eric76 said:

---

How much preferential treatment should someone get in the courts if they announce that they are running for President?

---

The DOJ specifically said they would not investigate the Hunter-Biden connection or any of the Biden crimes BECAUSE he was running for president and that would be tantamount to political persecution since it was Trump in office and Biden running against him.

This was AFTER the MSM and DOJ tried to bury it.

This is the precedent that was set by the other side in 2020.

You can't walk that back without it being a partisan decision designed specifically to go after Trump

It has to be the same both ways.

aggiehawg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

So should Trump and Biden get preferential treatment in a courtroom because they are or were President?

---

Under the law, yes.

---

Which law is that?

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

eric76 said:

---

So should Trump and Biden get preferential treatment in a courtroom because they are or were President?

---

irrelevant. The "threat" underlying the gag order is speculative (DOJ admitted that on the record) so the gag order is an obvious and clear prior restraint on free speech. Con law 101 and the district judge ought to be ashamed.

The two Obama and one Biden appointee at the DC Cir granting even an administrative stay are winking at the district judge to tell her to dial back the partisanship before she's on the business end of a Clarence Thomas opinion calling her out (she won't be because Roberts will vote with the majority just to prevent Thomas from authoring the majority opinion).

---

The gag order is speculative? Was it put in place just in case Trump might be inclined to say something that could influence the jury? Was he not already doing that and the judge issued the order to put a stop to it?

Ags4DaWin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

How much preferential treatment should someone get in the courts if they announce that they are running for President?

---

The DOJ specifically said they would not investigate the Hunter-Biden connection or any of the Biden crimes BECAUSE he was running for president and that would be tantamount to political persecution since it was Trump in office and Biden running against him.

This was AFTER the MSM and DOJ tried to bury it.

This is the precedent that was set by the other side in 2020.

You can't walk that back without it being a partisan decision designed specifically to go after Trump

It has to be the same both ways.

---

They should have investigated. That they didn't does not create any precedent that they will never do it.

By your logic, if the police are aware of someone committing an illegal act (such as selling drugs) and do not investigate the act, then they can never investigate anyone else for anything.

It doesn't make them look good, though.

But please tell us where this :"precedence" is written into law.