is there such a charge as premeditated contempt of court?
Well he was right about them being soft on crime, should he not have been arrested for contempt?
In a jury trial, this could be a big deal. You have all this stuff that's off limits that the jury isn't supposed to hear because it's prejudicial, inadmissible and irrelevant. Mistrial have happened for less.
But there is no jury, the one deciding everything is the one who would be enforcing those same rules anyway. If anything, it just shows how easy the judge has been on Trump and team throughout this process.
It doesn't even really affect the media coverage because there's no clip to show, and any outlets that give him positive press off this would parrot his public comments anyway. To everyone else it just makes him look like a joke, a sad thin skinned loser who is trying to get the last word in in an argument he's already lost.
This just seems like a bad idea that his ego demanded against anyone's better judgment. Though I suppose it wasn't ever going to hurt his image among anyone that actually likes him, and anyone who is still on the fence won't remember this in a week, let alone in November.
Can the judge wait until after the trial is over and then jail him for contempt, or does it have to be right after the action?
Actually, a bit of both.
There was an initial order that the judge issued that laid out how the trial was going to go. This order would have things that Trump was required to do, or things that he was prohibited from doing. (that part is rare in pre-trial orders) Anyway, the prosecutor can look at that order, and make a motion to hold Trump in contempt if Trump violated it.
That contempt charge would then be added onto the final order, the one that's likely to completely dissolve the Trump organization. Jail time in such a contempt is usually issued as "suspended" meaning that it's ordered, but if the person doesn't fuck up for a period, and obeys the final order, then they don't actually have to go to jail.
The other type of contempt is when Trump disregards the Judge while in the courtroom. And that one is a straight to jail type thing. The judge here might be brave enough to do it. Or mad enough.
After all, Trump's followers have made bomb threats to this judge's home. That makes people a tich mad.
Jail time in such a contempt is usually issued as "suspended" meaning that it's ordered, but if the person doesn't fuck up for a period, and obeys the final order, then they don't actually have to go to jail.
So all Trump would need to do would be good and not act up?
He's going to prison!
That’s very informative, thank you!
Excellent summation
I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea about what the answer to this question will be, but can anybody who is familiar with New York law tell me if there is any good legal reason why Engoron didn't immediately shut that shit down and hit him with contempt of court and the $50,000 fine he warned Trump's lawyers would follow if he burst into a tirade? Because I absolutely detest the idea that he just let that fat orange idiot vent his spleen for a few minutes because of political pressure.
My guess (also not a lawyer) is to render the verdict as appeal proof as possible. If he wasn't allowed to speak, he would have claimed that his rights were violated and if he had been allowed to give the closing remarks himself, he would have been found totally Innocent.
Engoron let him talk relatively briefly, cut him off when it was clear he wasn't staying on topic, and closed off this appeal argument.
This 100%. Trump's whole playbook is to delay the inevitable. It's clear he's just pushing everything until he has the Republican nomination, and then it doesn't matter what happens, he'll be considered too big to fail by Republicans, and get as much protection as he can from them.
You’re probably right but it still pisses me off. No one else gets to pull that shit. Defendants that want to be heard in court can take the stand and all the risks that come with cross examination.
There's a few considerations why he's being handled with kid gloves compared to anyone else:
Ok, but like... the first two points you raised have nothing to do with the legal system and are just about metagaming and cowardice. And the third... Judge Engoron has already determined that Trump is liable in this case, like a couple of months ago. So this is just about figuring out the punishment. And as long as he doesn't give some outrageously absurd fine or penalty, then this won't really have an impact on an appeal. The appeal would be for the original decision finding him guilty of engaging in fraud. So I'm not sure what actual legal reason he'd have for treating him with kid gloves here. I mean, Trump's going to appeal one way or the other, and he's well within his rights to hit him with contempt of court. Hell, he even said as much to Trump's lawyers the other day in an email exchange where he said if Trump does what he just did, he'd hit him with a $50,000 fine.
Once again...
So he wasn't authorized to speak, but did anyways?
This is a fraud on me
Said the United States of America 🙁
Days? Fucking years. He's been reciting this shit for years.
as if Engoron's going to be like... "OMG, that changes everything. If I'd only known BEFORE I DECIDED YOUR CASE ON IT'S MERITS BEFORE THE TRIAL ROFLS, OH DONNY CAN YOU FORGIVE US?"
he's so persucted. such a sad stable genius.
But...no one thinks it was for the judge. Other than to potentially provoke the judge into something that would possibly help with an appeal.
But this was about Trump's ego, and about campaigning to his base.
Every time his defense has produced an argument or motion it's built up like this perry mason moment, and uniformly the response from the Judge has been 'no, that's not legal, that's not how any of this works, goddamn no' so of course, yeah, the performances are for his base. But the theater, the act being played, is "oh man trump made this awesome closing statement and the judge didn't even listen to him -" expecting Engoron to flip the laws of justice because Donny Mason's legal skillz with his closing statement were just that fucking persuasive.
They live in a dream world, that's what I was attempting to depict.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Sources told Rolling Stone that Trump had been rehearsing what he thought would be a blistering, dramatic conclusion to the case that will determine the fate of his business empire.
Without waiting for Engoron’s permission, Trump began delivering a grievance-laden tirade from the defense table after asking once again if he could address the court, calling the trial a “political witch hunt,” and saying that “we should receive damages for what we went through.”
The former president’s private “rehearsing” of what he planned to say included haranguing the judge’s staff, railing against the New York attorney general as “racist” and soft on crime, claiming that the trial was an example of the Democratic Party and Biden administration supposedly trying to “rig” the 2024 election, and gratuitously boasting of the values of his sprawling business and real-estate empire, among other jabs and bluster.
After Engoron denied his request, a defiant Trump addressed reporters before entering the courtroom on Thursday, calling the trial a “disgrace” and a “terrible witch hunt.”
Trump has adopted a similar tactic as he has in the slew of other criminal and civil litigation leveled against him since his departure from office: publicly attacking judges, prosecutors, and other individuals associated with the case.
The judge cautioned Trump and his attorneys that “this is not a political rally” and that if the former president would not cooperate Engoron would be forced to “excuse him and draw every negative inference that I can.”
The original article contains 978 words, the summary contains 243 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
