359
Trump 'Rehearsed' His Unhinged Fraud Trial Rant for Days Before the Judge Shut Him Up
(www.rollingstone.com)
this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
359 points (97.9% liked)
politics
19223 readers
3085 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea about what the answer to this question will be, but can anybody who is familiar with New York law tell me if there is any good legal reason why Engoron didn't immediately shut that shit down and hit him with contempt of court and the $50,000 fine he warned Trump's lawyers would follow if he burst into a tirade? Because I absolutely detest the idea that he just let that fat orange idiot vent his spleen for a few minutes because of political pressure.
My guess (also not a lawyer) is to render the verdict as appeal proof as possible. If he wasn't allowed to speak, he would have claimed that his rights were violated and if he had been allowed to give the closing remarks himself, he would have been found totally Innocent.
Engoron let him talk relatively briefly, cut him off when it was clear he wasn't staying on topic, and closed off this appeal argument.
This 100%. Trump's whole playbook is to delay the inevitable. It's clear he's just pushing everything until he has the Republican nomination, and then it doesn't matter what happens, he'll be considered too big to fail by Republicans, and get as much protection as he can from them.
You’re probably right but it still pisses me off. No one else gets to pull that shit. Defendants that want to be heard in court can take the stand and all the risks that come with cross examination.
Would that even be a concern, though? I mean, it's my understanding that the judge has already ruled in this case, and this was just about establishing penalties, right?
He would file an appeal that would surely fail. But it would delay payment of the fine.
I mean, let's be real here. Trump's 100% going to file an appeal no matter what Engoron does.
It's not a question of if, but how many.
And how much traction they get, or if they’re even heard at all.
There's a few considerations why he's being handled with kid gloves compared to anyone else:
Ok, but like... the first two points you raised have nothing to do with the legal system and are just about metagaming and cowardice. And the third... Judge Engoron has already determined that Trump is liable in this case, like a couple of months ago. So this is just about figuring out the punishment. And as long as he doesn't give some outrageously absurd fine or penalty, then this won't really have an impact on an appeal. The appeal would be for the original decision finding him guilty of engaging in fraud. So I'm not sure what actual legal reason he'd have for treating him with kid gloves here. I mean, Trump's going to appeal one way or the other, and he's well within his rights to hit him with contempt of court. Hell, he even said as much to Trump's lawyers the other day in an email exchange where he said if Trump does what he just did, he'd hit him with a $50,000 fine.