Enough

Nothing good happens when you bend the rules for Trump. We saw that play out, again, in a Manhattan courtroom on Thursday.

Normally, in a trial, the parties don’t get argue the case to the court. That’s what they hire lawyers for; professionals who are trained to do the job. Except in rare instances where a party proceeds pro se (without a lawyer), the only time the court hears from the plaintiff or the defendant is when they testify—under oath—from the witness stand.

But Judge Arthur Engoron bent the rules for Trump as the New York Attorney General’s civil fraud case against him came to a close. There had been back and forth for days between the Judge and Trump’s lawyers about Trump’s desire to participate in the closing arguments. Trump refused to comply with the conditions set by the judge. They would have required Trump to abide by the rules all lawyers must follow at this stage in proceedings: argue the evidence, apply the law to it, advocate for the conclusions you want the finder of fact, here the judge, to reach. There is, of course, no name-calling, no insinuating the other side hates you or the judge is biased against you.

New York state Judge Arthur Engoron

Judge Engoron told Trump’s lawyers: "He may not seek to introduce new evidence. He may not 'testify.' He may not comment on irrelevant matters. In particular, and without limitation, he may not deliver a campaign speech, and he may not impugn myself, my staff, plaintiff, plaintiff's staff, or the New York State Court System, none of which is relevant to this case.” The Judge correctly characterized these limits as lawful and reasonable.

Trump refused to follow those rules, so the Judge turned down his unusual request to participate along with his lawyers when they made their final summations.

But at the last minute, fresh off of a bomb threat to his home, and doubtless aware that Trump would forever complain about the unfairness of being refused the opportunity, Judge Engoron permitted him to speak. The results were predictable.

Trump proceeded to do more or less everything the Judge had previously forbidden. Before Trump began, the Judge asked whether he would abide by the guidelines he’d previously sent. Trump simply ignored him, jumping straight in. In a rant directed at New York Attorney General Letitia James, Trump told the Judge, "When you say don't go outside of these things, we have a situation where I'm an innocent man, I've been persecuted by someone running for office and I think you have to go outside the bounds.” He asserted he had done "nothing wrong" and claimed that the state "should pay me for what we had to go through." “What’s happened here, sir, is a fraud on me," Trump said, claiming he was being targeted by officials who “want to make sure I don't win again.” He later accused the judge of not listening to him, saying, “I know this is boring to you.”

The Judge warned Trump lawyer Chris Kise to “Control your client.” But of course, Trump’s lawyers either cannot or will not control him, like they would any other client.

Other parties don’t get this sort of special treatment in court. Trump shouldn’t have received it either. Predictably, it did no good. It did not prevent Trump from continuing to complain that he was being treated unfairly. He went straight out of courtroom, only to tell the press that the case was a “fraud on me.” Judge Engoron may have concluded that with no jury in the box to be prejudiced by Trump’s ravings, it was easier to just let him have his way for the moment. But with Trump, no good deed goes unpunished.

It’s time for the courts to stop giving Trump special treatment. To stop walking delicately and gingerly lest he claim foul play when he is merely subjected to procedures anyone else in his position would be held accountable to. The courts, charged with delivering justice, need to stop being afraid of Trump.

In criminal cases, defendants don’t get to make closing arguments to the jury. But it’s easy to imagine that Trump will now claim his comments in New York set some sort of precedent and that he’s entitled to more special treatment, that he should get to speak to the jurors directly at the close of his criminal trials. The four judges in his cases should shut down this and any other requests he makes for special privileges. There is no reason to give Trump benefits that no other criminal defendant receives. He’s certainly not entitled to address a jury or a judge directly.

Other than responding to routine inquiries made by a judge, there is one time a defendant gets to speak directly to the court in a criminal trial. That’s following a conviction, when he’s permitted to make a statement, called allocution, to the judge before sentencing. This opportunity is afforded to every defendant, and it should be afforded to Trump if he’s convicted. In fact, it’s reversible error to fail to let a defendant speak before sentence is imposed. But until one of the cases against him reaches that point, no judge should permit Trump to speak in court, and under no circumstances to a jury, unless he’s on the witness stand, testifying under oath. No more playing lawyer. No more opportunity for the toddler to throw a temper tantrum that would lead to anyone else in his position being held in contempt. If judges mean for it to continue to exist, it’s time for them to show Trump that he is not above the law, not any longer.

How is it that our country has grown so accustomed to extending “favors” no one else receives to this man who is so unworthy of special treatment? What started out as making excuses for him following his election—he’s not a career politician so he doesn’t know how these things work, he doesn’t understand ethics laws in government—developed into a full blown failure by the other branches of government, both Congress and the Judiciary, to hold Trump accountable for his excesses. No more. It’s time for the courts to show that they are up to the task of treating Trump like they would treat anyone else.

We’re in this together,

Joyce