Trial Judge Revokes Trump’s Permission to Speak – READ IN FULL

Liberty Nation ^ | Jan 10, 2024 | Liberty Nation Authors

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Here is Judge Engoron’s order refusing Trump to argue at his own trial

As the New York civil fraud trial concludes against Donald Trump, Judge Arthur Engoron has withdrawn permission for the former president to make a closing argument. He had previously agreed and required Mr. Trump to jump through numerous hoops to be able to address the court with his arguments. Reports indicate when Trump’s counsel did not reply to the Judge’s satisfaction by his deadline, Engoron ordered Trump silenced.

Liberty Nation believes you should have all the facts without the spin. As such, we republish the text of Judge Engoron’s order here in full.

“Thus, in my sole discretion, I will consent to let Mr. Trump make a closing argument if, and only if, through counsel by 1/9/2024, and by himself, personally, on the record, just before he speaks, he agrees to limit his subjects to what is permissible in a counsel’s closing argument, that is, commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts. He may not seek to introduce new evidence. He may not “testify.” He may not comment on irrelevant matters. In particular, and without limitation, he may not deliver a campaign speech, and he may not impugn myself, my staff, plaintiff, plaintiff’s staff, or the New York State Court System, none of which is relevant to this case, and all of which, except commenting on my staff, can be done, and is being done, in other forums. If Mr. Trump violates any of these rules, I will not hesitate to cut him off in mid-sentence and admonish him. If he continues to violate the rules, I will end his closing argument and prevent him from making any further statements in the courtroom. If he...

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Alex Jones was the proof-of-concept of not allowing a defendant to plead innocence or present evidence.

It worked on Alex, so the precedent has been set to use it on all non-Democrats.

[outofsalt]

grounds for dismissal.

[ClearCase_guy]

If I remember correctly, The People’s Court in the Third Reich had a similar protocol — there was a prosecuting attorney, and a judge (who was openly expected to serve as part of the state prosecution). I don’t think the defendant was allowed a defense attorney — they didn’t need one, because everybody already knew they were guilty.

[Skywise]

What kind of f-ed up kangaroo court is this?!

This is the United States where people have the right to face their acccusers directly.

This is gagging from the bench and this judge and the entire government supporting this just needs to be deposed.

[Secret Agent Man]

Yup.

[Candor7]

Trump has judge Enrogan by the short hairs....HEHAS TO SHUT HIM UP, thereby giving Trump a YUGE campaign platform and a YUGE prfersser outside the court room.

Exclellent work President Trump!

We see repeatedly why Donald Trump will make a fantastically good president.

[griswold3]

Weltschmerz

[Secret Agent Man]

And further, no one wanted to be a defense attorney for fear things were so blatantly obvious they might embarrass or prove someone was being railroaded in a sham trial. Then they go bye-bye too.

[thegagline]

Limiting a closing argument to what is permissible in a closing argument is not forcing anyone to jump through “numerous hoops.”

[Golden Eagle]

Proof the judge already knows the appeal to re-try the case at a higher level will immediately be approved. Without question.

[Oystir]

I don’t believe you statement will be understood. But, thank you for posing the reality of the situation.

[thegagline]

grounds for dismissal.

Give me one case in the history of American jurisprudence where an appellate court “dismissed” (your words, not mine) a case based upon limiting a closing argument to the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts.

[LegendHasIt]

That’s pretty much what I was going to say. I fully agree.

Although, I fear that most people here are just fine with it happening to Alex Jones, and way too many don’t mind it happening to Trump.

But one day soon, it may happen to them, and they will wail about it.

[Vermont Lt]

Sssssh….

People here have watched Law and Order….they are better judges of what is appropriate in a court.

/ssarc

[sauropod]

.

[frank ballenger]

From the similar year of 1968 in politics.
Sketch from the courtroom artist, now in the Library of Congress.

Sketch #3 below (bound and gagged)
https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/drawing-justice-courtroom-illustrations/about-this-exhibition/political-activists-on-trial/

[TLI]

“Thus, in my sole discretion, I will consent to let Mr. Trump make a closing argument if, and only if, through counsel by 1/9/2024, and by himself, personally, on the record, just before he speaks, he agrees to limit his subjects to what is permissible in a counsel’s closing argument, that is, commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts. He may not seek to introduce new evidence. He may not “testify.” He may not comment on irrelevant matters. In particular, and without limitation, he may not deliver a campaign speech, and he may not impugn myself, my staff, plaintiff, plaintiff’s staff, or the New York State Court System, none of which is relevant to this case, and all of which, except commenting on my staff, can be done, and is being done, in other forums. If Mr. Trump violates any of these rules, I will not hesitate to cut him off in mid-sentence and admonish him. If he continues to violate the rules, I will end his closing argument and prevent him from making any further statements in the courtroom. If he violates the current gag order against him, I will immediately direct court officers to remove him from the courtroom forthwith and will fine him not less than $50,000. Finally, he must state on the record before he begins to speak that he also understands that, without exception, defendants, collectively, have only from 10:15 to 12:45, with one 15-minute break, to present their arguments, meaning that whatever time he speaks is time that other defense attorneys will not have.

Judge corpse probably has a script for PDJT to read in court rather than all that useless direct testimony from the defendant.

Judge corpse needs to be back in it's box.

.

[Chainmail]

Idiot still being idiotic, I see.

Trump 2024

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Limiting a closing argument to what is permissible in a closing argument is not forcing anyone to jump through “numerous hoops.”

What about not allowing a defendant to plead innocent in the first place?

[outofsalt]

I believe this judge’s actions have been prejudicial against Trump from the beginning. I’m not a lawyer.