It was interesting for a lot of reasons. One being not watching something forces a person to concentrate on the words and voice inflections. Like the generation before me it's equivalent to sitting in a room and listening to the radio.
The first thing I noticed was Trump's attorney Dr. John Sauer (photo above) must have been a graduate from Trump's (now defunct) University's Law School and Theatre Program.
From Sauer's cadence to fraudulent arguments, it was apparent he was performing for a one-man audience.
Not only were his arguments for allowing his client to say anything about anybody during the course of a criminal trial ridiculous, but they also demonstrate what our current judicial system faces... sustained idiocy funded by wealthy MAGA donors.
Today's oral arguments revealed how difficult it was to draw a distinction between purely political campaign rhetoric and speech intended to subvert the legal process.
The three judges repeatedly corrected Sauer's assertions and schooled him on case laws repeatedly.
A death threat issued against Judge Chutkan (who is overseeing the election subversion trial) loomed large over the hearing. Two of the judges pressed Sauer on whether his client's speech can lead to real world actions by his supporters.
Sauer tried to counter with "there's an evidentiary burden here" and argued that "despite Trump's online comments on the case, prosecutors haven't come forward with a single threat that's even arguably inspired by any of his social media posts."
Wrong!
The judges quickly pushed back by bringing up the case of Abigail Jo Shry who was charged in August for making death threats against Judge Chutkan.
As Judge Millett said, "The day after (Trump) said, 'if you come for me, I'm coming for you,' the threat was issued."
In his gravelly villainous voice Sauer whined that there was no evidence of her reading or listening to social media...
So, by that reasoning Shry must have had a bad dream about killing a complete stranger who just happened to be Judge Chutkan, who just happened to be in charge of Trump's election subversion trial.
I don't think so. Apparently, the judges were skeptical too because I came away with the impression that they will allow a limited gag order to be resumed.
As it stands, a loss by either side will surely be appealed to the entire D.C. Circuit, and then up to the Supreme Court, though there's no guarantee the judges would agree to hear the dispute.
