“What Trump said was so damaging to him”: Experts say NY AG “struck gold” with Trump court rant - eviltoast

Former President Donald Trump’s Thursday courtroom tirade could backfire, legal experts warn.

Trump attorney Chris Kise asked Judge Arthur Engoron, who is overseeing Trump’s New York fraud trial, to allow Trump to speak on his own behalf during closing arguments. Engoron asked Trump if he would agree to stick to the facts and relevant law but the former president launched into a lengthy diatribe, accusing the judge and New York Attorney General Letitia James of waging a “political witch hunt” and demanding “damages” because the real “fraud is on me.”

During one portion of his rant, Trump referred to a key allegation in James’ lawsuit alleging that the former president’s Trump Tower penthouse was valued at three times larger than it actually is.

“They made a mistake. It was an honest mistake,” Trump said.

James’ team allowed Trump to speak until the judge ultimately shut him down and pleaded for Kise to “control your client.”

“There may be a reason that James’ staff didn’t interrupt,” wrote NBC News legal analyst Lisa Rubin. “The AG’s office may have struck gold because some of what Trump said was so damaging to him, especially his explanation of the triplex square footage ‘error.’

  • xantoxis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The sentence, “Former President Donald Trump’s Thursday courtroom tirade could backfire,” is so fucking funny. I’m sorry, was this a strategy?? Did a team of legal experts come up with a plan which included a senile fascist screaming at a judge for 6 minutes? Did that seem like it was going to go in his favor???

    • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Apparently so. Rolling Stone ran an article where they claim to have been informed by sources that the rant was rehearsed.

      According to two people familiar with the matter who spoke to Rolling Stone, in recent weeks Trump had told several close allies of his intention to personally deliver a closing argument, and at times previewed some of the things he wanted to say before the judge. One of the sources describes it as the ex-president informally “rehearsing” his spite-filled court monologue for his friends.

      This idiot thinks he’s in a courtroom drama.

        • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I’m not denying he’s bootleg Hitler, but that’s an odd simile to make. What politician doesn’t practice their speeches?

          • Natanael@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            It’s not supposed to be a speech in a closing argument. Like, that’s contempt of court territory!

          • jaxxed@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            There is a well known speech by hitler after his trial (IIRC for treason) which halve owed support for him because of his oration.

    • yuriy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      10 months ago

      I saw it pointed out elsewhere that they may have been hoping the judge would lose his cool in some manner that would warrent an appeal or retrial.

      • xantoxis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        10 months ago

        I don’t see that mattering since they were always going to appeal. Trump has never quietly accepted a consequence in his life, why would he start now.

        On the other hand, you may be right: These are some mighty incompetent defense lawyers, and they may have thought this would help.

        • Facebones@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Basically any case right now is a SCOTUS case, and that’s a stacked deck.

          So that’s fun.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            10 months ago

            If Trump is actually convicted, I wouldn’t be surprised if the oligarchy that owns the SCOTUS decides to cut him loose completely. The SCOTUS can just decline to hear any appeals and leave him out with the laundry.

              • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                we’re huffing the good copium.

                I remember pointing out, that Trump was a millstone around the GOP, and they lost their chance to be rid of him with the second impeachment. If they had convicted him… he’d go away and they’d now be running somebody else against Biden. and probably win.

            • TheWoozy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              The problem with the SCOTUS avoiding responsibility on the issue is that it will up to each state to decide whether he should be on the ballet. Only blue states will abide by the constitution and keep him off. It won’t make a difference to the outcome, but it will feed the magats accusations of a rigged election.