Judge Engoron Claims He is ‘Not Here to Listen to What’ Trump has to Say During Testimony
No wonder we cannot have cameras in the courtroom. Absolute circus.
I don’t even know where to begin.
President Donald Trump testified today in the stupid fraud trial in New York City.
The trial is a sham because Judge Arthur Engoron has already decided that Trump is guilty, but due process is so passe, right?
When Trump left, he said:
This is a case that should have never been brought. It’s a case that should be dismissed immediately. The fraud was on behalf of the court. The court was the fraudster in this case. They made references to assets that were very valuable, and they said, uh, they had no idea. They had no idea what the numbers were when they said $18 million for Mar-A-Lago, has 50 to 100 times that amount by any estimation. It’s a terrible thing that’s happened here. We’re taking days and days and weeks and weeks and it goes on. And then you look at the outside world and what’s happening. But of course, they’re getting their wish because I don’t have to be here for the most part. But I certainly do have to be here because I want to be here because it’s a scam. And this is a case that should have never been brought, and it’s a case that now should be dismissed.
JUST IN – Trump after NY trial:
Reporter: How did it go?
Trump: I think it went very well. pic.twitter.com/L77oYcbkDo
— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) November 6, 2023
I can see why they didn’t want cameras in the courtroom because it would show that the trial is just a show. From what people have said, it appears Engoron did everything to ruin Trump’s testimony.
Whenever Trump tried to answer a question, Engoron kept interrupting him, calling the answers “speeches.” He even said he is not there to listen to Trump:
Meanwhile, Wallace began another line of questioning, and Engoron fired back at Kise saying, “Mr. Kise, I beseech you to control him. If you can’t, I will.”
Kise, defending the former president, said the judge should want to hear everything the witness has to say.
“I don’t want to hear everything he has to say,” Engoron said.
Trump’s defense continued that it is “necessary, beneficial, and relevant to answer the questions in this manner.”
Trump attorney Alina Habba said Wallace “should try to ask better questions.”
“I’m not here to hear what he has to say…he goes into speeches,” Engoron said.
Engoron then said they were there to listen to him answer questions.
So…you are here to listen to what he has to say.
Well, that's gonna show up in the appeal.
(He is very much there to listen to what those on the stand, including Trump, have to say.) https://t.co/Qjwykyh5TF
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) November 6, 2023
When Alina Habba, Trump’s lawyer, tried to defend her client, Engoron unleashed his anger on her as well.
This is a kangaroo court.
JUST IN: Donald Trump's attorney Alina Habba says judge Arthur Engoron had an unhinged episode in the court room where he started "slamming" a table.
Kangaroo court.
"You have a right to hire a lawyer who can stand up and stay something when they see something wrong."
"I was… pic.twitter.com/h1ytdEujBu
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) November 6, 2023
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
They aren’t even trying to hide it.
So? You can’t do anything about it and if you protest… a cell in stir is waiting for you. At least it isn’t as small as the cages used by the Chinese… but give them time. 0bama bin Biden will have his Chinese masters give him the plans.
WTF? What does he think a Judge does?
This is the Trial of the Knave of Hearts aka Trump, “Sentence first — verdict afterwards”
You have that backwards. Trump was adjudicated guilty over a month ago. This is the punishment phase.
I think Trump is bad for America. I won’t vote for him. But he’s doing a service for all New Yorkers by pushing back against this elected D judge who is, fairly clearly, not living up to his oath of office.
So does every Democrat.
C’mon. It looks like you’ve served in the military. Certainly you served with some D’s and trusted them to have your back. I won’t vote for a D, but I have Dems as friends and family members.
I’d happily take a swing at any dem I ever served with. poor excuses for soldiers. They gave us the obama reign of error.
So glad I’m out of uniform now.
For many years, I refused to interview or hire anyone who gave any information in their resume that made me believe that they were leftists. Mostly indicated by the college they attended.
It got easier with the the “they/them/zir/zee” nonsense.
They were a walking talking HR nightmare.
And you certainly love you some Biden, because “Trump be baaaaaddddd for Merika!!!”
And I have some black and Hispanic friends. Do that make me not racist?
Thanks for you service. Enjoy your evening.
I gotta back him up on this one. Thankfully, being in the air force there wasn’t a high percentage of being shot at, but I wouldn’t trust a communist to have my back in any instance. Bad enough having to trust them not to do things to compromise safety with working on equipment.
What has he done that is bad for America besides lob mean tweets to people that wish him the very worst and are not afraid to show it and act it out.
he had the nerve and audacity to defeat hildabeast in 2016, which set their plans back by a term.
More than one term due to him selecting 3 SCOTUS Justices.
The poisoning of the Republican Party and the economic damage from 2020 have accelerated their plans.
Since you asked…
1. Didn’t build the promised wall/didn’t use his VETO to reject the budget sent to him without the funding
2. Didn’t fire/rein in Fauci and the Covid Karens during Covid/didn’t direct the DoJ Civil Rights division to intervene around the Nation to stop Gov/Mayors from infringement of Citizens civil rights
I like the abrasive communication style he uses. It is reminiscent of old school Wresting Promos and holds great appeal to me because of that. It’s sarcastic and funny as hell to me. There are others who don’t appreciate his abrasive communication style and find it more than off putting. Unfortunately those folks also vote. Winning elections is still very much a process of maintaining the votes of those already willing to vote for you while attracting additional voters. Taking actions that deliberately PO voters who potentially could be persuaded to vote for you seems like a less than proven strategy to win elections.
You were not asked, however. It was not your statement either.
Your examples of the past, why Trump IS bad for America border on the ridiculous.
‘What has he done…… ‘ was the question you posed in the comments. Alongside that, this is a comment section and folks can and will …comment on what you post and what your post implies or seems to imply. You ain’t immune from this so get used to it.
Overall Trump was a big positive as POTUS however he had two glaring failures; not using his VETO to send back the budget Ryan/McConnell sent up lacking funding for the wall and not reining in Fauci and his Covid Karens. Both of those failures inarguably made the USA worse off. If you disagree make your case.
I like Trump but I don’t refuse to see his flaws. The man is probably gonna be the GoP nominee and I will absolutely support his candidacy in the general election. Hopefully enough of the folks PO about his abrasive communication style can get past it and pull the lever for him as well given the disastrous policies of the d/prog as the alternative.
Don’t play the game that you cannot comment, please. Beneath the level of discussion. Whether it was appropriate to answer for someone else was the issue. Do you answer direct questions for others in public? Your view is known. His was not.
In any event, the complaints over what happened do not address how he is a danger. A danger? Looking at where things are now? Utter nonsense.
Answering for someone else? Ok like you did below? You do realize we ain’t precluded from commenting anywhere in the thread?
Don’t see a reference to future ‘danger’ till now. The post I responded to asked ‘What has he done that is bad for America?’ That’s past tense.
Trump isn’t a danger to the Nation FWIW.
Also, didn’t “lock her up”. i.e. didn’t appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her and look for usable evidence of crimes for which the statute had not yet expired.
(That she is a felon is beyond question. But most of her known felonies had long since passed the statute of limitations by 2017. In order to legitimately lock her up, we needed a prosecutor with subpoena powers to look for evidence of more recent ones, and figure out ways to prosecute them in jurisdictions where a fair jury is possible. If he had made such an appointment and it hadn’t panned out, so be it. Nobody could complain. But he never made the appointment and never intended to. When he made that promise he never meant it, and was laughing at his supporters who were making the demand.)
Not being a vindictive Democrat. How terrible of him. Again, the question was posed to the person who said the words. Was interested in what he had to say. Already know what others quibble about. Why IS he bad for America? Answer that one.
“Also, didn’t “lock her up”. i.e. didn’t appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her and look for usable evidence of crimes for which the statute had not yet expired.”
• 100% agree that Trump said that he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton in the debate.
““If I win, I am going to instruct my Attorney General to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there have never been so many lies, so much deception.””
• That was one of the best moments I have ever witnessed in a debate – a true ‘Truth to Power’ moment.
• It is true that after the debate Trump spoke often about the need to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton.
• Trump also fired Comey in May, 2017 – made decision to not investigate Clinton – and shortly thereafter his AG recused himself and his DAG appointed a special prosecutor to investigate Russian interference, etc. – which greatly complicated things for Trump.
• It is also true that a President cannot appoint a special prosecutor, and that Trump continued to publicly press his AG to do so (please see dates below in link below).
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/358772-timeline-trump-calls-for-clinton-to-be-investigated/
• To be fair, it is pretty clear that Trump tried to have Clinton investigated, and it strikes me as 100% disingenuous to fault Trump.
The executive power vests entirely in the president. He could have ordered his attorney-general to make the appointment.
not locking up his political opponents? Sounds impeachable
Prosecuting actual crimes by an actual criminal is not being a “vindictive Democrat”. The fact that a criminal happens to be your political opponent shouldn’t be a get-out-of-jail-free card.
And yes, letting someone off because they’re a politician should be an impeachable offense, though it’s never likely to be, because it’s politicians who do the impeaching, and they tend to like the idea that they too should be exempt from prosecution should they ever commit a crime.
“He could have ordered his attorney-general to make the appointment.”
• Could not help but notice that The Dog Did Not Bark ^^.
• The law, history – and context (see below) – always matter, if citizens wish to be fair.
§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.
• Trump fired Comey in May, 2017
• Shortly thereafter his AG recused himself and his DAG appointed a special prosecutor to investigate Russian interference, etc.
• A President cannot appoint a special prosecutor
• Trump continued to publicly press his AG to do so.
^^ = “Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention? To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time. The dog did nothing in the night-time. ‘That was the curious incident, remarked Sherlock Holmes.”
Actually he did respond to the lock her up question in an interview. He said he chose to take the high road and try to ease tensions between the parties. He also said he regretted that decision considering what the left tried to do and is still trying to do to him and his administration.
Sessions was still the AG, and could have appointed a prosecutor. If he didn’t want to, Trump could have ordered him to.
And not doing so was not “taking the high road”. That is the problem. This whole idea that politicians should not be treated like everyone else. He admitted that he decided not to keep his promise. I’m telling you that from the beginning he never intended to keep it. When he made the promise he was laughing at his supporters and playing them for suckers. He intended all along to make nice with Clinton as soon as the election was over. Thank God she rejected his overtures.
With regards to the border he did build 100s of miles of border walls with funds diverted from other programs since the GOPe in the Senate refused to pass funding which they could and should have done with reconciliation. So he did all he could despite the opposition of the Dems and GOPe and numerous judges attempting to thwart him.
He cut lots of regulatory red tape to help businesses and obtain energy independence. allowing the most robust economy in decades.
He appointed conservative judges who reversed Roe vs. Wade and affirmative action.
True on Fauci he should have fired him. Letting Pence head up the Covid team was a mistake, but like most of Trump’s personnel errors the people selected were either establishment pretended to be conservative or were the only ones that the establishment senate would confirm.
No he did not ‘do everything he could’. He failed to use the VETO to reject the DC establishment budget that Ryan and McConnell presented him. Instead he inexplicably rolled over and let it happen.
Did he later use other means to try and build a portion of the wall? Yes. That doesn’t excuse his failure to exercise his VETO and tell the DC establishment to pound sand.
A veto would have been a trigger to “shut down the government” which is the biggest fear of permanent DC. The Dems and GOPe would probably have easily over rode his veto.
Whether the veto stood or not he almost certainly would have been impeached once again and since there were and are a number of establishment GOP Senators he might well have been convicted.
There is no way he could magically come up with funds blocked by Congress and Federal courts.
Mauiobserver,
That would have required about 40% +/- of GoP in HoR and Senate to join in with d/prog to override the VETO.
IMO, tt would also have split the GoP in DC. Why? They wouldn’t be able to hide their vote very well. It would be up/down on override a VETO with a vote to override meaning that person is voting against border wall funding as well as against the newly elected GoP POTUS.
Which is why, IMO, it was a bluff run by Ryan and McConnell. No way they want to risk the consequences in whipping votes to override Trump VETO. Unfortunately we won’t know for sure b/c Trump didn’t employ his VETO, which at the end of the day, means he didn’t in fact ‘do everything he could’.
Pretty sure that lawfare had a hand in keeping him from building the wall.
Much else of what he had intended was slowed or stopped with lawfare, as well as by slow-walking by entrenched bureaucrats and opposition from RINOs and other never-Trumpers. I get a kick out of people trying to tell me how many things Trump “failed to do.” My reply: “If he was as terrible as he’s made out to be, you should have given him free rein to prove it.” As it was, his opponents were so terrified that he’d succeed (and get re-elected for his success), that they decided his success couldn’t be permitted, so he was obstructed in every way possible.
Also pretty sure that the president can’t fire the head of the NIH, therefore Trump couldn’t have fired the little gremlin.
Had Trump used his VETO to reject the budget lacking border wall funding I wouldn’t say a flipping word about it. He didn’t choose to exercise the full power of his Office to fight the DC establishment to fulfill his central campaign promise to build a border wall.
He let Fauci run wild. Trump didn’t direct the DoJ, which to be very clear works for the executive branch of which Trump was Chief Executive, to intervene in Civil Rights cases across the Nation to prevent Governors and Mayors issuing edicts to prevent Citizens from exercising their rights to worship among other things.
These two episodes aside, Trump was a good POTUS. I don’t dispute that but I also won’t make excuses for his failures on these two critical points.
Why would you fire Fauci, only an anti Vax nut job would suggest that. You don’t have the right to spread diseases – its just a dumb thing to say
Any public employee who advocates a program of deliberately violating basic civil rights; freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of worship, freedom of speech should be fired.
Especially so when every piece of of prior evidence and current evidence showed that:
1. Masks were/are ineffective
2. The 6 ft social distance guideline was a totally fabricated BS # with zero efficacy
3. The vulnerable were the same as always, those with weakened immune systems, the obese, the very old and those with pre-existing conditions
Totalitarian twats have no place in our civil society much less in positions of authority. If you and others want to stay home and hide under the bed you are free to do so but the rest of us shouldn’t be roped into unwilling participation of your cosplay.
He also feeds on the paranoia and fears of his own constituents. In general, good leaders do not do that.
He is divisive but so is his opposition. It’s a perfect storm of bad politics.
Other than trying to steal an election and doing nothing to quell a riot at the capital when Congress was in session, leaving his VP who served him faithfully exposed to a mob that proclaimed their desire to lynch said VP.?
You actually believe they would have have lynched Pence? Far-fetched.
How did he try to steal the election? In fact, the riot prevented the objectors from making their claims, even with a concurring senator. Not to mention that Molly Ball spelled out how the other side stole the election in plain sight.
Sad to see the Cheney-Kinzinger narrative still exists.
He didn’t try to steal anything. He did everything in his power, and several things not in his power, to have the election legitimately awarded to him; that’s not stealing. When his attempts failed he left as he should have.
Quelling riots was not his responsibility. He sent the National Guard as soon as it was requested (having offered it earlier and been turned down). He had no responsibility to do anything further.
And there was no threat to lynch anyone. Hanging someone in effigy, or in this case merely displaying a gibbet and thus merely implying a hanging in effigy, is pure expression, and thus fully protected by the first amendment.
Had Trump directed military power in the direction of Congress while electors were being tallied, it would have been called a “coup attempt.” He was wise not to do so.
It’s been suggested that Trump should have come to the Capitol himself to ask the rioters to disperse. The same people who have made the suggestion would have been among first to conclude that an attempt by Trump to personally disperse the rioters (esp. if successful) would have “proved” he was in charge of them. Everyone reading this knows that this is true.
Who says they would even have listened to him? They didn’t listen when he said to march peacefully, so why would they have started to listen then?
In any case, he had no duty to do anything about it. The freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak. Even supposing, for the sake of argument, that he was happy his supporters were rioting, that wouldn’t make it his responsibility.
Thats just factually wrong. He absolutely say on his hands avoiding sending the national gaurd. He is also directly implicated in provoking the crowds with his big lie BS. He was commander in chief! Of course he had responsibility to reduce tensions and address the riots, especially with respect to the peaceful transfer of power. You sound ridiculous. You are making excuses for a petty dictator – people like you scream from the roof tops when a Democrat does anything no matter how innocent but make excuses til the gates of hell from your own team. Its sad
Fatkins, you are not telling the truth. He offered to send in the National Guard and the offer was refused. As soon as it was requested, he gave the order to send them in.
He addressed a totally peaceful rally, and expressed his views, as was his absolute right. You would censor him.
How does being commander in chief of the armed forces give him any responsibility in the matter? All that gave him was the authority to send in the Guard, which he did.
Dictator?! To whom did he ever dictate anything?
OK, so you are an ignorant fool, touting the narrative line.
Nathan
Hear me now amd
Believe me later…
I think you are bad for America
Is or was? Not a snark. I think he was a great president, of course I am biased. I think we need him back,,, again, I am biased. But, to each their own.
The court jester who believes he is the judge has spoken!
“Bring the guilty party in, we will pretend to give him a fair trial, and then we hang him. I am not interested in anything he says that will give context or additional information!”
If that judge were on fire, I wouldn’t urinate on him.
roger that
It is a fair trial, you just don’t like that your dictator is being held to account
Media is insinuating Trump is rambling during “speeches” and playing a delay tactic, a version of “Four-corner Defense” in basketball. Fox Radio is the worst.
It is all so Palestinian, so contrived it makes me want to say “Uganda” as I vomit.
TY MR. Jay.
The very first quote in this article flies in the face of all the others. It’s the judge clearly saying that the entire case is lawfare against Trump, the product of prosecutorial fraud, and should be dismissed. (Why doesn’t he, then?) This is why I don’t understand the article.
Which quote is that? Do you mean the one in the heading?
I figured it out.
The article says:
“The trial is a sham because Judge Arthur Engoron has already decided that Trump is guilty, but due process is so passe, right?
When Trump left, he said:”
On the heels of the first sentence, I read that as, “After Trump left the courtroom, Engeron said”. That’s why I couldn’t make it make sense.
Never mind.
Thank you for that explanation, Miss Litella.
With a prosecutor who campaigned on “getting Trump” and a judge who made up his mind before the trial, I can’t believe that this whole trial won’t be overturned on appeal.
is a fair and just society, it should be overturned
I’m a fair and just society
It never would have come to court
Hey, Mr banana
Man bring me banana, daylight coming and I wanna go home….
Trump ran on locking Hillary up. He forfeited that avenue of complaint.
He ran on stopping illegal immigration, and the Republicans stopped him every chance they could. Didn’t have the money, they claimed…but they seem to find it to send to Ukraine pretty fast.
And how is that relevant to the current topic?
The process is the punishment; nothing more; nothing less. Which is why qualified immunity needs to be abolished so tyrants like “I’m not here to listen to a defendant in my courtroom” can be criminally prosecuted for gross malfeasance, aiding & abetting malicious prosecution, and theft of tax payer funds.
That’s why I propose “The Process Is Not The Punishment Act of 2023” where a defendant found not guilty or having a conviction reversed on appeal will have all legal expenses reimbursed by the prosecuting entity plus $ 1,000 a day for pain and suffering from the time of arrest/indictment to the conclusion of the case
Great idea.. I have heard of Slapp( and anti Slapp)… but your idea takes that a lot further…
Civil prosecution with monetary judgments – to be personally paid out of pocket – are a good start, but not enough. These blatant tyrants with their egregious and aggressive persecutions to deny plain, enumerated civil rights of citizens need to be criminally prosecuted, and face time in prison.
We either have a law of the land which all must obey, or we simply have clown world with privileged elite who are above it all.
No prejudice here, no sir! His mind is already made up…don’t confuse him with the facts.
Read the full articles linked. That’s not what the judge actually said.
Are you sure you’re not confusing Judge Engoron with Judge Freisler?
Secret recording of Trump trial in New York has been released.
Trump is making this guy make so many mistakes that it’s awesome.
Where is Judge Ito when you need him
When I saw this the first thing I thought of was the old SNL skit. Jon Levitz as the ‘the devil’ and Phil Hartman as Judge Wopner. Money shot of the skit;
‘Mr Mephistopheles you may control the nether regions but I control this Court!’
Shorn of context, what the judge is quoted here as saying is reasonable. If it were a different trial, with a different judge, and I heard such quotes I would understand them perfectly. The judge is there to hear the witnesses answer the questions put to them, clearly and succinctly; he is not there to hear them make speeches. If a witness strays from the question and starts saying things he wants to get out, but that are not directly responsive to the question asked, the judge is supposed to rein him in. The reason it sounds so bad in this case is because we already have a firm opinion on what’s happening, so we hear these quotes in a way that sounds like they confirm that opinion. We already know this whole case is garbage, we already know the judge is biased, so we hear this news in a way that fits neatly into that narrative, because that’s the interpretation that makes the most sense in this context. When you hear hoofbeats and you’re on an African savanna, think zebras, not horses.
But it’s not shorn of context. Which makes the comment odd. As if it matters what happens in court in other cases? In other words, irrelevant.
No, it isn’t shorn of context, and in this context thinking zebras is the right way to go. I’m just pointing out that the judge’s words are not themselves proof of bias; they merely confirm the bias we already know he has. If we didn’t already know that, these words wouldn’t make us think so.
Trump’s attorneys pointed out to Enrogon that the prosecution was asking open-ended questions that required a narrative response that could include some subtlety and might need some exposition. Certainly, Trump has a right to get exculpatory facts into the record. I think Enrogon lost his cool because Trump was being too good at this. In particular, Trump pointed out that all his valuations, as submitted to potential lenders, are accompanied by a disclaimer “do your own research.” Arthur didn’t care for that fact, and didn’t want more such facts said out loud in his court. We know he’s biased, but Trump got his goat, and made Enrogon expose his bias in the court and on the record. It was a great performance.
Yep. An unbiased judge would have thrown the whole case out at the outset.
That’s the purest BS, the questions were probing what involvement Trump had with the financial statements which Trump avoiding answering with his rants.
Trump was answering the questions.
Given that this is a bench trial, the judge stating that he wasn’t there to hear Trump’s answers to questions would raise all sorts of issues for me. Without a jury, if it is not Engoron’s responsibility to listen then there is nobody.
Did the opposing counsel object to his answer or did the judge just speak out of the blue? Would you not normally expect an objection to be needed? I am just asking because I don’t know I have only watched a few real trials and a lot of what I think I know comes from TV and movies which I know is filled with errors.
It was out of the blue. As Trump’s attorneys pointed out in court, the prosecution’s questions were open-ended. “Yes” or “no” answers were not expected. Normally, a prosecutor would love a defendant on the stand to run his mouth. Trump is notorious for doing so. The prosecution may have even cringed when Enrogon tried to curtail Trump’s effusive responses, as they may have been trying to get him to say something incriminating. Well, the judge put an end to that, if that’s what they were doing.
As noted on PowerLine:
So it appears some can speechify on the stand in Judge Engoron’s court while others are restrained.
Also read that many questions were open-ended.
It couldn’t be that Cohen managed to give full on-topic answers without speechifying!
The difference is in the eyes of the beholder, and in this case in the eyes of a very biased beholder.
Just because there is some gray area it doesn’t mean that two people cannot be clearly on opposite ends of a scale.
As reported Engoron did not rule on an objection but sua sponte issued this “I will not listen” comment, so he is totally out of line.
Although, to be fair, without context (a judge commenting without objection and characterizing testimony) he probably would be inviolation of his own gag orders…
But Engoron would not even allow what you suggest. He cut Trump’s answers short, told him that he could either answer “yes”or “no” Denied Trump’s ability to offer his defense, which is an increasing problem, as with Bannon and Alex Jones. It’s your defense and you should be able to use any reason or excuse that you desire, even the Flip Wilson defense
Alex Jones was not denied a chance to defend himself. He forfeited that chance by refusing to hand over evidence the plaintiffs were entitled to have. The judge properly drew the inference that the evidence he withheld would have proved the plaintiffs’ case, so she entered a default judgment.
Wrong! Jones was told that to avoid contempt of court his only answers while on the stand could be “yes” or “no” he couldn’t testify that he had offered recompense to the alleged victims, or that he had apologized
That’s his attorney’s job.
What he complained of was that he was not allowed to assert that he was innocent, since the judge had already granted default judgment against him. He forfeited that right when he refused to turn over evidence that would doubtless have proved him liable.
“So Mr Trump, have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No answers ONLY!”
Please stop.. for once
Look, Millhouse leaps to the defense of the kangaroos running this farce.
What. A. Shock.
Joe Nierman (sp?) aka Good Lawgic was at the trial and is livestreamnghis observations:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/
I will watch it after the game.
sORRY, THE URL IS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22jG-OA0XmM
A show Trial that could cause Pol Pot envy!
A new one; a “judge” that doesn’t want to “hear” a trial.
This isn’t really even a “trial” since Engoron already declared Trump guilty in the summary judgment (based on nothing … which our judiciary doesn’t seem to have any issues with). All that is happening now is Engoron and the other criminals in New York government trying to decide how much money to steal from Trump and ban him from doing business in New York.
I watch this farce and it is sad, because the only way this can ever be set right is for Engoron and Latetia James and all of their staffs (and everyone else involved with them) to go to prison for decades and decades … and it is so sad because the chances of that happening – the chances of there existing even a smidgeon of real justice – are slim to none. These criminals are going to get away with their crimes – crimes against America, not just against Trump and his family and partners and employees.
America is really in the shitter. This would even be outstanding in the Soviet Union. There, if they had run this sort of farcical trial they would have had the brains to have kept it all secret. But to have it flaunted right in our faces … this idiocy and mind-numbing criminality from government officials … bad, bad stuff. Bad.
Perhaps the Judge has a pending “Book Deal,”
Not based on nothing, there is so much evidence that there was no need for a trial. When someone pretends there property is three times larger than it really is its pretty blatant fraud.
Fraud requires that the victim relied on the false information, to his detriment. That did not happen here so there cannot be fraud.
I’m embarrassed for this judge–his bias is evident for the world to see; he doesn’t have a good grasp about how real estate valuations are done; he behaves in an unseemly way by yelling at attorneys and pounding on the table–I can’t imagine any verdict being upheld with all of the in the transcript
IMO, what ever that clerk is blowing in His Honor’s ear should be included in the trial record. she is in effect having an exparte conversation with Engoron on matters pertinent to the case
His handler?
Your headline and choice of quotes completely misrepresent the judges statements. The short version is that Trump is using the case as a political campaign rally by acting the fool in court, forcing the judge to respond, and then using that response to play the victim which is then being broadcast by people like yourself. An accurate editorial would have included these tidbits from the linked Fox article:
“I’m not here to hear what he has to say…HE GOES INTO SPEECHES,” Engoron said. (emphasis added)”
That is an incredibly bad quote from the Judge and something one would expect from an unhinged person with their mind already made up.
How is that an incredibly bad or unhinged quote from a judge? The witness stand is not for speechifying.
Because he is deny the defendant the ability to tell the whole truth as required by oath
Go re-read the quotes I pulled out. Trump is dodging questions and running his mouth on unrelated topics. The quote from Trump where he dodges the question to ramble about statute of limitations demonstrates this. The other quotes support this conclusion:
Anyone got a heads up on what the actual crime is and who the victims are?
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23991865/trump-ny-fraud-ruling.pdf
The crime is governing while Trump.
In reality, or in the fantasy that the prosecutor dreamed up? There is no real damaged claimant here, since every possible claimant used their own agent to evaluate the worth of the Trump properties. In Fantasyworld, these independent agents were so hypnotized by Trump’s words that they took his claims of property value without actually doing their job and assessing them, so the banks therefore were damaged by being forced to give him loans at lower interest rates than he deserved. Of course the sharp pin into this fantasy balloon is the banks, who refuse to admit this supposed deranged scenario.
But the Trumps had the gall to testify that they actually used “accountants” to prepare the documents alleged to be fraudulent. His son even had the temerity to testify that the organization paid the “accountants” millions of dollars for their fraudulent services. Everybody knows what they mean by “accountants” preparing financial documents, why it’s almost as if these “accountants” had some special knowledge needed to prepare documents which Arthur Engoron can prima facie tell are fraudulent at a mere glance.
And then to top it all off, they actually included advice to the financial institutions to do their own work and not rely on submitted data. The NERVE!
so the banks therefore were damaged by being forced to give him loans at lower interest rates than he deserved
Which were all paid back in a very timely fashion, obviously damaging the banks and the people of NY.
If bank issued a loan with a low interest rate due to fraud then the bank was harmed by lost profit and excess risk.
The argument that the bank did its’ own valuation is also bogus. Hypothetically speaking, if you gave the bank a fraudulent document, but they lost it before looking at it and continued as if it never existed then you still committed the crime of issuing a fraudulent document.
This is just silly, whether or not due diligence was adequate doesn’t change whether it was fraud or not.
My understanding is the crime is “overvaluing his property in a statement that a bank accepted. The overvalued property was not collateral for the loans in question. The loans were repaid so there are not victims.
This could be wrong since I am relying on “News” reports.
Martin…but what is the crime and who is the victim?
The crime is violation of Executive law § 63(12).
“… it is well-settled that ‘[i]n varying contexts, courts have held that a state has a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting the integrity of the marketplace.'”
Leftist legal innovation (aka tyranny) is being implemented before our eyes: fraud charges that lack the elements of fraud, judges who tell the defendant they don’t have to listen to his side of the case, political prisoners (from J6) who rot in jail with no right to a speedy trial, multiple abusive prosecutions brought in collusion between DC and state authorities (pick any Trump case). More to come unless Democrats are purged from power..
This case is predicated on the very legally dubious proposition that Trump personally undervalued his properties when in fact he had zero to do with setting the values on the same-that is the responsibility of a bank and a real estate broker. This case clearly is a show trial in a kangaroo court
Given how Trump runs his businesses, I doubt he was not personally involved to some extent in setting property values. I would guess he was given a range of values and told his accountants to always select the top value because “Trump properties are the best” or some such. But if that range is even remotely accurate, there’s nothing wrong with being bold in business. And telling the bean counters to “go high” with their estimates is nothing more than confidence in action, really.
Absolutely a kangaroo court.
Not a lawyer, so I’m sure there’s subtext to your linked decision a lay person will miss, but…..
but answer me how my understanding of this particular case is incorrect…..
1) Trump (et Alia) requested loans with property/businesses as collateral.
2) As is usual, the request included the owners personal valuation.
3) As is usual, evaluation of above can be quite variable – without being unreasonable or fraud as such. Over the course of time, such collateral WILL go up or down in value. Indeed, its value is only as much as someone else is willing to pay for it. If I offer for sale (say) my house, and value it as (say) $200k (having purchased it ten years ago for $100k) and someone agrees with that valuation today, that is neither fraud nor criminal on my part.
4) As is usual, the loaner is REQUIRED to not take that valuation at face value and perform their own separate valuation before loaning money.
5) in this case the loaner actually wrote the loaner reminders to do that.
6) The loaner performed separate valuations, then loaned money based on that.
7) As required, the loanee later paid back the loans, with interest.
8) No one suffered ANY financial loss via these loans.
9) If found guilty, in NY the legal precedent will be set that if I or you take out a loan or mortgage and the transaction and later payback is concluded to the complete satisfaction of both parties – then later on a prosecutor can prosecute on behalf of a non existent third party who was not harmed or risked harm by that transaction.
10) So in NY they’ll have criminalized real estate and business loans or sales that both parties agreed on and were happy with based on purely subjective pricing criteria and the whim of an interested DA.
11) In traffic laws you can be cited for “unsafe driving” even if you obey all traffic laws but an accident occurred and you could have avoided it. The corollary in Traffic laws would be being cited for “unsafe driving” by a cop despite no accident and no violation. In medicine it would be prosecuting a doctor for malpractice when he violated no medical standards, his patient had no problem with his treatment, and no harm to the patient occurred. Do you not see the problem with open-ended laws that would allow a DA to prosecute non law breaking?
12) Re: number 11 above there is one obvious exception where it’s legit to intervene, when the transaction looks to be a poorly disguised bribe or violation of (say) campaign contribution or other law. That’s not being argued here, and it certainly doesn’t look like it. On the obverse, where are the interested DAs when someone (cough Hillary cough) who’s not Trump gets gifted weirdly high money up front on unprofitable book deals or sweetheart home sale pricing or free part ownership in businesses they contribute little or nothing to? Where are you on that subject?
13) It strikes me as no coincidence that Trump is threatened with imprisonment, insanely high fines, and inability to earn any future money NOW for previously non criminalized actions and it’s justified by “he’s a danger to democracy”. I’m also struck by the hypocrisy that you believe we have to burn the village down to save it.
If I offer for sale (say) my house, and value it as (say) $200k (having purchased it ten years ago for $100k) and someone agrees with that valuation today, that is neither fraud nor criminal on my part.
One caveat on this: it would be a problem if the other party agreed to that valuation based on false information given by the seller. If you presented those toilets as gold, but they were really brass (brrrr!!!) and the floor was laminate and not hardwood, you might have been damaged.
And, of course, none of that is what’s being argued. You provide good points for explanation.
NYS Executive law § 63(12) prohibits repeated fraud where “fraudulent shall include any … misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense,” etc. and authorizes the AG to sue. The fraudulent acts themselves are sufficient even if no identifiable benefit is gained by the fraud.
DJT, DJT Jr., Eric Trump, Trump Organization, etc. repeatedly over many years submitted bogus Statements of Financial Condition. My favorite is Trump’s Trump Tower apartment being overstated by 3x (30k vs. 11k square feet.)
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23991865/trump-ny-fraud-ruling.pdf
Are you claiming that the loan collateral in question consisted only of Trumps private apartment – and not Trump Tower itself? If he claimed that Trump Tower had 3x the footage that could be significant. If he got an individual room size wrong that’s a mistake, not a felony.
I’m a bit troubled by the whole concept that fraud occurs without any significant benefit to the fraud-er or detriment to the fraud-ed. it’s like charging someone with theft when the thief doesn’t take anything and the theft-upon doesn’t lose anything. Very Orwellian.
Add to that that the NY AG is breaking new legal ground in applying laws to this target in ways never done prior to this.
Do you at least admit that charging your chief political opponent just before facing him in an election race – and using brand new interpretations of lawbreaking to do so – suggests that you’re yourself breaking the law via malicious prosecution?
Look up the elements of fraud. It requires (1) the knowing misrepresentation (2) of a material fact, (3) on which the victim relied (4) to his detriment. Without all four elements there is no fraud.
There is no requirement in Executive law § 63(12) for the recipient of a fraudulent document to rely on it to his detriment .
The massive overstatement of the square footage of the apartment is only one small element of the case and the defense tactics are extremely revealing IMHO.
Submitting a fraudulent document is fraud. Period. Your attempted counter-example is off target.
Trump is their largest ally. After reading through that ruling I do not see how this is a novel case.
The Judge should be removed from the bench and stripped of his law license. He is totally abusing the law and the Constitutional rights of Trump and his counsel.
This judge just admitted running a Soviet Era show trial where the defendant’s case is irrelevant, because guilt is pre-ordained..
It’s amazing the number of people who don’t understand that Trump has already been adjudicated guilty and this is the damages phase of the trial.
Which reveals how Orwellian these prosecutions are, “damages” in a case where they’re up-front charging fraud in a case with no damages to the supposedly defrauded party.
The NY fraud trial of Trump is wrong as there is no crime, the banks lending the monies had to determine the value of the properties the used as collateral, all monies loaned by the Banks were paid back on time by Trump’s Company, so this is a political act.
The AG and Judge involved in the trial have determined that Trump is guilty and are setting up damages. This should be a critical problem for NY city and state as business can see what is happening to Trump can happen to them. Business owners may like Trump or not like Trump but what is happening to him is a wake up to leave the city and state.