Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources

Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 367 points –
Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources
abcnews.go.com
71

He'll back out. Above all things he's a coward.

Accompanied by whining “they wouldn’t let me”

Because his remarks will be "leaked" and it will be full of horrendous and inflammatory shit and probably not even be legal (I'm pretty sure there's limits on what can be said in closing statements.

from nolo:

In practice, judges give attorneys great freedom at closing, as long as the argument has some relation to the evidence presented at trial. Additionally, judges must carefully craft any restrictions on closing so that they don't deny the defendant the opportunity to discuss important considerations for the jury.

Nonetheless, there are limits to proper closing argument. When attorneys overstep them, usually a judge will simply tell the jury to disregard the improper argument. But when attorneys commit serious misconduct during closing, a judge might declare a mistrial, and if not, a court of appeal might overturn any conviction.

Arguments must be based on evidence. Most importantly, the conclusions that an attorney urges a jury to draw must be based on the evidence. Counsel cannot use the closing argument as an opportunity to refer to evidence that wasn't part of the trial. For example, an attorney can't argue that no similar crimes have been committed in the location in question since the defendant's arrest without having presented evidence to that effect.

Arguments cannot be irrelevant, confusing, or prejudicial. Judges can also prohibit or exclude arguments that are unrelated to the case, confusing, or inflammatory. For example, name-calling is generally forbidden. And asking the jury to "send a message" to other criminals by finding the defendant guilty may be improper since the focus is only whether the particular defendant on trial committed a crime. (State v. Woodard, 2013 ME 36 (2013).)

*emphasis mine.
**lots of emphasis on that last emphasis. you know why.

I don't think this trail has a jury and is purely to set damages.

I say this is it is important to the implications.

The judge basically is the jury. Well, that’s an oversimplification.

There’s still limitations on it, and all that really means is that the people/person making the decision are going to be far less tolerant of name calling and threats,

I wonder if that all applies the same way, since this is a civil trial and there is no jury.

in as far as there's limitations... sure.

I expect if he does do his own closing argument and he goes into making-threats-territory, or something, he's just gonna get muzzled.

I wonder if judges can order actual, literal ball gags for defendants who just won't shut up?

I saw a video of a judge that had to send the defendant into another courtroom, then they let him watch on TV and they would turn his mic on to answer questions and then just turn it off when he went a ramblin'.

I mean, that's effective... but imagine the memes of Trump in a ball gag... (on second thought, don't...I regret everything.)

Actually, that'd be a good set up for debates. put them in sound proof boxes so neither candidate can interfere if the mic is 'Off'. The other thing is, the mic gets sent to two channels, one of which is used to give subtitles, so we can still see the crazy.

If his lawyers were competent, they'd be telling him to STFU. Fortunately, no competent lawyer will represent him.

They might if he actually paid them.

He laid $3M up front to a very good lawyer in Georgia.

Who urged him to look for a plea deal.

And got benched, and is now chilling doing sweet fuck all and waiting out his retainer.

The judge after Trump has finished speaking.

“What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

Will that be before he releases his glorious healthcare plan and immigration deal or after? Because those have been coming in at any moment now.

It's scheduled for after he shares his tax returns

Which will be 5-7 business days after he deposits Mexico's check for building the wall.

I'll believe it when I see it.

He loves to do this little act where he puffs up his chest and claims that he's going to testify, only to back down at the last minute.

he does a lot of "intending" to be big and brave in front of "sources"

Closing arguments cannot contain commentary "about issues outside the case or about evidence that was not presented," so, yeah, I can't wait.

So it will result in a barrage of sustained objections. That's music to Trump's ears. Is this oppression? [butterfly]

Maybe his plan is to be held in contempt so he becomes a martyr and proves to his idiots that he's being silenced (though everyone else sees that he's simply not following the rules).

No, he doesn't. He always backs out at the last minute. I'll bet a tooth he doesn't even show up for closing arguments.

General Tso Chi Kin says, when your enemy is making a mistake, shut your dumb mouth you idiots.

I'm the victim of a very unfair trial and very unfair judge. A judge who I think probably has magnets, if there's one thing I know it's magnets and you put water on it - no more magnets. No but - it's true, Mexico is sending over killer magnets that hate Christians, it's so terrible, folks, the biased prosecution doesn't - I don't have to because of president. See, they don't want you to know that - it's true that many people are saying I'm the smartest fraud who ever shat himself, but I think - if you want America back, you need to buy my steaks.

Amen.

This is almost believable! You time traveler

Please do, you mush-mouthed cock. Open up your rancid maw and get that cuban heeled foot in there nice and deep.

It's all fun and games till he tries to pull a hitler and use his time in court in insite violence or another more dangerous insurrection

If he's going to "pull a Hitler" he should skip all the nonsense and move straight to the final act.

Pulling a Hitler would actually entail a conviction for a failed coup and years in prison before the grab for power.... And a shitty political book written in prison.

He's even failing in emulating Hitler the right way.

I wouldn't mind but we would never hear the end of it

It was the false flag WHO cultural Marxist deep state WEF globalist elite Antifa BLM trans MSM Hollywood!

Pretty sure that ship has already sailed.

Any legal experts in here? Can this be used as testimony for the judge/jury?

I don't know why people are acting like he won't...

This isn't taking the stand as a witness, this isn't presenting facts like a lawyer.

And his lawyers will still say everything they were gonna say anyways.

This is just trump knowing how much this will get his name out for something remotely positive. He isn't speaking to the judge, he's speaking to his followers. And this is going to bring in a shit ton of donations. He knows any sound bite is going all over national news for a day or two.

He can say whatever he wants and lie about whatever. And everyone has to listen to him, it's a captive audience of people that he believes hates him and are "witch hunting" him.

trump is gonna be a trumpet in a subway car.

First of all, he won't present facts.

Secondly, he is talking to the judge as there is no media allowed in the room.

Third, the judge can stop his blather anytime he wants to, which is the reason he won't do it.

First of all, he won’t present facts.

Never said he would, in fact I said he'd lie...

Secondly, he is talking to the judge as there is no media allowed in the room.

You legitimately haven't read a single article about what was said in court?

Third, the judge can stop his blather anytime he wants to, which is the reason he won’t do it.

And the media would be entirely about how the judge stopped him from speaking...

That'd probably be more donations than anything he could say.

He gets to have the hypothetical that whatever he was going to say would prove his innocence

He can't say whatever he wants, he has to stick to the case and what was presented

There also is a court stipulation that a fraud was committed, so he can't address that.

Do you honestly expect him to face actual consequences for breaking that rule?

Well, sort of actually. A judge's main job is to make sure that a trial is fair and everyone sticks to the rules. And they have pretty wide latitude for enforcing that. I'd be pretty surprised if Trump was able to start blathering on about Hillary or stolen elections or whatever in that setting.

Well, it's not the worst idea he's ever had.

Although, I'm really only saying that because this is the same guy that suggested nuking tornadoes, trading PR for Greenland, and drinking bleach to cure COVID.

with a bar that low, it still ranks on the list of “Worst Ideas Ever"

Could he be trying to cause some sort of mistrial or appeal on the grounds that his lawyers we incompetent for not stopping him?

Does he plan to filibuster his way out of jail? Ain't nobody got time or this fucker's rambling.

He did, and the judge saw it coming and said that Trump would have to agree on the record to stick to the same rules that lawyers have to stick to in court (ie stick to relevant facts that are in evidence). Of course he didn't agree.

The exchange between Trump's clown of a lawyer and the judge is in the thread on r/law on reddit. Worth reading because it's fucking hilarious.

I feel like this might be a setup to establish a plea of incompetent to stand trial in his insurrection trial.

Which is true, honestly. He isn't competent enough to tie his shoes without adult supervision.