HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Judge questions whether G...

Fri Dec 22, 2017, 08:44 PM

Judge questions whether Gates fundraiser broke gag order

Source: AP

Former presidential adviser Rick Gates, on house arrest in the federal Russia probe, didn't even have to leave his home this week to provoke the judge handling his case.

In a brief order Friday, U.S. District Judge Amy B. Jackson summoned Gates and his lawyers to court on Dec. 27 to explain why the accused shouldn't be held in contempt for violating her gag order imposed on everyone connected with the case. Jackson wants to know why Gates appeared by video at a fundraiser for his legal defense fund.

Jackson told Gates to explain why "his reported personal participation in the creation of a fundraising video to be shown to journalists and disseminated on social media, in which, according to multiple press accounts, defendant makes reference to 'the cause' and the goal of 'ensuring that our supporters from across the United States hear our message and stand with us,' would not violate this Court's order."

It's the second time Jackson has dealt with unexpected public pronouncements by the first individuals indicted in special counsel Robert Mueller's wide-ranging criminal investigation. Earlier, she was told that Gates' co-defendant Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, had secretly co-authored a glowing commentary article that was published in an English-language newspaper in Ukraine.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-questions-whether-gates-fundraiser-broke-gag-order-162721143--politics.html

22 replies, 3008 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Judge questions whether Gates fundraiser broke gag order (Original post)
Zorro Dec 2017 OP
dhol82 Dec 2017 #1
Irish_Dem Dec 2017 #2
BumRushDaShow Dec 2017 #4
Irish_Dem Dec 2017 #5
Maraya1969 Dec 2017 #3
Botany Dec 2017 #6
SCantiGOP Dec 2017 #8
George II Dec 2017 #7
Angry Dragon Dec 2017 #9
Phoenix61 Dec 2017 #10
Cryptoad Dec 2017 #12
NBachers Dec 2017 #11
OliverQ Dec 2017 #13
MaupitiBlue Dec 2017 #14
Zorro Dec 2017 #15
MaupitiBlue Dec 2017 #16
mr_lebowski Dec 2017 #18
PSPS Dec 2017 #17
MaupitiBlue Dec 2017 #20
24601 Dec 2017 #21
MaupitiBlue Dec 2017 #22
mobeau69 Dec 2017 #19

Response to Zorro (Original post)

Fri Dec 22, 2017, 08:50 PM

1. Would the cause be spreading Vlads word?

These people are very creepy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Original post)

Fri Dec 22, 2017, 09:02 PM

2. They seem incapable of following the law and simple clear cut orders from the judge.

And also none of them seems to know how to tell the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Irish_Dem (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 22, 2017, 09:14 PM

4. They believe the law does not apply to them

because they have been breaking it for a long time without any repercussions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 22, 2017, 09:22 PM

5. They are a group of sociopaths and narcissists who believe laws are not for them,

but for other people.

I wonder if any one who works for Trump is normal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Original post)

Fri Dec 22, 2017, 09:05 PM

3. The word, incorrigible, is pertinent here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Original post)

Fri Dec 22, 2017, 09:36 PM

6. lock 'em up

Gates is the tip of the iceberg that is the biggest crime syndicate in history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 22, 2017, 10:17 PM

8. Trump was off a bit

He said we would get tired of winning.
Instead, we’re getting worn out chanting Lock Em Up.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Original post)

Fri Dec 22, 2017, 10:02 PM

7. Revoke his bail, throw him in the slammer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 22, 2017, 10:31 PM

9. I could live with that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 22, 2017, 10:32 PM

10. That sounds like an excellent idea

if he can't comply with the terms of his bail. How hard is it to keep your effing mouth shut?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 22, 2017, 11:01 PM

12. Rich Folk Justice,,,,,,,,,,,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Original post)

Fri Dec 22, 2017, 11:00 PM

11. Yeah, how many times is he going to violate the terms of his house arrest before they revoke it

and throw him in the slammer? This judge should be quite pissed by now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Original post)

Fri Dec 22, 2017, 11:09 PM

13. The Judge needs to stop being lenient with these criminals and lock them up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Original post)

Fri Dec 22, 2017, 11:16 PM

14. 1st Amendment

 

The idea of a judge ordering an accused to be silent and not speak out to tell their side of the story makes this civil libertarian nauseous.

If freedom of speech doesn't include the freedom to shout "I'm innocent!" then it doesn't seem to count for much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaupitiBlue (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 22, 2017, 11:27 PM

15. So you're fine with not complying with judicial instructions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 22, 2017, 11:37 PM

16. Not fine with the order

 

I realize the weight of authority is against me, but I don't think simply being accused of a crime should cause the 1st Amendment to go out the window.

Being punished for speaking out against what one may feel is an unfair prosecution is what I'd expect from the USSR, not the USA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaupitiBlue (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 23, 2017, 04:12 AM

18. I understand your point ... I for one don't believe that someone who gets, say ... a DUI ...

Even if it's their 10th DUI ... should be legally barred from drinking alcohol (unless they're in jail) ... because drinking alcohol is a legal act for adults in this country.

HOWEVER ... if, in order to avoid a more stringent sentence, you yourself STIPULATE, via a 'plea deal' that you are waiving that particular 'right' ... then you need to capitulate to 'the system' and do ... what you've agreed to do ... as part of said 'plea deal'.

Which I'm pretty sure is likely the case in this particular instance. The 'gag order' was agreed to by the criminal at hand .. and therefore, they've waived their '1st Amendment Right' ...

Seems pretty straight-forward. I mean, people don't get to even vote (another very basic right) in most states if they have recent (or even in some cases, ANY) felonies on their record.

To me that also friggin' sucks ... even if you've 'done your time' you're still a 'felon who can't vote'. That seems VERY f***ing wrong to me. But ... it's apparently within the law.

And TBH, I pretty much feel the same about 'sex offender registries' ... but I'm not getting into that here. We LOVE those here at DU, so ... I won't rock the boat with my personal feelings about the subject ... And no, I'm not on one, never have been, never will be. But don't agree with them in principle, unless you're on parole/probation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaupitiBlue (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 23, 2017, 12:23 AM

17. LOL. Sorry, but you don't know what the first amendment means.

The circumstances here are not within the purview of the first amendment. Don't feel bad. Many people don't really know what the first amendment means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 23, 2017, 07:29 AM

20. It isn't?

 

I'll admit we didn't cover this issue in law school, but whenever the government controls speech, the first amendment is implicated.

I wouldn't be surprised if courts hold that gag orders are permitted under strict scrutiny, but I would be surprised if any court actually held that it isn't a first amendment issue. Have a cite?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaupitiBlue (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 23, 2017, 08:16 AM

21. Of course it's a First Amendment issue. Yale Law School's Media Freedom and Information Access

Clinic has a 24 October 2017 article worth reading, "When Silence Isn’t Golden: How Gag Orders Can Evade First Amendment Protections."

https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/when-silence-isnt-golden-how-gag-orders-can-evade-first-amendment-protections

Two additional points are relevant . The 1st is that it's unclear that the gag order meets the Strict Scrutiny required for such orders, just as it is for prior restraint criteria, cite: Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), to protect crucial military information, prohibit obscenity, or to prevent inciting violence.

The 2nd is that on it's face, Gate's statement appears to comply with the order because his statement, "As you may be aware, there is a gag order on the case, so I am not able to talk specifically about the case. However, I can say that because of people like you we will have the resources to fight." appears consistent with the Judges order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 23, 2017, 01:28 PM

22. 6th Amendment

 

Also, given that this was done under the plausible guise of legal defense fund fundraising, I wonder if right to counsel arguments might apply?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaupitiBlue (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 23, 2017, 06:56 AM

19. Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread