It's so frustrating watching the judges in every different trial go through the baby steps of trying to educate him, give him his first warning, give him the now-I-mean-business speech, over and over again. Is it some principle of law that they can't factor in what's happened in all the other trials?
The gag order said he couldn't post about any of the staff. It didn't say he couldn't post about the staff's family. Gotcha, judge.
(Going through Trump's mind right now.)
(Going through Trump's mind right now.)
Maybe now we should all hope that some clerk trips and spills coffee on Trump. Sorry, cofeve.
OP
OP
What happens in other trials is not evidence properly before the court. Not unless someone puts it into evidence (like DoJ has done recently in the DC trial before Judge Chutkan).
My calculations are he will violate it within 1 to 5 attoseconds after the gag order was issued
That's some weak-ass gag order. Watch him push it to the exact letter.
Sick of hearing things akin to "Nobody is above the law" in relation to some of these trials, with acres of evidence to the contrary. He should have been held in immediate contempt, and blanket gagged for that dangerous post about the poor clerk. Absurdly soft treatment for this criminal prick.
Sick of hearing things akin to "Nobody is above the law" in relation to some of these trials, with acres of evidence to the contrary. He should have been held in immediate contempt, and blanket gagged for that dangerous post about the poor clerk. Absurdly soft treatment for this criminal prick.
OP
OP
Bender under cross examination now, they don't seem to be going anywhere substantial with it.
View: https://twitter.com/stewartbishop/status/1709293039900840109
View: https://twitter.com/stewartbishop/status/1709293039900840109
OP
OP
As I understand it, for contempt you must have either a breach of a court order, or the contempt be committed in the face of the court (i.e. actually in the courtroom). Outside the courtroom, absent a court order, there can be no contempt of court.
At least that's the way it is over here, don't know what it's like over there.
OP
OP
Judge:
Trump:
Naah, lay off it. Engoron's done the right thing here. We're only TWO DAYS into trial and he warned Trump on day 1 and imposed a gag order on day 2. It's narrowly tailored because of the 1st Amendment.
OP
OP
These objections are on stuff that was already ruled on prior to trial right? Feels like Trump's lawyers are angling for yet another sanctionin'
OP
OP
More likely just preserving the issue for appeal. It's the sort of thing that happens, not sanctionable.
OP
OP
But here is something that might attract a further gag order if it is brought to the court's attention:
It's not good to misrepresent court findings. Not good at all.
CNN said:
It's not good to misrepresent court findings. Not good at all.
Lawyers generally have the "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take" approach to objections.
OP
OP
And we're done for the day. Cross examination of Bender resumes tomorrow.
View: https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1709304185215238547
View: https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1709304185215238547
Does the judge's gag order about "member of my staff" include the judge himself? Because I can see Trump complying with not targeting clerks, but I don't think he has it in him to stop slurring the judge.
OP
OP
Especially when you're lying about the one person who has all the power in the trial.
How credible is this list?
Was Trump removed because they finally crunched the #s and realized that he doesn't measure up? Or was Trump removed because they felt they needed to save face?
TRIAL - Day 3, still accountants, from Mazars and Whiltley Penn
OP
OP
Summary of day 3 (CNN)
Witnesses
Donald Bender (Mazars accountant) - cross
Cameron Harris (Whitley Penn accountant) - direct only
A day of very repetitive witnesses, with slow cross examination exasperating the judge. Trump has gone back to Mar-a-Lago thank goodness.
Essentially the defense is trying to blame the accountants, while the accountants say they were only hired to compile stuff, not to check it.
Witnesses
Donald Bender (Mazars accountant) - cross
Cameron Harris (Whitley Penn accountant) - direct only
A day of very repetitive witnesses, with slow cross examination exasperating the judge. Trump has gone back to Mar-a-Lago thank goodness.
Essentially the defense is trying to blame the accountants, while the accountants say they were only hired to compile stuff, not to check it.
Last edited:
I didn't see this brought up here? From the first day:
Judge told lawyers to "keep the volume down" after Alina Habba "practically yelled" at him: reporter
Well, there's that, and there's the whole bit about hoping he actually pays her.
What happens when you're desperately trying to ensure Donald pays you
His Reality Distortion Field is flickering. Every so often you can see in his face that he sees what we all see.
Because it's their only defense. This is an open and shut case through and through.
Alina Habba and the rest of Trump's attorneys are likely on their way to disbarment if this keeps up.
As a lawyer, you cannot misrepresent facts, and these same lawyers were already sanctioned for this.
Right. That can't deny that they filed documents subject to laws with wildly different valuations on them. They can't deny that Trump's absurd signature is on them. So they have to go the route of 'oh, er, this is... surely it's legal to just lie on these forms and the laws saying you can't... are... not binding? or something?'
Because there's no denying they submitted the tax forms and loan requests that they did. Or that Trump is the one liable because he signed them. There's too many to argue that you just accidentally added or subtracted zeros in line with whether it was paying taxes or getting loans.
And that's without getting into the square footage hilarity.
If I recall, this same judge is the guy who was slamming his fist on the table saying something along the lines of "You cannot lie on financial documents." Like it's not something to be debated. By signing the document, you are asserting that the information is accurate. The form likely even says this.
I mean, they didn't even try to go with the defense that "oh it jumped in value during this time period but then something happened to lower the value" because the discrepancies were just that ridiculous.