3 ms·

checks he is still not in jail after that "IF YOU COME AFTER ME I COME AFTER YOU" tweet.

anigbrowl 3y ago
Because it's vague and no protective order had been entered at the time it was composed. It could be interpreted to mean anything about anyone anytime. I agree that it was a veiled threat, but consider the court's prompt and decisive response to the protective order request before going into snark mode. To be sure, Trump's own counsel adheres to an entirely different standard than that which they seek for their client, arguing in one brief that a meme tweet of a smug Joe Biden sipping coffee and saying he likes his dark was evidence that the current administration is out to get the defendant.
- ncallaway 3y ago
  > no protective order had been entered at the time it was composed This is mixing up different things. The protective order is about disclosing information obtained from discovery provided by the prosecution. No one is arguing that the tweet above was contempt of court for violating the protective order. As you note, it was written before the protective order was in place, but also obviously before they obtained discovery from the prosecution. So he was incapable of leaking anything from the discovery at that point in time. The complaint about witness tampering or intimidation doesn’t stem from the protective order. Rather, it was a condition of his release after the arraignment, which did happen before that tweet. Witness intimidation is actually a violation of federal statute (18 USC S 1512), so is _always_ not allowed, regardless of the timing of any instructions or orders from the judge.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  And the fact that its one Tweet with no specific target or concrete threat without any additional evidence supporting it being witness tampering that has yet been offered (usually, it would be the prosecution that would seek bail revocation, if the conditions are violated, and the judge would hold a hearing for evidence, etc., if necessary.) Its not specific, and directed at a particular witness the way SBF’s actions were, you'd need some kind of more extended pattern or additional evidence to meet the probable cause threshold.

Because it's vague and no protective order had been entered at the time it was composed. It could be interpreted to mean anything about anyone anytime. I agree that it was a veiled threat, but consider the court's prompt and decisive response to the protective order request before going into snark mode. To be sure, Trump's own counsel adheres to an entirely different standard than that which they seek for their client, arguing in one brief that a meme tweet of a smug Joe Biden sipping coffee and saying he likes his dark was evidence that the current administration is out to get the defendant.

ncallaway 3y ago
> no protective order had been entered at the time it was composed This is mixing up different things. The protective order is about disclosing information obtained from discovery provided by the prosecution. No one is arguing that the tweet above was contempt of court for violating the protective order. As you note, it was written before the protective order was in place, but also obviously before they obtained discovery from the prosecution. So he was incapable of leaking anything from the discovery at that point in time. The complaint about witness tampering or intimidation doesn’t stem from the protective order. Rather, it was a condition of his release after the arraignment, which did happen before that tweet. Witness intimidation is actually a violation of federal statute (18 USC S 1512), so is _always_ not allowed, regardless of the timing of any instructions or orders from the judge.
dragonwriter 3y ago
And the fact that its one Tweet with no specific target or concrete threat without any additional evidence supporting it being witness tampering that has yet been offered (usually, it would be the prosecution that would seek bail revocation, if the conditions are violated, and the judge would hold a hearing for evidence, etc., if necessary.) Its not specific, and directed at a particular witness the way SBF’s actions were, you'd need some kind of more extended pattern or additional evidence to meet the probable cause threshold.