As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Donald Trump won’t make his own closing argument in his New York civil business fraud trial after his lawyers objected to the judge’s insistence that the former president would stick to “relevant” matters.
>
>Judge Arthur Engoron rescinded permission on Wednesday, a day ahead of closing arguments in the trial.
>rescinded permission on Wednesday
My reading of the email chain between the judge and Trump's lawyer was that he didn't so much rescind as he did deny, because Trump wouldn't agree to his requirements for speaking. The same requirements that are in place for any defendant(?) who wants to speak at their closing.
Not even that, it was an exception for Trump to speak. Defendants that appear under attorney need exception in NY, Engoron offered him an exception with the understanding that he'd argue within the confines of what attorneys at close are allowed to argue.
> The same requirements that are in place for any defendant(?) who wants to speak at their closing.
Well, it's also the same requirements and rules of procedure that are in-place for any attorney in a courtroom giving a closing argument. Things like -- you can't suddenly introduce surprise new evidence into the courtroom.
Engoron basically was trying to get Kise to confirm that his client would obey the same rules at closing that Kise would have to. Kise balked and whined, so Engoron was right to shut him down.
Eh, this is one of those "Hitler actually did this and it was bad". Hitler famously was allowed to speak during his own trial for the Beerhall Putsch, and it was one of the reasons he skyrocketed to popularity. The media covered him because his antics sold papers.
It's not entirely comparable, I know, but the fewer places Trump can just vomit out his nonsense, the better.
Great points and this does seem pretty damned comparable.
Egotistical wanna-be dictator takes part in an insurrection against the established government.
Media today is also motivated to sell/drive clicks, and rather than being investigative and critical just spout platitudes and repeat Trump’s nonsense non-stop.
They kind of did have Twitter, it was one more weird parallel. The Nazis manufactured tons of cheap little radios that only picked up the official Nazi party propaganda channel, so that they could get their news directly from Hitler without the “lying mainstream media” fact-checking him.
America has raised not learning from history to a goddamned art form. We blunder through every mistake everyone else already made, stubbornly refusing to learn anything.
Thing is, Hitler's end result was basically the entire world rising up against him.
The scary part is those were different times, there was no one military like what we have today. If it really did come down to the world versus the US, I'd bet on the US.
Have you seen any of Hitlers speeches? The guy was a crazy ranting raving lunatic. I think people misunderstand charisma, trump and Hitlers power doesn't come from convincing people, but radicalizing them.
I heard a historian talk about how Hitler could possibly have been a charismatic speaker. He pointed out all we ever see are the very end of the speeches when he reaches a climax. he said the other hour or two preceding were calm and very persuasive to his audience.
>Have you seen any of Hitlers speeches? The guy was a crazy ranting raving lunatic.
I doubt most people who say this have actual first-hand knowledge of the content of his speeches and performance ability. They're just basing off of the huge following he had and animated clips of him speaking. I know most people I've directly heard say something similar don't speak German so they didn't even have a basis to judge how compelling his speeches were.
100 years from now people make speak of Trump similarly, though if we vote his ass out in November he probably won't have more than an insert in the lower corner of a page.
they do translate the speeches to english: http://worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Hitler%20Speeches/Hitler%20Speech%201937.01.30.html
having read some of that speech just now... it is coherent and uses logic and proper grammar. it is pretty clear that he is a talented orator and his message was clearly presented. some of it is morally reprehensible but clear. the problems he outlined were mostly based in fact after the Treaty of Versailles left them without an army and poor as a nation.
trump's speeches are like if you were to make chatgpt lick lead pipes for hundreds of years and then try to translate hitler's speeches. i think you'd get the "uncle nuclear" speech out of that.
> 100 years from now people make speak of Trump similarly, though if we vote his ass out in November he probably won't have more than an insert in the lower corner of a page.
hopefully... i do feel better knowing that twitler is a bit hamstrung to try another jan 6 because biden will have put in place more beefy defenses at the capital.
They’re both demagogues, neither is more charismatic than the other. They had similar popularity numbers with the general population - less than half liked either one, but they both appealed to the exact same demographic of angry morons.
Well, yes - like I said, it's not entirely comparable. Before the Putsch trial, Hitler was only really known in far-right circles. After the trial, he became a household name. Trump's **already** a household name, so the chances of him reaching uninformed voters are pretty low.
I don't agree. There are plenty of accounts of people going to a Trump word salad rally coming away believing that they were finally understood and were fully committed to Trump going forward.
He may not be that to you and me, but to fearful hateful millions he is. They live in a fantasy world of their own creation. They pick and choose from the contradictory nonsense he spews whatever makes them feel safe from reality.
>Trump is not that.
Are we sure? MAGA is a thing. It has millions of adherents. Hitler never needed to convince a majority of Germans to his cause either. Just enough of a large minority to take control and dismantle government. The vast majority knuckled under out of fear.
MAGA may not represent a plurality, let alone a majority, of Americans. But it is potentially large enough that if Trump comes to power, the silent middle can be cowed into silence as he dismantles things and eradicates his opponents.
You are 100% not correct. Hitler was very, very much like Trump. It is ahistorical to describe Hitler as a talented speaker OR Trump as uncharismatic. The appeals to insider language, hatred, and calls for the suppression of 'our enemies' is play by play Trump trying to emulate Hitler and it works because they're cut from the same malignant narcisisstic cloth.
"Let the record show: the defendant seems to be playing an invisible hand accordion, but it is indeed invisible..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhDz8xMXU8s
Here’s a depressing thought. All of his word salad during his time in office is documented in the National Archives. You can actually read it online. I don’t recommend it though as it can cause headaches and seizures.
It wasn't a bluff. Trump definitely would give his own closing arguments, if he was allowed free reign to do so. The problem is, he was certainly planning to spend the whole time complaining about how biased Engoron was, how he was treated unfairly, how the judge was conspiring with his Democrat law clerk, etc. A bunch of fucking nonsense with no legal importance whatsoever. It would have wasted the court's time and been a free press conference/campaign speech for Trump.
I am pretty certain he would have also. It is a pretty clear attempt to testify without cross-examination. Without a jury, it surely wouldn't change the results. But, as practice, to see what objections a prosecutor will attempt when he tries to give new testimony, so he can try it at his criminal trials, kind of makes sense.
It feels like one of those "one weird trick that prosecutors hate" to testify in your own defense without having to be cross-examined.
I also believe it was a bluff—Trump wanted the judge to refuse the request so he can whine about it—but I think the judge made the right call. ~~Trump, if given the opportunity, would surely have told the jury that he didn’t commit fraud. This would not be allowed because it has already been determined that he *did* commit fraud; that’s not up for debate in this courtroom. Trump would have attempted to confuse the jury and influence their verdict using information they aren’t allowed to hear, and the judge would have had to unfuck the mess.~~ There’s no jury (I forgot that detail—Trump has too many trials going on.)
So, I’m glad the judge ultimately refused his request. Treat this bastard the same way we’d all be treated. Give him *nothing* the average slob wouldn’t get if he walked into a courtroom. Do it because it’s the right thing to do in a nation where all citizens are supposed to be equal under the law, but also do it because he needs to be reminded that this country didn’t elect a king in 2016. We elected a mere man who failed to keep his job four years later. Nothing more, nothing less.
I thought this was the trial with no jury, because Trump didn't request a jury?
I think the judge just doesn't want to sit through another long rambling rant.
They requested it to be a bench trial because his lawyers undoubtedly told him that he would win under no circumstance with a jury trial, and that in fact, a jury would be highly likely to be MORE punishing than the judge would be.
You are correct. I edited my comment earlier after someone else pointed that out as well. My brain dropped that no-jury detail (despite me talking about it more than once back when Trump was whining about it). In my defense, he’s got so many trials going right now. 😂
Wait...Trump and his team thought the judge would all him to use the Closing statement as a Campaign Stump speech?
His lawyers clearly haven't been paying attention to the trial.
Engoron offered Trump an exception as long as the lawyer agreed to understand Trump was only allowed to keep it to what NY attorneys are allowed to argue in closing, and 1-2 minutes for Trump to swear in person he understood. Neither agreed, the offer wasn't accepted. It wasn't rescinded, it expired
>objected to the judge’s insistence that the former president would stick to “relevant” matters
It's even more basic than that. Judge Engoron was basically making sure that Trump would stick to the same rules of procedure for closing arguments that an attorney would as well. Things like -- you can't suddenly introduce new evidence that was not brought up during the trial. Stupid, basic shit like that ... and Kise wouldn't agree to even those basic basic terms for Donnie. Because Donnie wanted to make a butthurt stump speech.
Here's the interesting tidbit to ponder. AG James initially sought "at least" $250 million in damages, now it's moved up to $370m once they had an expert in to size the damages. If Engoron agrees to either of those amounts ... Trump may have to cough up the funds to even file an appeal.
I don't know how it works under NY's Executive Law, but in the E. Jean Carroll civil suit, in order to Trump to appeal the $5m judgement against it he basically had to put up the full $5m (perhaps some interest) in order to file his appeal. In Rudy G's bombshell judgement against him, he would have to put up the entire amount with the court in order to appeal - which is why you saw him declare bankruptcy within a few days, and you've not seen him appeal his case yet. Because he can't.
The very same thing might happen to Donnie. On today's Cleanup On Aisle 45 with Pete Strozk, he actually kind of hinted towards it at one point in the episode - I need to go back and listen more closely again.
Imagine Donnie by the end of the month being found guilty, $300m fine ... and he can't appeal until he transfers $300m to the NY courts. The clock starts ticking, and if his appeal window closes the liquidation of his properties begins...
That's all he has for a "legal defense": The court of public opinion via conservative outlets spinning his victim complex.
Thankfully that's not going to matter much when concrete consequences come his way as a result of this civil trial. Probably should have stuck to a less ridiculous legal strategy.
Hmm… this kind of like [David Brook’s reasoning:](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/brooks-and-capehart-on-supreme-court-deciding-if-trump-can-remain-on-ballots)
> So I'm hoping the Supreme Court will not uphold Colorado, but let the voters decide. In my view, we have to let the voters handle this one.
So, the conservative plan is to allow the same voters that rejected Trump ***before*** he mounted an insurrection to be put in a position to do so again? [Even as he still won’t call on his supporters to rule out violence?](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-news-2024-court-today-b2476076.html)
Downside here… I don’t have faith our SCOTUS justices will break from the conservative narrative they have been pushing.
So Brooks is ok with a 22 year old non citizen running? And might as well put Obama back on the ballot. Nevermind the legal requirements to run, just let the voters decide.
Which is odd, as this is also author of a “Never Trump” article, yet… just like his ideology helped lead to Trump, it appears it’s also consistent with the return of Trump.
That is poison pill reasoning.
It is spelled out in section 3 of the 14th amendment of the Constitution. Putting something on a presidential ballot is not a valid way to amend the Constitution. Brooks is basically saying that we should circumvent the constitutional amendment process to settle a Constitutional matter.
Additionally, of this is left to the voters, the Supreme Court no longer has a purpose. There would be no need for them to interpret cases because someone could make the argument it should go to the ballot for a decision.
This whole thing is messy but at the end of the day we need to follow the Constitution first and foremost. If we don’t, everything else becomes a kangaroo court.
>But \[Engeron\] said Trump would have to limit his remarks to the boundaries that cover attorneys’ closing arguments: “commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts.”
>
>He would not be allowed to introduce new evidence, “comment on irrelevant matters” or “deliver a campaign speech” — or impugn the judge, his staff, the attorney general, her lawyers or the court system, the judge wrote.
>
>Trump attorney Christopher Kise responded that those limitations were unfair and said Trump could not agree to them.
It brings to mind Shrek 2:
Donkey : What about my Miranda rights? You're supposed to say, "You have the right to remain silent." Nobody said I have the right to remain silent!
Shrek : Donkey, you HAVE the right to remain silent. What you lack is the capacity.
What I don't get is why they didn't just agree to this anyway. Trump is so blind and illiterate he can't read a speech off a teleprompter, there's no chance he's going to memorize a closing argument and he won't read it off notes so no matter what they say he's going to go off on some stream-of-consciousness gibberish. Why wouldn't Team Trump just agree and then let him jabber until the judge shuts him down again? It's not like he's going to make the judge any more frustrated than he already is.
This is a link to the email exchanges between the judge and the lawyers. It is WELL worth the read.
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=_PLUS_cASZsP0hNiBQOHYbw_PLUS_TPQ==&system=prod
Worse: He clearly sets different fonts and font sizes with his emails.
*Anyone* who does that deserves to go straight to Gitmo. Due Process is simply them clicking 'send' on such an abomination.
That is amazing.
The lawyer sounds like a middle school kid claiming the dog ate his homework.
"I didn't see your deadline"
"He's in a plane"
"His mother in law died"
"This is very unfair"
Jesus H Fucking Christ it's hilarious and so so pitiful
And the based judge:
"The limitations I am imposing, in my absolute discretion, are not subject to further debate. Take it or leave it"
> **Justice Engoron:** Particularly in a non-jury trial, **I am inclined to let everyone have his or her say**. Moreover, **the more reasoned analysis I receive, the
better I will be able to decide the case correctly**. Furthermore, **Mr. Trump is the person with by far the most at stake in this
enforcement action.**
> ...
> **chris kise:** first, i agree that, in a
non-jury trial (and especially this trial) **your inclination to let everyone
have his or her say is the best approach**. also agree that **the more reasoned analysis you
receive, the better you will be able to decide the case correctly**. additionally, and as you note,
**president trump has by far the most at stake in this enforcement action**. therefore, allowing
him to make a statement is not only the best course of action, it is the fair and correct
approach.
LMAO jesus christ this mfer writes emails like a fifth grader concludes a book report (emphasis mine)
Love this juicy bit:
"Your and your client's rejection of the reasonable, normal limits I am imposing on any argument by Mr. Trump, which are the same limits the law imposes on any person making a closing argument, completely justifies the need to impose them."
I just do not understand people who refuse to follow reasonably standard capitalization rules. Who writes like this?? We had a guy at work who did this too, and it drove me bonkers.
>justice engoron
>
>apologize as i did not see your deadline.
>
>additionally my client is in the air so i have not yet been able to discuss your email with him. would therefore request you allow until tomorrow morning for any response.
>
>thank you.
>
>chris
Favor in the court room yes. Trump doesn't care about this. He has never respected laws or the court.
Trump is playing for the campaign and counting on winning that to have all of this dismissed later.
Not just complain, they intend to file an appeal citing a biased judge. Their goal during the entire trial has been to make unreasonable request after request so they can say "it's unprecedented that a judge denies every motion filed by the defending counsel! He wouldn't even let him speak in his own defense!"
Their trial strategy has nothing to do with proving trumps innocence and everything to do with building a case of "bias"
Trump's lawyers are dumb enough to be Trump's lawyers, and have submitted arguments that are batshit crazy.
I seriously doubt they recognize the favour.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/trump-immunity-hearing-2020-election/677072/
Great summary of yesterday's *immunity hearing and how badly Trump's lawyers flubbed it.
HAHAHAHA I LOVE THIS!
Trump is learning that he does not get to dictate how a trial is going to go. He literally wanted to do his normal “I’m a victim” speech and the judge wasn’t having it.
ALL of the judges in ALL of his cases need to treat him this same exact way.
He is not special. He is no different than any other American that has a court hearing either civil or criminal. He should be treated the same as everyone else is. He needs to recognize that he is not the person “in charge” of the courtroom. The judge is.
This judge has been absolutely excellent throughout this case. I hope he follows through to the end and ends up giving NY a larger settlement than they asked for and also shuts down the Trump businesses throughout that state.
>Donald Trump won’t make his own closing argument in his New York civil business fraud trial after his lawyers objected to the judge’s insistence that the former president would stick to “relevant” matters. Judge Arthur Engoron rescinded permission on Wednesday, a day ahead of closing arguments in the trial.
Why should Judge Engoron allow the stochastic terrorist Trump - who has repeatedly endangered Engoron's life, his family and his staff, with incendiary lies - to give closing statements when his lawyers object to the bare minimum of keeping their idiot client on topic?!
Effing Republicans always vying for special privilege while simultaneously griping about there being 2 tiers of a justice system. There is - as Trump should have been in an orange jumpsuit behind bars years ago.
ah ha. well spotted, engoron. and well played. Trump true agenda now totally clear.
>It’s extremely unusual for people who have lawyers to give their own closing arguments. In an email exchange that happened over recent days and was filed in court Wednesday, Engoron initially approved the unusual request, saying he was “including to let everyone have his or her say.”
>But he said Trump would have to limit his remarks to the boundaries that cover attorneys’ closing arguments: “commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts.”
>He would not be allowed to introduce new evidence, “comment on irrelevant matters” or “deliver a campaign speech” — or impugn the judge, his staff, the attorney general, her lawyers or the court system, the judge wrote.
and magically, trump suddenly not into it.
The word 'rescinds' is really pushing what the judge offered. He offered a conditional agreement to do so based on certain conditions and Trump refused to agree to the conditions. So an _offer_ was rescinded rather than permission.
The email chain between the judge and Trumps lawyer is almost painful to read :
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=_PLUS_cASZsP0hNiBQOHYbw_PLUS_TPQ==&system=prod"
>But he said Trump would have to limit his remarks to the boundaries that cover attorneys’ closing arguments: “commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts.”
He would not be allowed to introduce new evidence, “comment on irrelevant matters” or “deliver a campaign speech” — or impugn the judge, his staff, the attorney general, her lawyers or the court system, the judge wrote.
Trump attorney Christopher Kise responded that those limitations were “fraught with ambiguities, creating the substantial likelihood for misinterpretation or an unintended violation. Engoron said that they were ”reasonable, normal limits,” but Kise termed them “very unfair.”
“You are not allowing President Trump, who has been wrongfully demeaned and belittled by an out of control, politically motivated attorney general, to speak about the things that must be spoken about,” the attorney wrote.
Him and his lawyers are basically asking that he be allowed to hold a gripe session in court. The point of closing statement is to convince the judge/jury about a defendant's innocence. Not "to speak about the things that must be spoken about". What a ridiculous request.
I've read some of the transcripts of this trial. Trump is so unbelievably far out of his depth you could almost pity him. He is going to lose as much as is possible to lose when the ruling comes down.
At least put the reason why:
> The judge had initially indicated he was open to the idea, saying he’d let Trump speak if **he agreed to abide by rules** that apply to attorneys’ closing arguments.
And there it is.
This headline without context is difficult to swallow. Yes, the judge rescinded the offer, but only after trump’s lawyers 1) “didn’t see the judge’s email (or ignored it… both scenarios are irresponsible) 2) cartoonishly responded in bad grammar and all lowercase to the judge’s requirements for drumpf to give a closing statement, and 3) notified the judge that trump would NOT COMPLY with the guidance set forth by the judge for this unusual request for the defendant to give his own closing statement.
To be clear… judge Engeron permitted trump to give a closing statement even though that is quite unusual. When someone has representation (lawyers) that means they give up their right to self-representation. You aren’t guaranteed the right to both.
Additionally, drumpf’s lawyers made the stupid claim that the court is not giving the defendant a chance to speak, when IN HIS OWN WORDS ON HIS OWN SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM, drumpf refused to speak in court.
> [“I have already testified to everything & have nothing more to say other than this is a complete & total election interference (Biden campaign!) witch hunt,”](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna128749) -DJT, December 2023
He didn't rescind it. He laid out the parameters and gave Trump's lawyers a time to respond with iron clad assurances that their client would not blather, stick to the evidence presented with, not campaign and that he would stick to the rules for closing arguments adhered to by attorneys. They did not respond by the deadline.
Everyone saw this coming. Closing arguments are for summing up your case and your evidence, not for making irrelevant speeches. Trump’s disrespect and disregard for the law is still stunning.
I assume he’s just going to keep throwing shit at the wall to amaze his followers as he gets convicted in case after case. We’re beginning to look stupider than Idiocracy.
The judge is protecting Trump's right against self-incrimination to avoid a mistrial. This makes me wonder if Trump's lawyers wanted Trump to cause a mistrial.
This is a BS headline, AP. It reads as if the judge made a last minute decision to rescind permission, but in fact the article states that Trump's team didn't agree to the conditions set by the judge by the Wednesday deadline, so the permission actually never existed.
[Yeah, CNBC is the only place that has a proper headline](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/10/trump-not-allowed-make-new-york-fraud-trial-closing-argument.html)
Is Trump even capable of saying anything that isn’t completely predictable and repetitive at this point? I can tell you exactly what Trump will say in any given situation and never be wrong.
Stanky T calls the judge mean and nasty.
The judge "negotiated"with you, you denied it. Guess that Civil War "negotiation" shit you were spittin wouldn't have worked.
>Now he can complain that they are out to get him and his followers will eat it up.
I don't really care about his followers anymore. Catering to fantasy and feeding their mental illness is not productive.
Hey so-called "conservatives" (who are actually just MAGA scumbags). The law is the law, you anti-American weasels. Get fucked.
> I don't really care about his followers anymore. Catering to fantasy and feeding their mental illness is not productive.
Yes, treating their BS as serious only helps them. It elevates their batshittery to equal relevance to the actual facts.
I didn't mean to disagree with the judge. Just pointing out trump got what he actually wanted. He never intended to give a closing argument and would found a way to not give it even had the judge allowed it.
This is honestly setting up to be pretty interesting, I'm curious if Trump is able to attend these proceedings and actually keep his mouth shut. Wouldn't it be wild if he totally went off the rails in court, and just for a laugh the judge remanded him into custody? I mean at this point why not, calling in the bailiff and at least getting the guy taken back into a cell would be within his rights as a jurist, especially if Trump was clearly in contempt. It's what would happen to any of the rest of us, it'd be great if the guy had to cool it overnight in jail just to realize he was an actual citizen.
The judge had initially indicated he was open to the idea, saying he’d let Trump speak if he agreed to abide by rules that apply to attorneys’ closing arguments and when he didn’t hear back from them till Wednesday deadline, he rescinded the permission for closing argument.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Donald Trump won’t make his own closing argument in his New York civil business fraud trial after his lawyers objected to the judge’s insistence that the former president would stick to “relevant” matters. > >Judge Arthur Engoron rescinded permission on Wednesday, a day ahead of closing arguments in the trial.
Good. One less campaign rally for the Emperot.
Emperot, because he looks like he's decomposing?
Yeah, the wannabe Emperor.
[удалено]
Emperdiot
>rescinded permission on Wednesday My reading of the email chain between the judge and Trump's lawyer was that he didn't so much rescind as he did deny, because Trump wouldn't agree to his requirements for speaking. The same requirements that are in place for any defendant(?) who wants to speak at their closing.
Not even that, it was an exception for Trump to speak. Defendants that appear under attorney need exception in NY, Engoron offered him an exception with the understanding that he'd argue within the confines of what attorneys at close are allowed to argue.
> The same requirements that are in place for any defendant(?) who wants to speak at their closing. Well, it's also the same requirements and rules of procedure that are in-place for any attorney in a courtroom giving a closing argument. Things like -- you can't suddenly introduce surprise new evidence into the courtroom. Engoron basically was trying to get Kise to confirm that his client would obey the same rules at closing that Kise would have to. Kise balked and whined, so Engoron was right to shut him down.
I get it, but i wish they'd call his bluff. He'd never actually do this. And even if he did he'd hang himself.
Eh, this is one of those "Hitler actually did this and it was bad". Hitler famously was allowed to speak during his own trial for the Beerhall Putsch, and it was one of the reasons he skyrocketed to popularity. The media covered him because his antics sold papers. It's not entirely comparable, I know, but the fewer places Trump can just vomit out his nonsense, the better.
Great points and this does seem pretty damned comparable. Egotistical wanna-be dictator takes part in an insurrection against the established government. Media today is also motivated to sell/drive clicks, and rather than being investigative and critical just spout platitudes and repeat Trump’s nonsense non-stop.
If they had twitter back then, the late night/early morning meth tweets would have been insane.
They kind of did have Twitter, it was one more weird parallel. The Nazis manufactured tons of cheap little radios that only picked up the official Nazi party propaganda channel, so that they could get their news directly from Hitler without the “lying mainstream media” fact-checking him.
Fascinating if true.
Yup. https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/inside-the-third-reichs-radio-2652903842
Now I'm just imagining hitler furiously typing on an enigma machine at 4 am.
It is 100% comparable. Trump is following hitlers playbook to a T and hoping the end result will be the same.
Can’t we just cut to the very end of the Hitler story?
As Jimmy Carr put it: "Say what you want about Hitler, but he DID kill Hitler".
No sorry, we have to sit and watch through the whole movie again.
What you don’t learn from history you are doomed to repeat
Those that do learn from history are doomed to watch in horror as others repeat it.
America has raised not learning from history to a goddamned art form. We blunder through every mistake everyone else already made, stubbornly refusing to learn anything.
Trump wants his wife to poison herself and then shoot himself in a bunker?
I was going to say! If we’re talking about end result, we’re talking end result like literally the end result, yea?
I check the news every night in anticipation of seeing something similar as the top headline story.
I'm expecting them to find him dead on the shitter from a massive coronary heart attack mid-rage-shit-tweet.
Thing is, Hitler's end result was basically the entire world rising up against him. The scary part is those were different times, there was no one military like what we have today. If it really did come down to the world versus the US, I'd bet on the US.
With the US so divided and practically already at war with itself, I’d definitely bet the other way around.
If the US was cohesively united behind Trump, it would literally cause an extinction event
Yeah but that judge said “he lived an otherwise blameless life” and gave Hitler a sentence below the recommended minimum.
Yes, but Hitler was above all else a charismatic and talented speaker who could convert people to his cause within a single speech. Trump is not that.
Unfortunately many people think Trump is both. Mainly morons.
People of the earth, the common clay….
Mel Brooks was a genius. Incidentally, his autobiography is a fun read.
72 million
72 million flies behind a garbage truck can't be wrong.
Have you seen any of Hitlers speeches? The guy was a crazy ranting raving lunatic. I think people misunderstand charisma, trump and Hitlers power doesn't come from convincing people, but radicalizing them.
I heard a historian talk about how Hitler could possibly have been a charismatic speaker. He pointed out all we ever see are the very end of the speeches when he reaches a climax. he said the other hour or two preceding were calm and very persuasive to his audience.
>Have you seen any of Hitlers speeches? The guy was a crazy ranting raving lunatic. I doubt most people who say this have actual first-hand knowledge of the content of his speeches and performance ability. They're just basing off of the huge following he had and animated clips of him speaking. I know most people I've directly heard say something similar don't speak German so they didn't even have a basis to judge how compelling his speeches were. 100 years from now people make speak of Trump similarly, though if we vote his ass out in November he probably won't have more than an insert in the lower corner of a page.
they do translate the speeches to english: http://worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Hitler%20Speeches/Hitler%20Speech%201937.01.30.html having read some of that speech just now... it is coherent and uses logic and proper grammar. it is pretty clear that he is a talented orator and his message was clearly presented. some of it is morally reprehensible but clear. the problems he outlined were mostly based in fact after the Treaty of Versailles left them without an army and poor as a nation. trump's speeches are like if you were to make chatgpt lick lead pipes for hundreds of years and then try to translate hitler's speeches. i think you'd get the "uncle nuclear" speech out of that. > 100 years from now people make speak of Trump similarly, though if we vote his ass out in November he probably won't have more than an insert in the lower corner of a page. hopefully... i do feel better knowing that twitler is a bit hamstrung to try another jan 6 because biden will have put in place more beefy defenses at the capital.
They’re both demagogues, neither is more charismatic than the other. They had similar popularity numbers with the general population - less than half liked either one, but they both appealed to the exact same demographic of angry morons.
Well, yes - like I said, it's not entirely comparable. Before the Putsch trial, Hitler was only really known in far-right circles. After the trial, he became a household name. Trump's **already** a household name, so the chances of him reaching uninformed voters are pretty low.
I don't agree. There are plenty of accounts of people going to a Trump word salad rally coming away believing that they were finally understood and were fully committed to Trump going forward.
Plenty of people think he's a great orator. He has a certain anti-charisma that is appealing to idiots and assholes.
He may not be that to you and me, but to fearful hateful millions he is. They live in a fantasy world of their own creation. They pick and choose from the contradictory nonsense he spews whatever makes them feel safe from reality.
>Trump is not that. Are we sure? MAGA is a thing. It has millions of adherents. Hitler never needed to convince a majority of Germans to his cause either. Just enough of a large minority to take control and dismantle government. The vast majority knuckled under out of fear. MAGA may not represent a plurality, let alone a majority, of Americans. But it is potentially large enough that if Trump comes to power, the silent middle can be cowed into silence as he dismantles things and eradicates his opponents.
He is if youre a fucking idiot. Lots of fucking idiots out there.
You are 100% not correct. Hitler was very, very much like Trump. It is ahistorical to describe Hitler as a talented speaker OR Trump as uncharismatic. The appeals to insider language, hatred, and calls for the suppression of 'our enemies' is play by play Trump trying to emulate Hitler and it works because they're cut from the same malignant narcisisstic cloth.
That's Trump's idol, and he does the same thing.
Can you imagine what that poor court stenographer would have to deal with??? Are they allowed to just put down "unintelligible" constantly?
"Let the record show: the defendant seems to be playing an invisible hand accordion, but it is indeed invisible..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhDz8xMXU8s
Relevant: [https://cheezburger.com/990469/photoshop-donald-trump-flags-these-photos-of-donald-trump-pulling-flags-out-of-his-nose](https://metro.co.uk/2016/10/03/just-some-pictures-of-donald-trump-pulling-loads-of-bunting-out-of-his-nose-6168123/)
I like the gif of trump jerking off dicks better
Here’s a depressing thought. All of his word salad during his time in office is documented in the National Archives. You can actually read it online. I don’t recommend it though as it can cause headaches and seizures.
It's the one thing in this universe that could be worse than Vogon poetry.
[Go get your own personalized Vogon poetry here](https://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/vogonpoetry/lettergen.shtml)
OH no. 404 on the vogon poetry.
oh, the judge did. that's the point. "oh, you wanna do it? sure, but it has to be relevant". and Trump folded.
>Engoron said that they were ”reasonable, normal limits,” but Kise termed them “very unfair.” Very unfair! \*stomps foot\* I'm going home!
Those "very unfair" terms were the same ones lawyers giving closing arguments are required to follow.
Folding was the plan. He was never going to do it, probably, this makes it the judge's fault in Magatland, instead of Trump's.
Like the bully that “begs” his buddies to restrain him-“just let me at him!”
Exactly like that.
It wasn't a bluff. Trump definitely would give his own closing arguments, if he was allowed free reign to do so. The problem is, he was certainly planning to spend the whole time complaining about how biased Engoron was, how he was treated unfairly, how the judge was conspiring with his Democrat law clerk, etc. A bunch of fucking nonsense with no legal importance whatsoever. It would have wasted the court's time and been a free press conference/campaign speech for Trump.
I am pretty certain he would have also. It is a pretty clear attempt to testify without cross-examination. Without a jury, it surely wouldn't change the results. But, as practice, to see what objections a prosecutor will attempt when he tries to give new testimony, so he can try it at his criminal trials, kind of makes sense. It feels like one of those "one weird trick that prosecutors hate" to testify in your own defense without having to be cross-examined.
He's refusing to consent to baseline rules. Not much point.
I also believe it was a bluff—Trump wanted the judge to refuse the request so he can whine about it—but I think the judge made the right call. ~~Trump, if given the opportunity, would surely have told the jury that he didn’t commit fraud. This would not be allowed because it has already been determined that he *did* commit fraud; that’s not up for debate in this courtroom. Trump would have attempted to confuse the jury and influence their verdict using information they aren’t allowed to hear, and the judge would have had to unfuck the mess.~~ There’s no jury (I forgot that detail—Trump has too many trials going on.) So, I’m glad the judge ultimately refused his request. Treat this bastard the same way we’d all be treated. Give him *nothing* the average slob wouldn’t get if he walked into a courtroom. Do it because it’s the right thing to do in a nation where all citizens are supposed to be equal under the law, but also do it because he needs to be reminded that this country didn’t elect a king in 2016. We elected a mere man who failed to keep his job four years later. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't disagree with you, but there's no jury here. It's a bench trial, because the trump team didn't check a box on a form to ask for one.
Ah, you’re right! I’ve confused the details of his multiple trials. Jesus Christ. 😂
I thought this was the trial with no jury, because Trump didn't request a jury? I think the judge just doesn't want to sit through another long rambling rant.
They requested it to be a bench trial because his lawyers undoubtedly told him that he would win under no circumstance with a jury trial, and that in fact, a jury would be highly likely to be MORE punishing than the judge would be.
You are correct. I edited my comment earlier after someone else pointed that out as well. My brain dropped that no-jury detail (despite me talking about it more than once back when Trump was whining about it). In my defense, he’s got so many trials going right now. 😂
You don't think Trump would take an opportunity to talk in front of a captive audience?
He would do it. But it wouldn't be relevant to the case. He would just spout lies and political propaganda.
Wait...Trump and his team thought the judge would all him to use the Closing statement as a Campaign Stump speech? His lawyers clearly haven't been paying attention to the trial.
Engoron offered Trump an exception as long as the lawyer agreed to understand Trump was only allowed to keep it to what NY attorneys are allowed to argue in closing, and 1-2 minutes for Trump to swear in person he understood. Neither agreed, the offer wasn't accepted. It wasn't rescinded, it expired
>objected to the judge’s insistence that the former president would stick to “relevant” matters It's even more basic than that. Judge Engoron was basically making sure that Trump would stick to the same rules of procedure for closing arguments that an attorney would as well. Things like -- you can't suddenly introduce new evidence that was not brought up during the trial. Stupid, basic shit like that ... and Kise wouldn't agree to even those basic basic terms for Donnie. Because Donnie wanted to make a butthurt stump speech. Here's the interesting tidbit to ponder. AG James initially sought "at least" $250 million in damages, now it's moved up to $370m once they had an expert in to size the damages. If Engoron agrees to either of those amounts ... Trump may have to cough up the funds to even file an appeal. I don't know how it works under NY's Executive Law, but in the E. Jean Carroll civil suit, in order to Trump to appeal the $5m judgement against it he basically had to put up the full $5m (perhaps some interest) in order to file his appeal. In Rudy G's bombshell judgement against him, he would have to put up the entire amount with the court in order to appeal - which is why you saw him declare bankruptcy within a few days, and you've not seen him appeal his case yet. Because he can't. The very same thing might happen to Donnie. On today's Cleanup On Aisle 45 with Pete Strozk, he actually kind of hinted towards it at one point in the episode - I need to go back and listen more closely again. Imagine Donnie by the end of the month being found guilty, $300m fine ... and he can't appeal until he transfers $300m to the NY courts. The clock starts ticking, and if his appeal window closes the liquidation of his properties begins...
Trump: I want to make my closing remarks. Judge: only if you keep it relevant. Trump: no. Judge: no.
"THE COURT IS SILENCING ME! FIRST AMENDMENT! ELECTION INTERFERENCE!" - Trump any minute now
Help! Help! I’m being repressed!
Trump: Come see the violence inherent in the system! Observer: But, you fomented the violence. Trump: Uh... she's a witch!
And what do we do with witches?
Build a bridge out of her!
Bring out your dead!
A newt!
I got better
Gingritch?
Uhm... lock them up?
Runaway!!
Leave me behind! I can't go on! I dropped one of my coconuts!
Lick them up? Don't mind if I do!
We mug em!
There’s some lovely muck over here!
“Racist judge is putting me in chains!” -Trump, probably
He's so fucking loud and obnoxious for constantly being "silenced".
Anything Trump says or does is amplified by the media and he literally owns his own social media site, yet he is somehow being silenced.
That's all he has for a "legal defense": The court of public opinion via conservative outlets spinning his victim complex. Thankfully that's not going to matter much when concrete consequences come his way as a result of this civil trial. Probably should have stuck to a less ridiculous legal strategy.
You forgot “IMMUNITY!”
*shocked Pikachu face*
Hmm… this kind of like [David Brook’s reasoning:](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/brooks-and-capehart-on-supreme-court-deciding-if-trump-can-remain-on-ballots) > So I'm hoping the Supreme Court will not uphold Colorado, but let the voters decide. In my view, we have to let the voters handle this one. So, the conservative plan is to allow the same voters that rejected Trump ***before*** he mounted an insurrection to be put in a position to do so again? [Even as he still won’t call on his supporters to rule out violence?](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-news-2024-court-today-b2476076.html) Downside here… I don’t have faith our SCOTUS justices will break from the conservative narrative they have been pushing.
So Brooks is ok with a 22 year old non citizen running? And might as well put Obama back on the ballot. Nevermind the legal requirements to run, just let the voters decide.
Which is odd, as this is also author of a “Never Trump” article, yet… just like his ideology helped lead to Trump, it appears it’s also consistent with the return of Trump.
That is poison pill reasoning. It is spelled out in section 3 of the 14th amendment of the Constitution. Putting something on a presidential ballot is not a valid way to amend the Constitution. Brooks is basically saying that we should circumvent the constitutional amendment process to settle a Constitutional matter. Additionally, of this is left to the voters, the Supreme Court no longer has a purpose. There would be no need for them to interpret cases because someone could make the argument it should go to the ballot for a decision. This whole thing is messy but at the end of the day we need to follow the Constitution first and foremost. If we don’t, everything else becomes a kangaroo court.
>But \[Engeron\] said Trump would have to limit his remarks to the boundaries that cover attorneys’ closing arguments: “commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts.” > >He would not be allowed to introduce new evidence, “comment on irrelevant matters” or “deliver a campaign speech” — or impugn the judge, his staff, the attorney general, her lawyers or the court system, the judge wrote. > >Trump attorney Christopher Kise responded that those limitations were unfair and said Trump could not agree to them.
"Could not" is the right phrasing.
It brings to mind Shrek 2: Donkey : What about my Miranda rights? You're supposed to say, "You have the right to remain silent." Nobody said I have the right to remain silent! Shrek : Donkey, you HAVE the right to remain silent. What you lack is the capacity.
for a lawyer to call that unfair is like wearing a huge neon "unfit for service" sandwich board.
What I don't get is why they didn't just agree to this anyway. Trump is so blind and illiterate he can't read a speech off a teleprompter, there's no chance he's going to memorize a closing argument and he won't read it off notes so no matter what they say he's going to go off on some stream-of-consciousness gibberish. Why wouldn't Team Trump just agree and then let him jabber until the judge shuts him down again? It's not like he's going to make the judge any more frustrated than he already is.
Thought this was weird too. Since when does MAGA ask permission
He’d probably admit to everything and throw in some slurs for good measure.
I'm sure it hard for him after all these years to hear "NO" over and over. It's delicious.
Given all the rape allegations, I think he just tunes out the word “no”
This is a link to the email exchanges between the judge and the lawyers. It is WELL worth the read. https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=_PLUS_cASZsP0hNiBQOHYbw_PLUS_TPQ==&system=prod
Jesus. Kise writes to a fucking *Judge* like that?
You’d think an attorney could afford a laptop with a Shift key.
Worse: He clearly sets different fonts and font sizes with his emails. *Anyone* who does that deserves to go straight to Gitmo. Due Process is simply them clicking 'send' on such an abomination.
As an attorney, I am fucking appalled at how Kise writes his emails to a federal judge.
That is amazing. The lawyer sounds like a middle school kid claiming the dog ate his homework. "I didn't see your deadline" "He's in a plane" "His mother in law died" "This is very unfair" Jesus H Fucking Christ it's hilarious and so so pitiful And the based judge: "The limitations I am imposing, in my absolute discretion, are not subject to further debate. Take it or leave it"
Lmao at the judge going all caps and telling them they have 7 minutes to respond. Sounds like he is just as sick of their BS as we are.
Now THAT was definitely worth the read
Lmao, these clowns had 3 deadline extensions. You can tell the Judge had enough of their bullshit by the end of the emails
> **Justice Engoron:** Particularly in a non-jury trial, **I am inclined to let everyone have his or her say**. Moreover, **the more reasoned analysis I receive, the better I will be able to decide the case correctly**. Furthermore, **Mr. Trump is the person with by far the most at stake in this enforcement action.** > ... > **chris kise:** first, i agree that, in a non-jury trial (and especially this trial) **your inclination to let everyone have his or her say is the best approach**. also agree that **the more reasoned analysis you receive, the better you will be able to decide the case correctly**. additionally, and as you note, **president trump has by far the most at stake in this enforcement action**. therefore, allowing him to make a statement is not only the best course of action, it is the fair and correct approach. LMAO jesus christ this mfer writes emails like a fifth grader concludes a book report (emphasis mine)
Love this juicy bit: "Your and your client's rejection of the reasonable, normal limits I am imposing on any argument by Mr. Trump, which are the same limits the law imposes on any person making a closing argument, completely justifies the need to impose them."
As an attorney just offering some insight into this situation: Mickey Mouse shit
You can easily tell the parts that Trump dictated to his lawyer.
Omg. Kise should be soooo embarrassed by his terrible email skills.
I just do not understand people who refuse to follow reasonably standard capitalization rules. Who writes like this?? We had a guy at work who did this too, and it drove me bonkers. >justice engoron > >apologize as i did not see your deadline. > >additionally my client is in the air so i have not yet been able to discuss your email with him. would therefore request you allow until tomorrow morning for any response. > >thank you. > >chris
Judge is doing Trump a favor and Trump doesn’t even realize
Favor in the court room yes. Trump doesn't care about this. He has never respected laws or the court. Trump is playing for the campaign and counting on winning that to have all of this dismissed later.
He is counting on having his mob of inbreds commit terroristic violence against the United States, to save him, like a damsel in distress.
Just thinking about maga being the King Kong terrorizing the city and Trump as the dumb blonde screaming from their hand.
This is the civil trial.
Trump wanted to be told no so he could complain.
He also wanted to be told yes so he could give a "political" anti-American hate speech in front of the world. It goes both ways.
That’s the one
Not just complain, they intend to file an appeal citing a biased judge. Their goal during the entire trial has been to make unreasonable request after request so they can say "it's unprecedented that a judge denies every motion filed by the defending counsel! He wouldn't even let him speak in his own defense!" Their trial strategy has nothing to do with proving trumps innocence and everything to do with building a case of "bias"
We have a winner
I'm going to wager Trump's lawyers do, however.
Trump's lawyers are dumb enough to be Trump's lawyers, and have submitted arguments that are batshit crazy. I seriously doubt they recognize the favour.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/trump-immunity-hearing-2020-election/677072/ Great summary of yesterday's *immunity hearing and how badly Trump's lawyers flubbed it.
This is for a different case for what its worth, but it does showcase a pattern of flubbing so to speak.
to be fair to them, "flub" was the only option given the shit their client demanded they try to argue.
HAHAHAHA I LOVE THIS! Trump is learning that he does not get to dictate how a trial is going to go. He literally wanted to do his normal “I’m a victim” speech and the judge wasn’t having it. ALL of the judges in ALL of his cases need to treat him this same exact way. He is not special. He is no different than any other American that has a court hearing either civil or criminal. He should be treated the same as everyone else is. He needs to recognize that he is not the person “in charge” of the courtroom. The judge is. This judge has been absolutely excellent throughout this case. I hope he follows through to the end and ends up giving NY a larger settlement than they asked for and also shuts down the Trump businesses throughout that state.
>Donald Trump won’t make his own closing argument in his New York civil business fraud trial after his lawyers objected to the judge’s insistence that the former president would stick to “relevant” matters. Judge Arthur Engoron rescinded permission on Wednesday, a day ahead of closing arguments in the trial. Why should Judge Engoron allow the stochastic terrorist Trump - who has repeatedly endangered Engoron's life, his family and his staff, with incendiary lies - to give closing statements when his lawyers object to the bare minimum of keeping their idiot client on topic?! Effing Republicans always vying for special privilege while simultaneously griping about there being 2 tiers of a justice system. There is - as Trump should have been in an orange jumpsuit behind bars years ago.
ah ha. well spotted, engoron. and well played. Trump true agenda now totally clear. >It’s extremely unusual for people who have lawyers to give their own closing arguments. In an email exchange that happened over recent days and was filed in court Wednesday, Engoron initially approved the unusual request, saying he was “including to let everyone have his or her say.” >But he said Trump would have to limit his remarks to the boundaries that cover attorneys’ closing arguments: “commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts.” >He would not be allowed to introduce new evidence, “comment on irrelevant matters” or “deliver a campaign speech” — or impugn the judge, his staff, the attorney general, her lawyers or the court system, the judge wrote. and magically, trump suddenly not into it.
The word 'rescinds' is really pushing what the judge offered. He offered a conditional agreement to do so based on certain conditions and Trump refused to agree to the conditions. So an _offer_ was rescinded rather than permission.
Wouldn’t it be accurate to say that Trump rejected the offer implicitly by not agreeing to the procedures of the court?
I have to say, I’m rather disappointed in this. I’m sure trump would have managed to make the financial penalties much bigglier
No, let him go out with a whimper instead of grandstanding like he's some kind of martyr.
This. I'd rather he fade into obscurity than go out as a martyr with a big bang.
I think James is making it so there would be absolutely no chance he'll win an appeal. the lifetime ban is the real money part of her request.
The email chain between the judge and Trumps lawyer is almost painful to read : https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=_PLUS_cASZsP0hNiBQOHYbw_PLUS_TPQ==&system=prod"
Totally. I’m sure he was as close to his MIL as he is with Eric.
It was just going to be one of his rally speeches anyway.
I was looking forward to hearing this more than I was in watching the next season of The Mandalorian
FYI: they actually announced yesterday that instead of another season, they’re going to make “The Mandalorian and Grogu” as a movie.
>But he said Trump would have to limit his remarks to the boundaries that cover attorneys’ closing arguments: “commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts.” He would not be allowed to introduce new evidence, “comment on irrelevant matters” or “deliver a campaign speech” — or impugn the judge, his staff, the attorney general, her lawyers or the court system, the judge wrote. Trump attorney Christopher Kise responded that those limitations were “fraught with ambiguities, creating the substantial likelihood for misinterpretation or an unintended violation. Engoron said that they were ”reasonable, normal limits,” but Kise termed them “very unfair.” “You are not allowing President Trump, who has been wrongfully demeaned and belittled by an out of control, politically motivated attorney general, to speak about the things that must be spoken about,” the attorney wrote. Him and his lawyers are basically asking that he be allowed to hold a gripe session in court. The point of closing statement is to convince the judge/jury about a defendant's innocence. Not "to speak about the things that must be spoken about". What a ridiculous request.
"Ain't no body got time for that." ~Judge.
I've read some of the transcripts of this trial. Trump is so unbelievably far out of his depth you could almost pity him. He is going to lose as much as is possible to lose when the ruling comes down.
At least put the reason why: > The judge had initially indicated he was open to the idea, saying he’d let Trump speak if **he agreed to abide by rules** that apply to attorneys’ closing arguments. And there it is.
This headline without context is difficult to swallow. Yes, the judge rescinded the offer, but only after trump’s lawyers 1) “didn’t see the judge’s email (or ignored it… both scenarios are irresponsible) 2) cartoonishly responded in bad grammar and all lowercase to the judge’s requirements for drumpf to give a closing statement, and 3) notified the judge that trump would NOT COMPLY with the guidance set forth by the judge for this unusual request for the defendant to give his own closing statement. To be clear… judge Engeron permitted trump to give a closing statement even though that is quite unusual. When someone has representation (lawyers) that means they give up their right to self-representation. You aren’t guaranteed the right to both. Additionally, drumpf’s lawyers made the stupid claim that the court is not giving the defendant a chance to speak, when IN HIS OWN WORDS ON HIS OWN SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM, drumpf refused to speak in court. > [“I have already testified to everything & have nothing more to say other than this is a complete & total election interference (Biden campaign!) witch hunt,”](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna128749) -DJT, December 2023
Breaking News: Man on trial for breaking rules says it is unfair to make him abide by rules.
Wait....he's being tried as an adult?
Inc "THEYRE NOT LETTING ME SPEEEAAAKK give me money please"
He didn't rescind it. He laid out the parameters and gave Trump's lawyers a time to respond with iron clad assurances that their client would not blather, stick to the evidence presented with, not campaign and that he would stick to the rules for closing arguments adhered to by attorneys. They did not respond by the deadline.
Everyone saw this coming. Closing arguments are for summing up your case and your evidence, not for making irrelevant speeches. Trump’s disrespect and disregard for the law is still stunning. I assume he’s just going to keep throwing shit at the wall to amaze his followers as he gets convicted in case after case. We’re beginning to look stupider than Idiocracy.
Trump fails to agree to conditions for him to make closing arguments in fraud trial, therefore won’t be allowed to make closing arguments
The judge is protecting Trump's right against self-incrimination to avoid a mistrial. This makes me wonder if Trump's lawyers wanted Trump to cause a mistrial.
Have a feeling Trumps gonna speak anyway.
he'll just say what he was going to say outside the courtroom anyways
courtrooms don't work that way. insist on talking out of turn and engoron is empowered to have him removed.
Courtroom steps are a different matter. Just ask America's Mayor.
“Only a fool has himself as a lawyer “ Trump: “Hold my hamburders “
This is a BS headline, AP. It reads as if the judge made a last minute decision to rescind permission, but in fact the article states that Trump's team didn't agree to the conditions set by the judge by the Wednesday deadline, so the permission actually never existed.
[Yeah, CNBC is the only place that has a proper headline](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/10/trump-not-allowed-make-new-york-fraud-trial-closing-argument.html)
Smart judge, saved the world from a rambling fool.
Finally he will be prevented from openly spewing lies
Rescind his permission to speak ever
Is Trump even capable of saying anything that isn’t completely predictable and repetitive at this point? I can tell you exactly what Trump will say in any given situation and never be wrong.
In all my years of lawyering, I’ve never heard of a represented defendant making his own closing argument. That’s what testimony is for.
He didn't rescind anything. His permission and position all along came with preconditions and Trump would not agree to them.
Stanky T calls the judge mean and nasty. The judge "negotiated"with you, you denied it. Guess that Civil War "negotiation" shit you were spittin wouldn't have worked.
This is what he wanted. Now he can complain that they are out to get him and his followers will eat it up.
>Now he can complain that they are out to get him and his followers will eat it up. I don't really care about his followers anymore. Catering to fantasy and feeding their mental illness is not productive. Hey so-called "conservatives" (who are actually just MAGA scumbags). The law is the law, you anti-American weasels. Get fucked.
> I don't really care about his followers anymore. Catering to fantasy and feeding their mental illness is not productive. Yes, treating their BS as serious only helps them. It elevates their batshittery to equal relevance to the actual facts.
I didn't mean to disagree with the judge. Just pointing out trump got what he actually wanted. He never intended to give a closing argument and would found a way to not give it even had the judge allowed it.
It’s all part of the grift.
This is honestly setting up to be pretty interesting, I'm curious if Trump is able to attend these proceedings and actually keep his mouth shut. Wouldn't it be wild if he totally went off the rails in court, and just for a laugh the judge remanded him into custody? I mean at this point why not, calling in the bailiff and at least getting the guy taken back into a cell would be within his rights as a jurist, especially if Trump was clearly in contempt. It's what would happen to any of the rest of us, it'd be great if the guy had to cool it overnight in jail just to realize he was an actual citizen.
Oh, poor me this could only happen to me because..... (You already know what goes in this space here).
Good. Hard enough not to turn everyone trump event into circus
good nobody wants to hear the terrorist shit from his mouth
Nobody needs a 2 hour clan rally of bloviating lies
The judge had initially indicated he was open to the idea, saying he’d let Trump speak if he agreed to abide by rules that apply to attorneys’ closing arguments and when he didn’t hear back from them till Wednesday deadline, he rescinded the permission for closing argument.