Judge Repeatedly Asks Lawyers to 'Control' Trump as Testimony Goes Off the Rails
3 years ago by CantaloupeLifestyle to c/politics
The judge needs to calmly and patiently explain to Trump that he will be jailed for contempt if he doesn't follow the rules and act in good faith, and then dispassionately follow through with that consequence.
Don't threaten him, don't cajole his lawyers to constrain him, don't complain about his behavior. Just give him a time-out, like the petulant toddler he is, until he gets it through his skull that his bullshit won't be tolerated.
Once he comes back, if he won't agree to behave or if he does promise to behave and then breaks that promise, simply immediately put him back in the cell for another round.
Trump needs to see the inside of a holding cell for a while in order to act right.
As much as I'd love to see it, jailing him for contempt would play right into their plan. He wouldn't see 24hr of cell time before his fanatic base would be whipped into violence, painted as political persecution of the GOP (defacto) nominee
It's all paper thin excuses to anyone with critical thinking, but we know it'd be a successful ploy.
I don't think it's a strategy, it's just a happy potential by-product, albeit an unlikely one.
Sure it's possible that a judge might make mistakes that may form the basis for a successful appeal. Is Engoron more likely to make mistakes because of Trump's antics? Not necessarily. Most people do their best work under pressure.
Trump's behavior is focused as always on his supporters. The more he appears to be persecuted the more his supporters will throw money at him - it's that simple. He's intentionally pushing the judge as far as he can without crossing the line into actual consequences.
Edit: as an aside the photos of these idiots always makes me think about how much time they've spent practicing their facial expressions in a mirror.
I'll add to that that wasting a judge's time through non-compliance is a fast track to default judgment. Just ask Alex Jones how that goes.
The right to a speedy trial is a right for the prosecutors, too.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
The problem is that this is a strategy, and it might work. The judge is showing signs of exasperation. The defense is laying the grounds for an appeal based on judicial bias. Viewed in that light, each time the judge interjects out of annoyance or exasperation is citable evidence. It's funny, but it is also rather dangerous.
save