I may misunderstand. Is this an example of a tantrum:
I can’t find if the attached was approved, but maybe someone with more knowledge can say.
It sounds to me that it is a request to be excused from a federal felony trial.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
I bet stories could be told! 
There was the guy who left the courtroom without permission, skipping his own trial, who wished the court “Happy Valentine’s day” as he left.
That one I didn’t get. However he got convicted in absentia.
I’ll stop now, lest we derail this thread.
The court may not, should not, and will not prevent him from campaigning for President. Even if he’s convicted and thrown in maximum-security prison, he will still be permitted to campaign, as is his fundamental right.
The court may, should, and will prevent him from flying to whatever city he wants whenever he wants to hold rallies. Which is of course inconvenient for him, but eh, sucks to be him.
I was actually watching Trump’s demeanor quite closely (as I’m sure you were, too) when he made his first appearance before the judge in Manhattan.
My impression was that, although he was obviously pissed and not happy about having to endure the proceeding, he kept himself in check. All that self-hugging.
I suspect his attorneys will advise him to be on his best behavior – at least, in D.C. Might be a whole different thing in Florida.
Can you imagine being a prosecutor and trying your entire case to a jury, then having Trump do something that causes the judge to declare a mistrial? In the case of Cannon, I suspect she is the least prepared to cope with such a defendant. (Or worse, would welcome the opportunity.)
But they have never had a federal trial with one who is an ex-president and again the Republican nominee for President of the United States. That is what is giving him the advantage here. The people on the side of the law have to be extra, extra careful about how they handle him. He knows that. He will do everything his sick mind can think of to throw it all into chaos. Normal remedies used with normal batshit crazy people won’t work because he actually has power here. And that’s because law enforcement are rightly concerned about the perception of prosecuting a political target (even if that is not what this is about). They are walking a tightrope and Trump has no problem with pushing them off of it. How trials are supposed to work means nothing to him.
I’m just saying that norms be damned, during this trial for his freedom he is going to surprise us all again. (Did anyone expect an actual insurrection?)
I’m hoping the 2016 election was, too. I take your point but the OJ trial isn’t the only one time crazy event in that flawed equation. Using past examples to make political predictions just doesn’t work any more. This is all new territory.
Not in the courtroom, he doesn’t.
Trying for a sympathy vote, he would say it sucks. But it would literally be convenient for him, since he could do evening video conferences without anyone drawing the conclusion he was too lazy to fly out.
I’m not sure my imagination is strong enough. Would you like to answer your own question?
All I can think of, this side of homicide, is jury tampering.
If he is doing OK in the polls, but a trial looks like it is going poorly, this model might be tempting:
But my example didn’t really result in a mistrial.
EDITED: Should have read the New York Times story more carefully before posting. At the jury tampering trial, there was a mistrial, due to the jury hanging on a secondary defendant.
The governor’s lawyer, asking for mercy, said that Barron, age 59, had been diagnosed with colon cancer three years previously. He went to prison for four years and lived until 90.
Think of “one time” as meaning “unique”.
You can of course have multiple unique things, but the point is that they will by definition be different from one another. So you can’t look at one and use it to predict the other.
In my reading, it’s proffering a waiver of her right to be present for any proceedings that are ancillary to the actual trial. It’s the last clause on page 1 of that pdf which informs my reading:
and further agrees to be present in court ready for trial any day and hour the Court may fix in her absence.
Seems to suggest that when the opening gavel falls, she understands that she better have her butt in a chair at the defense table.
ETA; It is so order (sic) signed by the judge on page 2 of the pdf suggests that it was approved.
Reminds me of My Cousin Vinny.
- Judge Chamberlain Haller: Mr. Gambini, the next words out of your mouth better be “guilty” or “not guilty.” I don’t want to hear commentary, argument, or opinion. I don’t want to hear any facts or evidence. If I hear anything other than “guilty” or “not guilty”, you’ll be in contempt. I don’t even want to hear you clear your throat to speak. Now, how do your clients plead?
- Vinny Gambini: [intimidated, but the words go right past him] I think I get the point.
- Judge Chamberlain Haller: No, I don’t think you do. Now you’re officially in contempt of court! Would you like to say something else and go for two counts of contempt of court?
- Vinny Gambini: Not guilty?
- Judge Chamberlain Haller: Thank you. Not guilty plea has been entered for the record. Probable cause hearing will begin tomorrow at noon. Bail for both defendants will be set at $200,000. Oh and bailiff, take Mr. Gambini into custody with them… and set his bail at $200 for one count of contempt of court.
People keep referring to Trump in this thread as the Republican nominee. He is not the nominee, and if the trial goes as scheduled, he will not be the nominee yet when the trial begins. He is the presumed nominee. Everyone seems to assume he’s going to be the nominee, but I’m going to wait and see what the outcome of the primary season (and further indictments) brings.
I’m on record somewhere around here saying that I 1) don’t believe Trump will be the Republican nominee for 2024; and 2) if somehow he is, he won’t win the general election. So… I’m with you.
If Trump isn’t the nominee, it’s going to be interesting to see what the fallout is. Will his base completely abandon him? How much damage will Trump try to do?
Answering the last post: It depends on whether he dropped out voluntarily, such as due to illness.
If he’s just plain is beaten by another candidate in the primaries, that means most of his base abandoned him.
BT (before Trump), the conventional wisdom was that party leaders could force on the electorate their preferred nominee. This is no longer true. Now the base decides.
In theory, if Trump narrowly loses the nomination, he could damage the GOP nominee with attacks. However:
a. This scenario is highly unlikely
b. A Trump so weakened he couldn’t even win the GOP nomination wouldn’t be powerful enough to hurt the nominee. To the contrary, the nominee could be helped by being attacked by an obnoxious has-been.
P.S. I guess the best scenario is if Trump is in prison and the party uses this as an excuse to deny him the nomination despite having the most delegates. This is a Democratic dream scenario (despite being no guaranty Biden would win). But past experience is that there is nothing Trump can do that would cause party leaders to stand up to him for more than a day or two. So he would run for office from his cell.
What leads you to predict that? Someone comes from out of nowhere (as has happened from time to time)? Some aspect of the criminal proceedings finally makes him radioactive? His health? Something else?
I ask because his base and polling lead obviously would seem to make him the presumptive favorite, the normal “it’s way early” caveat granted. I’m in no way super-confident about anything in politics these days, but if you forced me to bet the house, I’d wager Trump’s the nominee.
For me, I just think… At some point the Republican Party has to realize that they can’t put all their hopes on goods this damaged. There has to be a breaking point.
That involves more than just this documents case though, so I don’t know how relevant it is to this topic. It’s probably better suited to this one, or maybe a new thread.
The issue, of course, is that the Republican Party does not see him as damaged - they see him as the victim of the Democrats ‘unjustness’.
Moderating:
I’ve responded to @Stratocaster’s query in a more appropriate general thread linked above. Let’s keep the general discussion there instead of here. Thanks. 