The briefcase is filled with one of those.
Perhaps put up a bond? 
The decision to testify or not is Donald’s, and his alone. His lawyers can make recommendations, but at some point during the trial (before the defense has a chance to present their case), the judge will confirm with donald his decision. But it’s not predetermined (I.e. the choice could depend on how the government’s case is going, so it isn’t something a defendant has to decide in advance)
That does not mean he will testify, or even that he now expects to testify. At the moment he said it, he saw some benefit to doing so, probably to look confident, strong, and unafraid. That sort of bluff and bluster is what Trump does, but the words don’t actually mean anything.
I suppose it’s human nature to hear someone’s words and try to attach some meaning or intent to them. With Trump, there is none.
FWIW, in this video, former prosecutor Glenn Kirschner mentions in passing that he thinks it’s possible that Judge Merchan would put Trump in jail for contempt if he keeps violating the gag order or for other antics in court.
Each state has their particular nuances in regards to procedure. They’ll have hearings named for state cases, for example.
So, in New York, for example, they have (and in Donald’s trial had) a hearing called a “Sandoval hearing”, based on the following rule, found in a New York case called People v. Sandoval
https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/archives/p_sandoval.htm
The hearing is to determine what qualifies. They had that Sandoval hearing Friday In Donald’s case. Judge Merchan won’t rule until Monday, but the DA spelled out what types of things they’d intend to use to impeach his credibility.
Part of the reason for this hearing is so the defendant will know what can come out, for the jury to hear, if he takes the stand. It’s sort of a cautionary exercise.
There’s no doubt that his lawyers will point to the Judge’s ruling (assuming it’s favorable to the DA) as a reason not to testify.
Trump isn’t looking so good. He’s going to come down with covid or something and request a delay due to his inability to assist his lawyers and his great concern that he might be contagious. He could, no doubt, find some MD to go on record confirming his claims.
Sure, that may well figure into Trump’s decision to take the stand, when the time comes. If he does choose not to testify, he will never admit that fear of the consequences was the reason. He’ll probably say something like “I knew the deck was stacked against me, and I couldn’t get a fair trial, so I chose not to.”
I don’t know, and don’t care to know, how Donald makes those kinds of decisions. We only have his explanations of why he does things, and as I said, those mean nothing.
His default answer on this one is that his “lawyers wouldn’t let him.”
I’ve lost count of the number of times he’s used that one.
ETA: It’s akin to “I wanted to do the right thing, but my basic nature wouldn’t let me.”
Which will be funny when, outside the presence of the jury, the judge addresses donald directly and instructs him that it’s up to him to choose whether to testify, and then asks him for his decision.
Contagious bone spurs?
But, but, he’s the healthiest ex-president in the history of the republic!
And making recommendations right now means spending every waking hour pleading with Trump to not testify, for the love of the god.
Here’s the thing, right, this wasn’t one of his delusional rants to the press. This was a clear, unambiguous statement of “yes I will testify”, made by a defendant during a Sandoval hearing in a felony trial to the judge. I am assuming it won’t have particularly big ramifications when his lawyers finally get through to him and he goes back on it. But he’s gonna learn the hard way that statements made in court by a defendant in a felony trial do actually mean something. They can mean spending 30 days in jail for starters.
I’m not familiar with this type of hearing, but my thought is that
(1) if he said that to the judge in support of his lawyers’ arguments that certain evidence should be excluded, and
(2) the judge relies on that assertion as the basis to exclude evidence, and
(3) he doesn’t testify,
does that mean that the prosecution can then ask to introduce the evidence after all?
If I’ve misstated how the process works, my apologies.
Though will the fact Trump gave an unambiguous “yes I will testify” during the Sandoval hearing have any implications when they do eventually convince him to not testify? I’m assuming no and there is no way the jury will ever know he said that (but that his lawyers still wish he had used more ambiguous legalese when he answered)
If he states to the judge and prosecution that he will testify, does that give the prosecution the right to call him as a witness? (I’m thinking as a rebuttal witness to someone called by the defense.)
As I understand it this evidence could only be considered as the response to the defendant’s testimony, so if he doesn’t testify it cannot be introduced no matter what the judge says.
Ah, that makes sense. Thank you.
Of course not. The defendant has an absolute right not to testify.
If the defendant agrees to testify but then invokes the Fifth Amendment declining to answer some (or all) questions, does the prosecution have the right to introduce evidence based on the question the defendant refused to answer?