- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump Barred From Making Closing Arguments.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 4:34 pm to KiwiHead
Posted on 1/10/24 at 4:34 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
If I was Trump's attorney I would be very much against him saying anything at this point.
Why?
He won't get fairly judged no matter what. Might as well let the whole world hear what Trump has to say.
0
Posted on 1/10/24 at 4:50 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
As a party before the Court, he was certainly entitled to testify. Why did he not help his case by doing that?
Are you implying guilt because he failed to testify? Yikes.
Isn’t this just a case about damages? Based upon a shady summary judgment? Criticizing the court and opposing counsel seems well within the bounds of a normal closing.
If I have the wrong case, I apologize. I’ve stopped paying close attention. This lawfare stuff is infuriating. And engaging in the weeds over clearly partisan cases is something I’m trying to stay away from.
This post was edited on 1/10/24 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 1/10/24 at 4:51 pm to TDTOM
quote:
So he could talk, he just couldn't talk about certain things that would help his case. Got it.
If this has been characterized correctly Trump would have been limited by the same boundaries that I am every time I make closing arguments. While litigants acting pro se are given some level of latitude (especially in a bench trial) because judges aren't interested in teaching a trial advocacy class they still put the bumpers up when they are straying too far.
Trump chose not to avail himself of the right to testify and doesn't get a bite at the apple without cross, this is true for everyone. There are specific rules to what you can say in closing and I am not sure what the issue is with someone being held to those rules irrespective of what transpired earlier in the case.
This post was edited on 1/10/24 at 5:19 pm
Posted on 1/10/24 at 4:51 pm to crap4brain
quote:
Since when are you not allowed to speak on your own behalf?
When you are in court!
What is the saying about trying to be your own counsel?
Posted on 1/10/24 at 5:17 pm to POTUS2024
quote:
I think the appeal is pretty much locked up now. Should also be able to get a judgment for all legal costs. This is a clown show.
Tell me more.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 5:32 pm to RuLSU
quote:
Tell me more.
If you want to judge his legal acumen ask him to post the link to the order from when he appeared pro se before The United States Court of Federal Claims.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 5:48 pm to crap4brain
quote:He could have testified.
Since when are you not allowed to speak on your own behalf?
Its a s sham trial, but not because of this.
This post was edited on 1/10/24 at 5:50 pm
Posted on 1/10/24 at 6:20 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
No really what boosie was saying. Its pretty standard stuff for judges to restrict arguments in the manner described by that quote.
Can't just get up there and rant forever about things that aren't even before the court.
I'll give you that. That's reasonable, and would be acceptable by itself. Pulling back and seeing the totality of unjust and unfair way Trump has been treated, makes it hard to accept. Understand what I'm saying?
Posted on 1/10/24 at 6:26 pm to KiwiHead
In this case???? He's fricked given what this judge has telegraphed. Keep your mouth shut and minimize the damage as much as possible. Start working towards the appeal(s). That is the smart move.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 6:27 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
Trump chose not to avail himself of the right to testify and doesn't get a bite at the apple without cross, this is true for everyone
Bingo.
You cannot say, if asked to testify "oh no no, not me, no way, no sir, no no". and then ask to make a big speech later at the ending. It doesn't work like that.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 6:29 pm to ItzMe1972
The judge wouldn't allow him to make his closing arguments into a campaign speech and you guys are whining about it?
Posted on 1/10/24 at 6:31 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in the United States in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or because of his or her having exercised such a right. Unlike most conspiracy statutes, §241 does not require, as an element, the commission of an overt act. The offense is always a felony, even if the underlying conduct would not, on its own, establish a felony violation of another criminal civil rights statute. It is punishable by up to ten years imprisonment unless the government proves an aggravating factor (such as that the offense involved kidnapping aggravated sexual abuse, or resulted in death) in which case it may be punished by up to life imprisonment and, if death results, may be eligible for the death penalty.
1. I fully support going after everyone in #GetTrump movement because they are clearly trying to deprive him of his Constitutional rights.
2. Aren’t prosecutors given immunity from these kind of laws?
Posted on 1/10/24 at 6:34 pm to WeeWee
Bruh
Posted on 1/10/24 at 6:36 pm to Obtuse1
Stop making sense. The Cult will run with Trump being wrongly persecuted.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 6:41 pm to El Segundo Guy
quote:
The Cult will run with Trump being wrongly persecuted.
You don’t think these are political persecutions?
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News