Trump New York trial, judge may have stepped in it

[Brad Johnson]

Judge in New York trial against former Pres Trump says he does not want to hear everything Trump has to say.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-engoron-trade-jabs-during-former-presidents-testimony-in-civil-trial-stemming-from-nyag-lawsuit

If a defendant is trying to answer an open-ended question and the judge not only cuts him off, but specifically states he has no interest in hearing anything the defendant has to say, that's pretty much checks every box on the "mistrial granted" list. You can bet your biscuits Trump's attorneys won't waste a single second pouncing on it.

Brad

[WLJ]

Judge in New York trial against former Pres Trump says he does not want to hear everything Trump has to say.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-engoron-trade-jabs-during-former-presidents-testimony-in-civil-trial-stemming-from-nyag-lawsuit

If a defendant is trying to answer an open-ended question and the judge not only cuts him off, but specifically states he has no interest in hearing anything the defendant has to say, that's pretty much checks every box on the "mistrial granted" list. You can bet your biscuits Trump's attorneys won't waste a single second pouncing on it.

Brad

Don't your breath on anything being done about it.

[Brad Johnson]

Don't your breath on anything being done about it.

Agreed, but even if nothing happens this will be a huge talking point in the context of TDS vs judicial ethics.

Brad

[Ben]

Not to mention nearly every day, the NY AG makes derogatory posts about Trump, while he's still on a gag order. The fact that so many people are fine with both that and this judge, tells me all I need to know about "guilty until proven innocent, and we're not going to let you be innocent".

It's pretty clear that the wrong guy is on trial here.

[DittoHead]

he does not want to hear everything Trump has to say.
he has no interest in hearing anything the defendant has to say

Big difference between those two, especially considering how Trump talks.

"Please just answer the questions — no speeches," Engoron said.
Engoron went on to ask Trump to "answer the question."
"You can attack me as much as you want, but please answer the question," Engoron said.
"Can you control your client? This is not a political rally; this is a courtroom"
"I’ve asked the witness several times to answer the questions,"
"In addition to not answering, you’re repetitive…Mr. Kise, can you control your client?" 

Seems like Trump may have been straying off topic a bit.

[MechAg94]

Just reading the article, it sounds like Trump did answer the questions, but the prosecution was trying to get Trump to say specific things he could use against him.  I imagine Trump wasn't saying what he wanted and he was asking questions trying to beat around the issue. 

I don't really care if the Judge liked it or not, why would he get impatient with a witness?  A witness going on at length about stuff is much more likely to say something they shouldn't.  Makes me think the Judge is most definitely partial and a bit irrational about Trump. 

[Hawkmoon]

Big difference between those two, especially considering how Trump talks.
Seems like Trump may have been straying off topic a bit.

The only time Trump has EVER stayed on topic is when the topic is Trump -- and then you can't get him off the topic with dynamite.

That said, having been an expert witness in trials more than twice, I can somewhat sympathize with Trump. Much depends on what the question was, and how it was posed. Open-ended, "fishing" questions require and usually deserve answers that run to more than six words. I have had opposing attorneys ask me fairly technical questions and then try to cut me off before I had finished answering, because they thought the first part of the answer helped their case and they didn't want to hear the rest. If the attorney I was working for wasn't smart or quick enough to object to the opposing counsel trying to shut down the answer, I would turn directly to the judge and ask that I be allowed to complete my answer.

Opposing counsel didn't like me very much.

[MechAg94]

The only time Trump has EVER stayed on topic is when the topic is Trump -- and then you can't get him off the topic with dynamite.

That said, having been an expert witness in trials more than twice, I can somewhat sympathize with Trump. Much depends on what the question was, and how it was posed. Open-ended, "fishing" questions require and usually deserve answers that run to more than six words. I have had opposing attorneys ask me fairly technical questions and then try to cut me off before I had finished answering, because they thought the first part of the answer helped their case and they didn't want to hear the rest. If the attorney I was working for wasn't smart or quick enough to object to the opposing counsel trying to shut down the answer, I would turn directly to the judge and ask that I be allowed to complete my answer.

Opposing counsel didn't like me very much.

And there is nothing that says a witness has to answer yes or no or whatever way the lawyer or judge wants.  The witness is supposed to provide the whole truth.  No one else should be able to tell them what that is. 

[230RN]

https://youtu.be/d5IkzlIJsL0 (0:38)

A picture's worth 1000 words, a vid is even more.
For though a pic is just a click, the vid can make you sore.

D. Ogerell, 230RN

Edited to correct meter.