump has already been warned of disruptions could land him in jail. and there is already a contempt hearing planned
not sure what more you need
trust the process
@Kinnison Oh no. How will he afford $5,000.
Clearly, despite the terrible economic damage that did, it had no effect on his behavior.
This is not the system working.
When the system works, the person who keeps violating the laws and committing acts of contempt against the court gets locked up in jail until the trial, or until their contempt holding is over.
He is being treated differently than the rest of us would be. That is not justice functioning properly.
you literally said "[Judges] Not do anything" and i show proof you were wrong. you move the goal posts by being pedantic on one item and ignoring the others.
you still cannot show examples how he is being treated differently in Civil cases like i asked
this is not an honest discussion, you just want to argue
@Kinnison I think you're arguing in bad faith if you think that counts as doing something effective that both shows us justice is served and stops him from doing something that the rest of us would be stopped from doing.
I think what happened is you thought it was an argument, and you can't be wrong.