330
Trump Storms Out of Courtroom as His New York Civil Fraud Trial Heats Up
(www.thedailybeast.com)
Break down of what's being said:
Under cross-examination, Cohen denied that Trump had ever asked him to inflate numbers on his personal statement—standing by his 2019 congressional testimony
Cohen who was Trump's personal attorney indicated when being asked by Trump's lawyers (cross-examined as Cohen was called by prosecutor), that he never was asked directly to inflate the numbers.
Trump and one of his lawyers, Alina Habba, “threw up their arms” at this, according to CNN. Another Trump attorney then asked Judge Arthur Engoron for a directed verdict on the case, given Cohen’s status as a key witness.
Trump's attorney on this revelation, requested a directed verdict. A directed verdict is asked for when there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis that a jury could reasonable find some other verdict. Basically, Trump's lawyers asked to have a ruling in Trump's favor because they felt that given Cohen's testimony, there's no other way a jury could find any other verdict than one in favor of Trump.
“Absolutely denied,” Engoron replied, citing evidence “all over the place” supporting New York Attorney General Letitia James’ case against Trump
The Judge, Hon. Engoron, here denies the directed verdict pretty emphatically.
The former president was “visibly angry” as he immediately stood up and stormed out, CNBC reported, eliciting gasps from the room
And on the news of the Judge so strongly denying that idea from his Lawyers, Trump stands up and leaves.
Cohen later clarified on the stand that Trump didn’t directly order him to inflate numbers. “He speaks like a mob boss,” Cohen said.
And this has been a consistent thing for Cohen. Where Trump did not explicitly indicate things, but did so implicitly. With Cohen being an attorney, the difference between explicit and implicit is pretty important, so he would absolutely make that distinction in his testimony, as he has before.
The diva moment wasn’t Trump’s first headline-making headache of the day. Less than an hour earlier, Engoron had slapped him with a $10,000 penalty for violating an order not to talk about court staff
LOL. Judges are fun like that. However, the limited gag order Trump is under is actually being questioned by the ACLU. Which they make a good point. The Judge used very broad terms in the "limited" aspect of the gag order and the ACLU has standing to ask the Judge to clarify those terms. That said, the $10,000 fine will likely be part of that challenge form the ACLU. So he may not have to pay it ultimately or maybe he will, we just have to see.
The decision came after the judge put Trump on the witness stand for about a minute, asking him under oath to explain comments he’d made to reporters earlier that day, complaining about a “very partisan judge with a person who’s very partisan sitting alongside him, perhaps even much more partisan than he is.”
I can tell this Judge doesn't really like Trump as a person in their court.
Trump insisted he had been referring to Cohen, who’d already been on the stand—on Engoron’s other side—at that point in the day
LOL. No your Honor! MY hand was absolutely NOT in the cookie jar, I had a cookie for breakfast and I put some leftover cookie in my pocket. WTF?! C'mon, you telling me that was the best he could lie?
The judge said he didn’t find this explanation “credible,” and handed down the fine.
I tell you. Those damn cookies get you every time.
The distinction between implicit and explicit is not relevant.
Cohen testified that Trump would assign whatever values he wanted to his properties. Obviously there would not be a directed verdict in this scenario. His lawyer is probably thought that argument was going to be a home run. They are morons.
“Infant throws tantrum, toys out of pram”.
Yeah.
as much as i'm not surpirsed.... it's finally looking like a meaningful conclusion (pls don't crush my dreams, its been a long week)
Isn't leaving an ongoing trial of which you are the subject... illegal?
Pretty sure he doesn't have to be in the room for this one.
He is just having a tamptrum
Trumptrum
Tantrump* if it were a snake it woulda bit ya
It's a civil case, not criminal
I love it. Million to one bet that Trumps lawyers were telling him "oh the judge will have to give a directed verdict and dismiss. This is a slam dunk for us hes going to admit u didnt tell him to do it on the stand and that will be it it'll be dismissed."
When that didn't happen trump knew it instantly and literally rage quit. At some point he will be arrested by a bailiff I'm calling it right now.
I think you have a great take
Didn't Trump paint Cohen as a big liar not long ago?
The whole Trump situation, his "press conferences", his rants, his social media blurps - It reminds me more and more of the scene in the movie "Downfall", when Adolf got messages he didn't want to hear...
This needs to be a deep fake - Trumps face in the "Downfall" scene. People can subtitle it for every bit of breaking daily news.
Deep fake could dub it, too.
Trump deep-faked onto Hitler's face - ranting in German but with Trump's voice and way of speaking (we had the best evidence, everyone said so, etc etc) - would be hilarious.
Storming out of the courtroom sounds like an admission of defeat to me.
House speaker and crybaby fascist trump storms out...
Very disappointed that there doesn't seem to be video of his tantrum. I could really use that boost to my day.
Seriously. Is there one person that can stand there and film the exit 24/7 (completely legal BTW).
Aw, that's so sad. Did little d have a tantrum?
I’m pretty sure I’d get stopped if I tried to storm out of my own trial
No you wouldn't unless you were already in jail. This is a civil trial, so you can just leave.
Now, in theory, leaving means that you forfeit your defense.
In practice, it seems like Trump didn't even need to be there for Cohen's testimony.
He really doesn't like it when things don't go his way, does he? Is he gonna sic his mob on this trial too?
Poor baby. Whaaaaaaa.
Stormy again (the pun that keeps on giving) ((yes another pun))
"The long arm of the law is on your shoulder."
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
330 points (96.9% liked)
politics
19097 readers
3230 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