He'll back out. Above all things he's a coward.
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
373 points (95.8% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2598 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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,
load more comments
(8 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.”
Hahaha
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.
Now that's not fair, you know the IRS that has stated many times it's not, is auditing him and so he can't share that information or he totally would! /s
he does a lot of "intending" to be big and brave in front of "sources"
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.
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.
Oh please oh please oh please
I have never wanted anything so much as this.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Doubt
Any legal experts in here? Can this be used as testimony for the judge/jury?
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Could he be trying to cause some sort of mistrial or appeal on the grounds that his lawyers we incompetent for not stopping him?
0% chance this will happen.
In the end, he’ll shit himself.
Oh god I hope it’s available on video. I’ll bet you could make a drinking game with the number of crimes he admits to and commits in that single speech.
No media is allowed in the courtroom. So all we will get is snippets/transcriptions from journalists that are on-site. And probably select quotes from his lawyers pointing out how he's innocent and the victim of political prosecution. 🙄
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
'Please proceed, ~~governor~~ Mr. Trump'
view more: next ›