• ccunning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    5 months ago

    There is no reason to keep the order in place for witnesses, for example.

    I’d argue there is plenty of reason to keep it in place for witnesses until all appeals have played out…

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      As I understand it, though, the point of the gag order was to prevent the witnesses from being intimidated before their testimony. The trial is over, and there will be no more testimony. So a gag order on them is no longer necessary to protect the integrity of the trial process.

      • ccunning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        5 months ago

        The trial is over, and there will be no more testimony

        I see - I assumed wrongly they would need to testify again in a retrial if an appeal was won.

        Wasn’t there also talk of declaring a mistrial at some point? Would they testify again in that case?

        • Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          Not to mention retaliation; I would fear for my life if I was a witness and my name was made public for this case, ever.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        a gag order on them is no longer necessary to protect the integrity of the trial process.

        But still necessary to minimize the risk of his crazed cult following violently targeting the witnesses he continues to demonize.

        Upholding that protection is ESPECIALLY important when it comes to a widely viewed event such as a presidential debate.