337
Trump Storms Out of Courtroom as His New York Civil Fraud Trial Heats Up
(www.thedailybeast.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
337 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19170 readers
5411 users here now
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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Break down of what's being said:
Cohen who was Trump's personal attorney indicated when being asked by Trump's lawyers (cross-examined as Cohen was called by prosecutor), that he never was asked directly to inflate the numbers.
Trump's attorney on this revelation, requested a directed verdict. A directed verdict is asked for when there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis that a jury could reasonable find some other verdict. Basically, Trump's lawyers asked to have a ruling in Trump's favor because they felt that given Cohen's testimony, there's no other way a jury could find any other verdict than one in favor of Trump.
The Judge, Hon. Engoron, here denies the directed verdict pretty emphatically.
And on the news of the Judge so strongly denying that idea from his Lawyers, Trump stands up and leaves.
And this has been a consistent thing for Cohen. Where Trump did not explicitly indicate things, but did so implicitly. With Cohen being an attorney, the difference between explicit and implicit is pretty important, so he would absolutely make that distinction in his testimony, as he has before.
LOL. Judges are fun like that. However, the limited gag order Trump is under is actually being questioned by the ACLU. Which they make a good point. The Judge used very broad terms in the "limited" aspect of the gag order and the ACLU has standing to ask the Judge to clarify those terms. That said, the $10,000 fine will likely be part of that challenge form the ACLU. So he may not have to pay it ultimately or maybe he will, we just have to see.
I can tell this Judge doesn't really like Trump as a person in their court.
LOL. No your Honor! MY hand was absolutely NOT in the cookie jar, I had a cookie for breakfast and I put some leftover cookie in my pocket. WTF?! C'mon, you telling me that was the best he could lie?
I tell you. Those damn cookies get you every time.
The distinction between implicit and explicit is not relevant.
Cohen testified that Trump would assign whatever values he wanted to his properties. Obviously there would not be a directed verdict in this scenario. His lawyer is probably thought that argument was going to be a home run. They are morons.