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

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

[frank ballenger]

I was looking for this Woody Allen scene of questioning a witness while he was bound and gagged by the judge.
Last two minutes have it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a3mk9sp0oE

[thegagline]

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

Oh my! This is a case in equity. It isn’t a criminal trial.

[Danie_2023]

That scene was great... and you have no idea how badly I needed that laugh. Thank you!

[Nervous Tick]

>> Limiting a closing argument to what is permissible in a closing argument

Closing arguments deserve, and get, WIDE — did you get that trump hater? — WIDE latitude. And you know damn well that President Trump will NOT get the latitude afforded to non-railroaded “defendants”. Yet another gratuitous slap at our President from FR’s premier trump hater.

[frank ballenger]

You are quite welcome.

[USA-FRANCE]

Reminds me of this... :

Disinformation and the courtroom: the Moscow show trials

Moscow’s tenuous relationship with the truth now and then – Thomas Grant QC looks back at the last of the so-called ‘show trials’ where courtrooms were used as vehicles for disinformation and legitimization of oppression

https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/disinformation-the-courtroom-the-moscow-show-trials

[bosco24]

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

Very strange. I wonder if it was permissible that he states he is innocent in closing argument? Probably not, this judge found him guilty before the hearing therfore his innocents is not a relevant, material fact.

I think you are wrong.

[EasySt]

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

~~~~~~~

Once that was dis-allowed, death sentences became all but guaranteed.

(Starting with The Republic, to be quickly followed by any and all in opposition.)

~Easy

[Boogieman]

They stole that from the Soviets. In Russia, you were lucky if you even knew there was a trial. Often prisoners found out only after the fact what they were charged with, after they had already been found guilty.

[maro]

He doesn’t care whether he is reversed. He is using the legal system to influence the election.

[j.havenfarm]

I frequently denounce the media on this forum. Their coverage of legal issues is simplified to the point of being false. Thai results in the public being utterly ignorant of legal matters, even the very basic distinction between criminal and civil cases, and therefore the fact one doesn’t enter pleas I civil cases such as this.

This case is wrongful and should never have been brought at all. The judge is a prejudiced joke. It’s a sham from beginning to end.

All that being true, almost all of the comments on this thread are ill-informed to the point of being foolish. That a judge allows a represented party to make the closing argument AT ALL is all but unheard of. Having allowed it, the parameters or restrictions the judge has imposed in this case are entirely appropriate

[Cen-Tejas]

.......Trump should not even show up. This judge made up his mind before the trial started and EVERYBODY that is room temp knows that.

At a minimum, the appeal, which likely is already 90% finished, will stay any further action by Engoron’s court.

If Trump wins and becomes President, Engoron’s decision (no jury) will be stayed until dismissed by the appeals court.

Yawwwwnnnn! Bedtime.

Engoron’s book deal and advance is pending as I type.

[fso301]

[thegagline]

Very strange. I wonder if it was permissible that he states he is innocent in closing argument? Probably not, this judge found him guilty before the hearing therfore his innocents is not a relevant, material fact. I think you are wrong.

This is NOT a criminal case. It is a case in equity- specifically, a CIVIL FRAUD TRIAL. The Judge did not find Trump “guilty.” There is NO finding of guilt in a civil trial such as this.

[thegagline]

All that being true, almost all of the comments on this thread are ill-informed to the point of being foolish. That a judge allows a represented party to make the closing argument AT ALL is all but unheard of. Having allowed it, the parameters or restrictions the judge has imposed in this case are entirely appropriate

Thank you for your voice of reason. It seems to be an increasingly rare commodity found in these parts…

[fightin kentuckian]

The defendant on trial is not allowed to defend himself? Really! This isnt justus it’s a kangaroo court by any definition.

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Good old Roland Freisler.

[OrioleFan]

One of my all time favorite movies. The Miss America testimony is particularly fitting in todays one sided legal system.

[bosco24]

“This is NOT a criminal case. It is a case in equity- specifically, a CIVIL FRAUD TRIAL.”

So in a CIVIL FRAUD TRIAL, the court does not have to determine if the defendant is guilty of FRAUD?

So in this case the judge may rule that he has not made a determination if Trump Inc. commited fraud but Trump Inc. must pay $500,000 and is not allowed to do bussiness in NYC.

This is nonsense. You are wrong.

[CaptainPhilFan]

Sorry to be graphic, but I am positive this POS “judge” literally pleasures himself thinking about Trump and all of the mean things the judge can do to him.

I do not understand how all of this BS is being allowed to play out in American courts of law when everyone knows it’s ALL lies and falsehoods and nonsense. Everyone KNOWS there is nothing to any of this. Is everyone we sent to represent us so absolutely chicken shit that no one is willing to stand up and say NO MORE ?