Serial sex abuser Donald Trump (SSAT) said that he wanted to testify at his trial but that the gag order prevented him from doing so. That was false, of course, and after the judge told him so, he said that he would testify but few believed he would have the guts to open himself up to cross-examination.
Sure enough, the defense rested their case today without him testifying. The judge scheduled closing arguments for the coming Tuesday after which the case goes to the jury.
It will be interesting to see if SSAT gives any reason for not testifying.
So, what’s a juror to make of this refusal to testify? If you were innocent, wouldn’t you be up there fighting all that fake testimony? And if he can’t handle a few lawyers, how can he handle being president?
Most of the time the defendant doesn’t testify. I’m not in jurors’ heads, but they are instructed not to draw any conclusions from the defendant’s choice. One is supposed to have a right not to testify if one does not wish to.
That said, some probably will have a hard time following that instruction and their brains will nag them with questions about why he didn’t testify. I prefer and I hope that this isn’t a large part of the decision making process. I want him to be convicted for what he did, not what he didn’t do.
@1,2:
It’s the Richelieu defence. There’s a reason why it’s a bad idea to allow (in general) adverse inference from a refusal to testify, and that applies even if you don’t like the guy.
#2:
What he did was to claim that he would testify when everyone (except his dumbest followers) knew he never would, and then attempt to insinuate that he couldn’t because the gag order would unfairly restrict his testimony, which everyone (except his dumbest followers) knew was a barefaced lie. Lies and more lies. Should he be convicted for that? Nah, but it’s yet another reminder that you can’t trust a word he says.
I have served on one jury. The guy was CLEARLY guilty, and his testimony was an absolute disaster. He contradicted himself numerous times, made statements that made no sense, and said other things that made his defense ridiculous. (That didn’t stop two members of the jury twist themselves into pretzels defending them). Why would an attorney do that to his client?
xohjoh2n, what F13 wrote.
Wouldn’t stop me; how can anyone tell what I’m thinking other than by what I say or do?
They cannot not allow it, it’s entirely up to me.
Point being, here the circumstance is not just the choice to avoid testifying, but the assertion outside the courtroom that he would be testifying.
(How one is not supposed to draw inferences from the contrast between the claim and the action is left as an exercise for obedient/trusting people)
Heh. I used to be a bit of a naughty child, believe it or not.
There’s be times when my mom would chastise me and I’d be innocent, but that wouldn’t stop her; she’d say maybe I was innocent of that particular misbehaviour, but doubtless there was bad behaviour that hadn’t been perceived and punished, so it was fair enough. Too true, actually. She had my number.
I’m OK with not drawing an adverse inference from his not testifying: after all, it’s the state’s burden to prove its case when the state already has all that almost unlimited power at its disposal. It’s not the defendant’s job to prove a negative.
But when he bullshits that he’s going to testify, lies that he’s being prevented even in the face of being told the truth by the court and his own lawyers, and still doesn’t… then I surely WILL draw the most bigly adverse inference from that.
Do the jury know that Trump “bullshits that he’s going to testify, lies that he’s being prevented even in the face of being told the truth by the court and his own lawyers, and still doesn’t”? If I understand correctly juries are insulated from press coverage of trials in order that they not be unduly influenced by said coverage.
So that he can claim the judge barred his testimony of course. He doesn’t give a shit and neither does his target audience that this is not true.
@9 another stewart: The jury is not sequestered, they get to go home every day. The jury is supposed to avoid anything about the case but it’s plastered all over the news. Unless they avoided the news entirely they would have heard some of it.
He explained his reasons perfectly cryptically to the press yesterday morning.
His addled brain playing word association with the word ‘resting’, I think.
https://news.sky.com/story/i-dont-get-rest-donald-trump-decides-not-to-take-stand-in-hush-money-trial-13140891
To quote Stephen Colbert about Trump comparing Stormy Daniels with his daughter: that should be enough to lock him up.
If the jury percieves him as an utter asshole it will inevitably affect the way they judge his credibility.
Trump going into the slammer because of this instead of the many, many frauds before (and the small case of insurrection) will be hilarious. And a demonstration of the utter failures of “checks and balances”.
@13:
It is kind of appropriate that this case got tried first because this case happened first: this one is all about the 2016 election, after all.
That said, the biggest problem is that some of these cases should have been brought years back. Instead we get four overlapping indictments which means they’re trying to work around each other for court dates, while:
-- The Florida case (which is honestly the most slam-dunk case) is being deliberately slow-walked by the assigned judge
-- The D.C. case is being deliberately slow-walked by Supreme Court interference over an absolutely bogus legal defense (and, if Trump’s team actually wins the immunity case, there’s nothing stopping Biden from ordering Trump’s assassination aside from Biden’s own conscience, so you’d expect that might cause some second thoughts)
-- The Georgia case was the biggest and most complicated case, and was the least likely to happen before the election to start with, even without the interference by the Trump legal team. That said, since the Florida and D.C. cases are both still on hold, once the New York case finishes up, the Georgia case might actually get a chance to assign a court date before the election.
Jenorafeuer @ 14
By a fun coincidence, this trial is reaching the end at the same time another bunch of crooks and charlatans are facing the consequences of their actions.
“General election 2024: Rishi Sunak calls vote for 4 July – UK politics live”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/may/22/uk-general-election-july-2024-sunak-starmer-senior-sources-say-uk-politics-live-news
4 July? I suppose fellow tory haters that have moved to USA can celebrate two things in one day.
And it would be extremely sweet if Sunak is forced to leave office the same month Trump is thrown in the slammer (I know, his buddies in the supreme court will make some outrageous move to save him but I am allowed to dream).
@14,
More importantly for the USSC, if Trump’s team wins the immunity case, there is nothing stopping Biden from creating some new openings on the USSC aside from Biden’s own conscience.
As far as Biden’s conscience goes . . . all the way to bombs destined for Palestinian genocide.
Going off on a tangent here, bur SSATs legal problems have widespread effects.
“Trump’s Legal Fees Are Bankrupting Republican Parties At The State Level”
.https://youtube.com/watch?v=QZZ0QsRB0fs
You’re absolutely right, AnotherStewart #9. It’s just me drawing the adverse inference. And it’s very adverse to that lying, abusive piece of turdage.
But it doesn’t matter: I’m not his target audience as both of my remaining brain cells still work (on a good day).
I was going to give the most beautiful testimony ever -- better even than when Jesus was crucified. It would have been beautiful, people would have cried -- more people would have turned out for it than they did for my inauguration -- Did I tell you I broke records for my inauguration speech ? But the fake new media didnt report it. I could have even shot Michael Cohen in court , who totally deserves it, and no fair American juror would have convicted me. But you know its all rigged. The Mexican doesnt like me -- we should have built the wall before we got Mexican judges -- and I would have if the election was decided fairly instead of all the fake votes -- no i like mexicans -- I eat tacos you know . So thats why.
I*m voting for, and simultaneously acquitting, Shetty!
If you are old enough to recall the cartoon The Wizard Of Id, SSAT has a lot in common with Sir Rodney. He used to pay off dragons with kerosene to make them imitate the sound of a wounded dragon *very loudly*. Then he would ride home and claim victory.
Deepak Shetty @ 20.
‘The great lawyer Perry Mason told me “Sir, you should definitely testify, I have listened to you explaining the case and you make the case clearer than anyone else can do.”
@birgerjohansson
Ha!. I was going to reply that there is no way trump has read Erle Stanley Gardner but then he may have watched it (sacrilege! especially the HBO one.). Personally I prefer Donald Lam,