504
Judge Repeatedly Asks Lawyers to 'Control' Trump as Testimony Goes Off the Rails
(www.rollingstone.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
504 points (99.0% liked)
politics
19138 readers
3784 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ultra-mega-fucked.
LMAO at a bottom tier lawyer trying to tell a judge how to do their job.
Trumpsplaining the judge
Also, Judge Engoran has 20 years of experience being a judge, and he was a practicing lawyer before that. He was a judge before Habba got her license, and he's probably more than double her overall experience.
The fact that she didn't even know that witness testimony means answering questions really puts a big question mark over her 13 years, anyways.
The question mark appeared when she agreed to represent Trump.
I have to say, none of that means shit if he lets the guy run all over him and do whatever he likes with no consequences. Most people can't piss a judge off that much without spending time in jail.
Watch the proceedings of that "sovereign citizen" idiot Darrell Brooks who drove a car into a Christmas parade in Wisconsin. That guy never heard the phrase "just shut the fuck up". It's so maddening to watch that insolent manchild, I couldn't make it past two minutes of footage.
I feel like I have to clarify that I'm not American before making comments so there's enough wiggle room for potential ignorance.
I think it probably is a tactic he is using so that when it's time for consequences, there's plenty of leeway given to trump to show that he wasn't acting biased, it's just that trump is a fucking moron that can't shut up, when the lunatics decide to shout about it.
That's possible. People literally get years added to their sentences for back talking judges. You are simply not allowed to derail a trial even a little bit, and the consequences for attempting it are swift and harsh. For anyone else.
I'm so tired of this fuckwit's behavior, but i'm even more angry that at every turn people have had the ability to stop that behavior and haven't. And now we're here. Anyone else would be immediately taken to jail for the stuff he's doing inside the courtroom and out and he's still not stopped.
It's a mockery, and if the courts can't handle this guy they have no business ruining people's lives for things that don't compare to anything trump has done.
I've been looking for the right words to say this, so thanks.
The justice system has failed if it's able systematically arrest people in parts of new York, Baltimore, and Chicago, but can't do anything to this clown for a literal attempt to overthrow the government and constitution.
Wild.
Otherwise known as the Chewbacca ~~Afluenza~~ defense
It almost seems like parody to say, but the people defending Trump are not compatible with rational thoughts like "the judge gave Trump leeway because he wasn't biased". Even serving them those thoughts on a silver platter would just end in them rejecting it with whatever platitude they prefer to use when realizing they have nothing they can say (i.e. "bah that's just cancel culture")
I see you have no fucking clue what you’re talking about.
lmao
Trump is trying to frustrate the fuck out of Engoron, that’s why he and his lackeys have been attacking the law clerks and pushing false narratives about them like the dating a senator or donated to dems bullshit.
Engoron is weathering this storm by slowly and methodically building a trail of evidence so if this is taken to appeals based on the “unfair judge” bullshit they keep spewing about, the judge has an undeniable response to that.
Summary judgment was already granted, he’s guilty, this is about determining size of disgorgement. Trump isn’t running away with a damn thing, and I think it’s hilarious that you do.
Wow thanks for telling us. Guess what? trump isn’t just some fucking guy, he has a large portion of republicans that will truly do anything he asks, he has a very long history of using litigation to bully his way to what he wants and like it or not he has connections and funding to keep pulling on those same threads.
This is about letting Trump sink himself, it’s not a goddamn race to the finish line (well… aside from 11/24)
It’s almost like court justice is never swift but methodical, and it’s almost like with these cases methodical is the way to go instead of snap punishments. Thank god the judge can think past any current moment and look to the bigger picture, unlike you.
I’ll save you the trouble for your inevitable reply
Try not to forget there is NO precedent for ANY of this. WE CANNOT RUSH ANY OF THIS.
You have a bad day or something? That's a whole torrent of nastiness, and it seems like you missed the context of my comment.
The judge is letting him behave horribly. That usually gets you at least a night in jail. That's the lack of consequences i'm talking about.
If you don't think that's a big deal, consider that trump only acts the way he does because a long succession of people who could have and should have put him in his place didn't do it.
So let Engoron do it.
That is the point. This is the only path to a proper outcome. Patience will be very well rewarded with a conclusion and punishment that is undeniable and sticks permanently.
The person you replied to didn't say anything mean. They literally explained that the judge is doing exactly what those of us that want Trump to finally face permanent lasting consequences would want him to do. Whether we understand it or not.
Thank you. I understand why people are itching for Engoron to send Trump to jail for contempt. It would be very satisfying in the short term. The problem is that the judge has to think long term. If he sends Trump to jail now for a day and that tanks the whole case Inc appeal, that's in the judge. So Engoron is putting up with Trump's shenanigans while building an appeals proof judgment.
Is it more annoying in the short term seeing Trump "get away with" so much with, at most, little fines? Sure, but this is what's best in the long term. Engoron has been a judge for decades. I trust he knows his job better than people whose legal experience is "I watched a few Law and Order episodes, listened to a law podcast once, and watched a few legal YouTubers." (No offense intended to legal YouTubers. I love Legal Eagle especially. But you can't assume you're a legal expert just because you watched those videos. There's a reason that it takes years to study law.)
I know that and my legal expertise is just what I've picked up over the course of my life. No law degree or anything. The fact that I might be more qualified to be a lawyer than Habba is bad news for Trump. (For the record, you do NOT want me representing you in court. Get a real lawyer, not some guy whose best qualification is "knows more than a Trump lawyer.")
One of the most important rules when doing anything in a courtroom: don’t piss off the judge.
Trump: "So what I'm hearing is that I should yell at the judge and insult him from the stand. Got it."
(Yes, he did just that.)
She was also complaining, after court, that the judge was telling her what to do and she doesn't stand for that in her life.
Um, you do when you're in the court. If the judge tells you to shut up, you shut up. You can be offended that the judge told you to shut up, but you'd better not argue with the judge and tell them that you have a right to say whatever you want to say in their court. Not unless you want to spend a night in a jail cell.
And this is exactly how they will fuel their appeal. He will say the judge was unwilling to listen to his testimony, and use that quote as evidence.
That appeal would be quickly denied. The Judge is absolutely right: They "are here to hear him answer questions", not "to listen to what he has to say." The Judge has a responsibility to keep testimony responsive to the questions asked and relevant to the case, not to let witnesses give monologues about whatever nonsense is running through their heads at the moment.