While I agree with you, Trump and his supporters would say it just demonstrates a weaponised justice system and means that the US is a banana republic where political opponents are jailed. Sadly, I think there would be takeup on that argument.
This is an extremely non-cynical comment. Extremely.,
I believe that if DJT is convicted and then wins the election, the probability of appeals success will skyrocket. SCOTUS will then find a way to make sure he doesn’t serve time and/or is exempt from normal probation requirements such as community service, meeting with parole officer, and not associating with other criminals.
The argument has been advanced that a state criminal conviction would interfere with his duties as a president, and therefore the supremacy clause of the US Constitution would toll the effects of the conviction until he ceases to be president.
Would that work? Dunno. But you know he’s got that in what we will refer to as his mind.
Speculation that I read is that the first jailing would be for something like an hour over lunch.
But it’s not like he has no chance of appeal if he loses the election (or is convicted before it). The most you can say is delaying the state trial past inauguration day increases his chances of getting off, it doesn’t guarantee it.
And that’s also true for a regular non-former POTUS defendant if you get a mistrial that significantly decrease the chances you’ll ultimately get convicted. If it was possible to get a mistrial by just telling your lawyers to screw around people would do it all the time.
I have heard speculation that Trump may give the closing argument. This would allow him to speak directly to the jury without having to answer the prosecution’s pesky questions.
Of course IANAL, but I have watched hundreds of hours of Law & Order, Perry Mason and Matlock. I’m convinced that you’re not allowed to present any new evidence in closing, and you can’t disparage the other side (i.e., you can say the evidence they presented is false [if you showed that in cross] but you can’t call the opposing attorney a bald-faced liar.)
So if Trump gets up there and says (as, let’s face it, is highly probable) that the prosecution has made up a lot of stuff, and he can prove it, and that Merchan is an old meanyboots, who is totally against Trump, and whose daughter is a high-level agent of the enemy Demoncrats – what happens?
I’m guessing that before Trump starts his closing, the judge will remind the jury of the rules for closing arguments. So, if he starts pulling these shenanigans, would Merchan stop his closing argument? If he does, would he allow one of Trump’s lawyers to close, or would the defense have blown their chance to give a closing argument?
You could make the argument that being under the close supervision of the Secret Service 24 hours a day is functionally equivalent to having a live-in parole officer.
There’s not a chance the judge is going to allow this to happen. Or his lawyers, either.
And that being president is community service!
Any speculation is just that. There is no way Trump will give a closing argument. His lawyers know that he cannot string a coherent sentence together. All this would accomplish is to shorten the time the jury is out, and possibly increase the jail time given.
Cross examination just started
There’s been another objection over the financial disclosure document.
Prosecutors moved to enter in the OGE 278-e form for 2017, and Trump attorney Emil Bove objected.
After meeting at the bench, the document was accepted into evidence.
I can tell you as a juror, it does get frustrating and it is mentioned in deliberations. Although, it does give you a bit of a breather when they sidebar, and the court I was in you could have a beverage, so we all reached for beverage.
If it keeps coming and is close to back to back… yeah, that gets old.
I think it will have the opposite reaction.
Trump and his supporters have claimed repeatedly that all of this prosecution is politically motivated and the justice system is being weaponized.
This is a case where a judge is saying, very clearly, I am giving you every chance to stop this behavior, just stop or you will go to jail. If Trump continues and goes to jail, and people yet again claim that this is the legal system being used as a weapon, anyone who is not already in the Trump cult has clear evidence that this is not the case. And that will lend doubt to all of the other claims about the law being abused to persecute him.
I think that after how careful the court is being, all of the rope he’s being given, this will really poke a huge hole in the claims of being a victim, and would be devastating to his chances of winning people over.
So yeah, I hope he dares Merchan to jail him and continues to defy the order. That will have the opposite effect of what he thinks will happen.
Will his lawyers really stand up to Trump and overrule his decision? I’m under the impression they haven’t done much of that so far.
I’m sure you’re right that the judge won’t allow it, but what would be his reason for disallowing it? Is “I wanted to give the closing argument but that witchhunting judge wouldn’t let me” grounds for appeal?
I am sure his lawyers wake up at night in a cold sweat at this idea. It would trade coherent closing arguments by a competent lawyer pointing out the flaws in the prosecutions case for an incoherent rant by an obviously guilty compulsive liar.
Trump tried this in the fraud trial.
From the fraud trial: Trump defies judge, gives courtroom speech in civil fraud trial | AP News
Trump got shut down rather quickly
It should be noted that the Prosecution didn’t ask for jail time. There were seven counts of gag order violation and the judge only agreed with four of them. Three were dismissed.
On the other topic, his lawyers cannot prevent him from doing anything. They can only strongly advise.
His reason for disallowing it is because it’s not allowed. Trump is ably represented by lawyers, and that is their function, not Trump’s. The judge will be on firm ground to deny any request from Trump to give a closing argument so long as Trump remains represented by attorneys.
Trump will still appeal it – as he appeals many nonsensical things – and he will still use it as fodder in his campaign to “demonstrate” extreme “partisanship” by the “Demoncrat judge.”
Yeah but he’s clearly treating the criminal trial much more seriously. To him that was just another civil suit, but he’s clearly absolutely terrified of going to prison.
Hell, the lawyer he hired in that trial was so bad it’s not even guaranteed she could have delivered a better closing address than Trump.
What happens if, in front of the judge and the jury and everyone, Trump gestures in signature fashion while saying “you’re fired” to his attorneys?