That email chain was something. The judge’s accommodation is dependent only upon Trump following the same rules that apply to anyone permitted to make a closing argument.
That an attorney, a member of the bar, an officer of the court, describes this as “very unfair” ought to lead to sanctions. I don’t know if that’s usual. Let’s say public noogies at a minimum.
Seriously, though, @Aspenglow, would it be a breach of decorum for a judge to smack down the sender of such an email? Some form of court-proper wording to the effect of, “You have got to be @#&$ing kidding me. Did you get your law degree from PEP boys? If you ever again call one of my rulings unfair based on…nothing…I will [insert appropriate sanction] for wasting the court’s time.”
This is surely the deliberate intent. Kise is not, by all accounts, an idiot. It’s interesting to see such a cynical ploy first hand. Unfortunately for him I suspect that Engoron is not an idiot either.
I swear, every time I see Trump or anyone in his camp use the word “unfair,” all I can think of is a toddler who doesn’t like what he’s been told but has no ability to offer a coherent counter-argument.
The entire GOP is basically an overgrown kindergarten class.
Your and your client’s rejection of the reasonable, normal limits I am imposing on any argument by Mr. Trump, which are the same limits that the law imposes on any person making a closing argument, completely justifies the need to impose them.
I haven’t read the email chain (will do so when I have time), and the exchange of emails between a judge and a litigant’s attorney is surprising to me as it could be construed as ex parte communication. Or more likely, Letitia James’s team is also included in the communications.
In my day, there were strict rules for how pleadings had to be prepared and submitted, and those rules were enforceable. If a formal pleading did not adhere to the rules for formatting, they would be rejected by the Clerk’s Office, not even shown to the judge. But formatting rules for emails? Sounds like there aren’t any.
I think @Riemann has it right: Kise is just employing yet another tactic to demonstrate disrespect in the hope of provoking an intemperate response by Judge Engoron. And Judge Engoron is far too experienced and wise to fall for such an idiotic ploy.
Your and your client’s rejection of the reasonable, normal limits I am imposing on any argument by Mr. Trump, which are the same limits that the law imposes on any person making a closing argument, completely justifies the need to impose them.
Seriously. “You’re not the boss of me,” “I know you are, but what am I?,” “They started it,” “This is so unfair!,” etc., seems to be the extent of their debating skills.
“This is very unfair, your honor. You are not allowing President Trump, who has been wrongfully demeaned and belittled by an out of control, politically morivated Attorney General, to speak about the things that must be spoken about.”
wow, just wow. how can any lawyer write that? i did enjoy the “you have seven minutes”, and then the all caps.
I heard talking heads (fa fa fa fa) saying that Trump would be able only to speak about evidence from the trial, no grandstanding made up bullshit.
That’s a no go for Trumpy, who only ever speaks grandstandingly on made up bullshit.
What the Actual Fuck? Trump can blather on as much as he wants about how much he hates the Attorney General. On multiple platforms and in rallies, as much as he wants. And he does. All the time.
