Former President Donald Trump will not be allowed to deliver his own closing argument in his civil fraud trial in New York on Thursday, the judge overseeing the case said.
Judge Arthur Engoron told Trump’s attorneys that the former president must submit to certain restrictions if he wished to address the court, which Trump’s team did not agree to. The judge said that Trump would have to limit his statement in court to “what is permissible in a counsel’s closing argument, that is, commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts.”
An email thread added to the case’s docket Wednesday showed negotiations between Engoron and Trump’s attorneys. After extending his deadline for a response, Engoron wrote Wednesday afternoon that Trump would not be allowed to speak.
“Not having heard from you by the third extended deadline (noon today), I assume that Mr. Trump will not agree to the reasonable, lawful limits I have imposed as a precondition to giving a closing statement above and beyond those given by his attorneys, and that, therefore, he will not be speaking in court tomorrow,” the judge wrote.
Incorrect headline.
He would have been able to speak, but decided not to when he realized there would be rules and he couldn’t bring in irrelevant facts and outright lies.
And now he gets to say that he could have proved his innocence if he wasn’t silenced.
Which is probably all he wanted to begin with
He chose not to testify in the trial. That was his chance to make his case. He made that decision long ago because cross examination would have destroyed his claims.
Closing arguments are a summary of your position, nothing more, and clearly he was going to try to use it as a soapbox, again.
Closing arguments are where Hitler ranted for literal hours about being super-patriotic and insanely antisemitic, and it won him more followers and more loyal followers. Thank fuck Trump won’t get that same opportunity in the courtroom.
Oh yeah, let’s just go explain this to republicans calmly using logic…
I’m sure it’ll only take a few minutes, I’ll reply back again once I get one to understand
I wish they’d required him to endure cross-examination… I’d love to see a competent lawyer dismantle his entire baloney-sandwich machine in front of his followers.
Lmao @ baloney-sandwich machine
Of course, that would only work on his dumbest followers. Which is all of them.
It was a win-win for him really. If he DID get to testify he could spout his usual “witch hunt” bullshit and fund-raise off it. Since he can’t, as your pointed out, he can claim he’s being silenced and fund-raise off that instead.
The thing is, he wasn’t trying to testify. Instead he was trying to deliver a closing argument. But the judge said closing arguments can’t be used to raise new evidence or discuss anything not already covered in evidence in the case. So he couldn’t just stand up there and spout a bunch of bullshit.
Yeah but none of his cultists understand or care about that. He will say the judge silenced him and they will believe it unquestioningly.
It’s the Alex Jones strategy. Grifters gonna grift.
A reason to appeal and drag it out until he hopes to win the presidency again.
He can say anything he wants as he watches his assets be seized and his business be dismantled. This law was set up specifically to catch people like Trump that would slip through the laws normally used to prosecute the mafia.
I figured he would just have the best lawyers prove his innocence.
That’s the thing, this trial isn’t about innocence. They already proved him liable by a preponderance of the evidence.
This trial is about penalties. How much he has to pay now that they have already found him liable.
I really don’t think he’s capable of thinking that far ahead
The judge said that Trump would have to limit his statement in court to “what is permissible in a counsel’s closing argument, that is, commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts.”
Translation: You have to only say things that are true and relevant to the court case.
Trump was like, “hmmmmmm can’t promise that.”
Trump was like, “hmmmmmm can’t promise that.”
Trump was like, " That’s not possible. "
I would love to see a poll of Republicans that says something like:
A judge instructs a defendant that “what is permissible in a counsel’s closing argument, that is, commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts.” Did the judge illegally limit the defendant’s freedom of speech?
Then ask the same question, but change “defendant” to “Trump”, and compare the results. I guarantee you’d get more than twice the amount of people saying it was wrong for Trump but not for any generic defendant.
Just throw the man in jail already JFC
This is a civil trial, it is about monetary penalty, so it won’t end up in jail. Ironically it seems like trump was mostly scared of this one.
We know that he will pay at least $250 million based on the summary ruling.
Can’t throw rich people into jail. That is why the civil system exists - you commit crimes while rich, you get part of your money taken away. The more money you have, the more crimes you can do before you become poor. And the poor can definitely be thrown in jail.
Maybe trump only expects to stay out of jail as long as he can pay off people.
“Not having heard from you by the third extended deadline…”
What’s this “third extended deadline” bullshit? Every time I turn around, this asshole is being given yet another chance. Even if the state wants to be sure to dot every i and cross every t, a deadline is a deadline. He needs to put on his big boy Depends and fucking deal with it.
The likely answer is to really really make sure that the court is following the book (or even stretching the book) so it can’t be appealed.
It’s fucking infuriating though. If only we were all so lucky, or if the systems was good enough that the layman’s journey was the same, without extra performative bullshit.
I think that it’s worth noting that these were not special restrictions that applied to Trump. The judge said he had to give a closing argument by the same rules as everyone else follows, not make a campaign speech.
“Can I say something?”
“Only if it is relevant and true.”
“Never mind.”
I guess I understand how Trump has been taught that rules don’t apply to him, but you’d think at some point they’d go out of their way to make sure everything is done with the utmost care on these types of cases.
Lol that assumes Trump has good lawyers
He surrounds himself with idiots. That should tell you something.
Who is the “they” you’re talking about here? That’s a pretty dangerous dangling modifier. If you’re talking about his lawyers, I think by now it’s pretty clear that they are anything but careful. They’re desperate and grasping at any straws they can.
Even the huge bluff that this was, the idea of allowing Donald Trump himself to deliver the closing arguments would amount to nothing but a gigantic clown show, and it was obvious from the start, that no judge in the right mind would allow this to happen. At best, Trump, and maybe his lawyers, thought that they could playoff being shut down as some sort of free speech suppression argument. But even that is a tremendous mountain of bullshit.
We don’t like to dangle.
Removed by mod
Jesus. Look at seven-head behind his right shoulder.
He must have absolutely ravaged that pussy on the way out.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
