I wonder who draws the job of cross-examining him.
It’s also going to be quite a task for the judge. The judge has to be better than the “moderators” and “interviewers” on the media, who just let Trump spew. I hope the judge is up to keeping him on “Just answer the question”.
In my fantasy world, Trump takes the stand and goes Full Colonel Nathan R. Jessup, and basically confesses to everyone claiming that he’s just being a smart businessman, and everyone else is too stupid to understand his genius.
His one competent lawyer must be not very happy about this. But in the end, the client has the final say, and it’s not like Trump can save himself in this case. He’s already cooked.
The judge will probably give him a lot of latitude due to being a bench trial and no jury to prejudice.
I think of it as… Let’s say you applied for a federal job that asked whether or not you’ve ever taken illegal drugs. You sign an agreement that lying constitutes fraud and is a crime. You then proceed to lie and say you’ve never taken illegal drugs.
Afterwards, evidence shows up proving that without a doubt you had used illegal drugs and lied on your application. You can’t be prosecuted for drug use, because the statute of limitations expired, but you’re not charged with that, you’re charged with fraud on a federal application. You can’t say that due to the statute of limitations you can’t be prosecuted for fraud.
That’s kind of how I am thinking this is going; the act that you lied about is too old to be prosecuted, but the lie itself isn’t.
Sounds like the whole Hunter Biden case. In his case checking a box on a form for buying a gun, indicating he does not have a drug problem (which he did, at the time). He’s not being prosecuted for being a drug user, but for lying on the form. It’ll be interesting if there is any parallels with these two cases.
I wasn’t even thinking of Hunter with my example (I was actually thinking of times when I applied for federal jobs and had to fill out such a form) but you’re correct.
Ass, yes, so I guess he’ll have to settle for one outta two.
There are no cameras and no jury. There’s absolutely nothing to be gained by grandstanding, so the judge might let him babble absent an objection from the state (or the defense, heh).
Granted, but that’s not the issue. The judge has to be concerned about the trial record. If he lets Trump babble on, that becomes the record for the appeal. If he finds against Trump, he has to find that the testimony was factually deficient, and give his reasons for doing so that will stand up on appeal. If he doesn’t restrain Trump the same way as with any other witness, he might be giving ammunition to the state on appeal that he didn’t do his job properly.
He seems like a sensible, experienced judge. He needs to do the job of keeping Trump answering the questions, just like with any other witness.
I somehow don’t think that will be a huge lift.
If he makes that assessment, he has to give his reasons for doing so.
Fair point.
FWIW I doubt he’ll actually take the stand. I think he’s just signaling that he’ll be wrapped up in this trial because it’s the only reliable way to delay the GA trial.
I wonder if he could MTG: “I’m sorry, I don’t remember” to every question. He for sure wouldn’t be able to pull of her sickening little smile after every response.
If he answers every question from his own counsel, but says he can’t remember anything in cross, then the judge can easily draw a credibility based inference that he is lying, and use that as the basis for disbelieving anything he says, unless corroborated by other testimony.
That kind of credibility based conclusion by the trial judge is almost impossible to overturn on appeal.
It’s really extremely tough for me to speculate on the likely effect of:
… on any actual testimony given, under oath, by Trump.
The best I can figure is that he’ll have no reason to grandstand and no upside in being forthcoming.
So, my money is still on heavy reliance on the 5th Amendment.
For now 
If he testifies voluntarily, can he plead the 5th? I wouldn’t have thought so.
I refer you to the estimable wisdom of one of my favorite posters:
I know; I’m puzzled by him being on the state’s witness list, but him saying he wants to testify. I don’t know how witness lists work in NY courts.
I truly think it’s nothing more than standard Trump bluster and bravado – faux defiance, wrapped in a thin veneer of “you can’t compel me to testify. I WANT to testify!”
And – since “I want to testify, but my attorneys won’t let me” wouldn’t be a whinge that’s available to him under these circumstances, I’m sticking with “defiance until sworn in, and then (blissful) silence.”
The judge finally told Trump’s lawyers to knock it off with the “there was no intent to defraud” arguments. He’s already ruled that Trump committed fraud and they’ve got to move on to other things.