Former President Donald Trump will not be allowed to deliver his own closing argument in his civil fraud trial in New York on Thursday, the judge overseeing the case said.

Judge Arthur Engoron told Trump’s attorneys that the former president must submit to certain restrictions if he wished to address the court, which Trump’s team did not agree to. The judge said that Trump would have to limit his statement in court to “what is permissible in a counsel’s closing argument, that is, commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts.”

An email thread added to the case’s docket Wednesday showed negotiations between Engoron and Trump’s attorneys. After extending his deadline for a response, Engoron wrote Wednesday afternoon that Trump would not be allowed to speak.

“Not having heard from you by the third extended deadline (noon today), I assume that Mr. Trump will not agree to the reasonable, lawful limits I have imposed as a precondition to giving a closing statement above and beyond those given by his attorneys, and that, therefore, he will not be speaking in court tomorrow,” the judge wrote.

  • @givesomefucks
    link
    English
    991 year ago

    And now he gets to say that he could have proved his innocence if he wasn’t silenced.

    Which is probably all he wanted to begin with

    • @halcyoncmdr
      link
      English
      701 year ago

      He chose not to testify in the trial. That was his chance to make his case. He made that decision long ago because cross examination would have destroyed his claims.

      Closing arguments are a summary of your position, nothing more, and clearly he was going to try to use it as a soapbox, again.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        301 year ago

        Closing arguments are where Hitler ranted for literal hours about being super-patriotic and insanely antisemitic, and it won him more followers and more loyal followers. Thank fuck Trump won’t get that same opportunity in the courtroom.

      • @givesomefucks
        link
        English
        151 year ago

        Oh yeah, let’s just go explain this to republicans calmly using logic…

        I’m sure it’ll only take a few minutes, I’ll reply back again once I get one to understand

      • @FrickAndMortar
        link
        121 year ago

        I wish they’d required him to endure cross-examination… I’d love to see a competent lawyer dismantle his entire baloney-sandwich machine in front of his followers.

    • gregorum
      link
      fedilink
      English
      391 year ago

      Of course, that would only work on his dumbest followers. Which is all of them.

    • @0110010001100010
      link
      141 year ago

      It was a win-win for him really. If he DID get to testify he could spout his usual “witch hunt” bullshit and fund-raise off it. Since he can’t, as your pointed out, he can claim he’s being silenced and fund-raise off that instead.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        121 year ago

        The thing is, he wasn’t trying to testify. Instead he was trying to deliver a closing argument. But the judge said closing arguments can’t be used to raise new evidence or discuss anything not already covered in evidence in the case. So he couldn’t just stand up there and spout a bunch of bullshit.

        • @Soulg
          link
          31 year ago

          Yeah but none of his cultists understand or care about that. He will say the judge silenced him and they will believe it unquestioningly.

      • @WhyYesZoidberg
        link
        11 year ago

        It’s the Alex Jones strategy. Grifters gonna grift.

    • @TenderfootGungi
      link
      101 year ago

      A reason to appeal and drag it out until he hopes to win the presidency again.

    • @stoly
      link
      71 year ago

      He can say anything he wants as he watches his assets be seized and his business be dismantled. This law was set up specifically to catch people like Trump that would slip through the laws normally used to prosecute the mafia.

    • @Kbobabob
      link
      61 year ago

      I figured he would just have the best lawyers prove his innocence.

      • @jordanlund
        link
        3
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s the thing, this trial isn’t about innocence. They already proved him liable by a preponderance of the evidence.

        This trial is about penalties. How much he has to pay now that they have already found him liable.