Pretty sure there's a gag order on this shit

I think we all know who the ranting and raving lunatic actually is.

Donald Trump tested the boundaries of a gag order imposed by a judge overseeing his New York fraud trial by sharing an article that appears to show the home address of New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The former president was prohibited earlier this month from commenting publicly about court staffers by state Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron after Trump disparaged a clerk on Truth Social, but MeidasTouch Network noticed he shared a post by right-wing activist Laura Loomer that appeared to expose the attorney general's home address.

James is not a court staffer and the court order did not refer to her directly – but as the person who filed the lawsuit against Trump and her associate, she is a central player.

  Raw Story

Personally, I think he wants someone to (at least threaten to) jail him.  Think of all the money he could fundraise off of that.  He's already said he's "willing to go to jail" FOR YOU, of course.  What a selfless martyr.

A little explanation about having that jury trial he claims he's been cheated out of...

The Seventh Amendment protects the right to a jury trial in civil cases involving large cash damages, but New York State precedent holds that disgorgement is equitable.

[Judge Arthur] Engoron remarked that "in any event, the remedies sought are all equitable in nature, mandating that the trial be a bench trial, one that a judge alone decides." Trump's attorney Alina Habba thanked the judge later in the proceedings for making that comment.

  The Messenger

That's because she was taking a lot of heat for not having requested a jury.

Trump's spokesperson emphasized their view that a jury trial was never on the table.

"The Attorney General filed this case under a consumer protection statute that denies the right to a jury," the spokesperson told The Messenger. "It is unfortunate that a jury won't be able to hear how absurd the merits of this case are and conclude no wrongdoing ever happened."

Technically, I guess, he can legitimately complain about not having a jury, if there was the possibility of filing the case under another statute.

...To be continued...