November 6, 2023

"The former president believes he can fight or talk his way out of most situations. "

"Frequent visits to the courtroom have also given Mr. Trump familiarity with the unwieldy proceeding, where he projects control, often whispering in his lawyers’ ears, prompting their objections to the attorney general’s questions. Yet Mr. Trump is deeply, personally enraged by this trial — and by the fact that his children have had to testify, several people who have spoken with him said — and he may not be able to restrain himself on the stand. The testimony will push Mr. Trump far outside his comfort zone of social media and the rally stage, where he is a master of mockery, a no-holds barred flamethrower who relishes most opportunities to attack foes. He leveraged that persona during his days as a tabloid businessman and fixture of New York’s tabloids and found that it worked just as well in the 2016 presidential race. He has since taken control of the Republican Party, and his style has become a defining influence in contemporary politics. The witness stand is a different venue. It’s a seat that requires care and control, where lying is a crime and emotional outbursts can land you in contempt of court.... Mr. Trump, 77, has been showing signs of strain and age on the campaign trail.... The test of the former president’s credibility, coherence and self-control could supply his opponents with ammunition on the campaign trail...."
 
I'm reading "Trump’s Credibility, Coherence and Control Face Test on Witness Stand/The former president will testify Monday in a trial that threatens the business empire that created his public persona. He will be out of his element and under oath" in the NYT.

I read that passage out loud here at Meadhouse. Lots of laughter. I said the NYT is milking this for all its worth, really straining to make testifying seem as dangerous as possible. Meade said: "Hey, NYT, this is your one chance to write that purple prose."

By the way, NYT should have edited out the phrase "supply his opponents with ammunition on the campaign trail." Remember when the NYT was involved in blaming Sarah Palin for causing a political shooting because her campaign used a map marked with an image that looked something like crosshairs?

Anyway, the idea that Trump will lose his cool and become enraged on the witness stand is funny. Sometimes he seems like a fictional character, but you sound naive and absurd imagining that he's going to behave like a character in a courtroom drama. I know there will be movies about him some day, but I bet there won't be a single one with anything about this New York case about puffing the value of his real estate.

But go ahead, now's your big chance to act as though Trump will Al Pacino it up....

68 comments:

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

I'm still waiting for these corrupt democrat judges and prosecutors to tell us who was defrauded?

rhhardin said...

It also works for defusing threats from North Korea.

Sebastian said...

"By the way, NYT should have edited out the phrase "supply his opponents with ammunition on the campaign trail.""

You mean, they should apply rules they apply to deplorables to themselves? LOL.

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

We all recall - it wasn't just the NYT who lied about Sarah Palin.

Many Stalinist left "news" outlets lied about anyone at anytime - to fit the political narrative.


The Arizona shooter never had any connection to Sarah Palin. Nothing. Zip. The left created it out of whole cloth. This is why we will never pay for the crap NYT.


Years ago - ABC's Brian Ross lied about a tea party person - said they were the Aurora Theater Shooter. It was false information. But Brian Ross of ABC news used the mass shooting to smear the Tea Party. the left are lying liars who lie.

Enigma said...

Trump drives readership and readership sells adds and NYT makes $$$.

Legacy media's corrupt-semi-ideological-mush continues. No principles. No morals. No actual concern about society or a better future. Just the next emotional rush from some stupid social-media-level analysis.

cassandra lite said...

I thought the best moment n that movie was when Jeffrey Tambor, who almost none of us had ever seen before, lifted off his toupee.

Wince said...

What’s “a tabloid businessman and fixture of New York’s tabloids”?

They really must think “tabloid” has a negative connotation at the NYT.

Jamie said...

So, when my husband and I were first married, we bought a sofa - our first big purchase together. Our cat stuck out his claws and started to rake them down the side of it. My husband, who has never raised a hand to anything or anyone in anger (or for any other reason), picked up one of our dining room chairs and threw it across the room.

It skittered across the floor toward the cat, who immediately retracted his claws and fled. He never scratched any article of furniture again.

My husband wasn't mad and he wasn't crazy, but the cat sure thought he was - and his "outburst" served a very useful purpose.

I think Trump may be similar: that he uses shows of strong emotion for a purpose but keeps his real feelings close and private.

Cappy said...

Consider the source of the article.

Gusty Winds said...

Loans were repaid in full, correct?

Banks wouldn't have loaned the money if they thought the values were bloated. They determine their own risk. And it's not like the Trump, Inc wasn't a well known entity in the real estate game.

You know Global Warming is a scam because the banks are still financing construction on the coasts. If they believed that shore line was going to be underwater in ten years (per Greta... Elizabeth Warren... John Kerry... Al Gore... AOC...) they would put up 30 year loans on the property. That's their collateral.

This is a joke. A scary joke.

Gusty Winds said...

"supply his opponents with ammunition on the campaign trail."

The NYTs knows exactly what it is suggesting here. They are that type of scum.

Michael K said...

The NY Times needs a disclaimer on the front page. "All the news that fits the narrative."

Leland said...

Mr. Trump is hardly the only person enraged by the notion that the state of New York has decided accepted business contracts by both parties constitutes fraud because it, the government, claims the value of property to be less than the agreed value by both parties. If Trump loses, the state will have sole determination of the value of property. I suspect this is just fine for socialists/communists. But sure, let us pretend this is just about Mr. Trump.

Big Mike said...

The Times thinks Trump has never testified in court before.

Bob Boyd said...

Mind reading and news of the future.

All the sooth that's fit to say.

Ambrose said...

A textbook example of someone living rent free in someone else’s head.

Bob Boyd said...

I don't know what Trump believes or doesn't believe, but if he did believe he can fight or talk his way out of most situations with one arm tied behind his back, would he be wrong?

Robert Cook said...

We've seen videotapes of Trump testifying in legal inquires. He has always conducted himself with appropriate decorum.

Robert Cook said...

"I'm still waiting for these corrupt democrat judges and prosecutors to tell us who was defrauded?"

Well, isn't that what the proceedings will determine?

(By the way, calling all judges and prosecutors "corrupt democrats" just makes you look more than a wee bit...hysterical and crazy.)

Static Ping said...

The New York Times are experts on winning legal cases. They managed to avoid an obvious libel conviction by convincing the judge that they don't read their own newspaper. It is a neat trick.

ronetc said...

To Robert Cook, 9:11: Trump did not call "all judges and prosecutors 'corrupt democrats.'" He simply called "these" judges and prosecutors corrupt democrats . . . a considerably lower bar to prove.

Bruce Hayden said...

“I'm still waiting for these corrupt democrat judges and prosecutors to tell us who was defrauded?”

They, of course, can’t, because no one was. The judge cleverly bypassed the fact finding portion of the case by essentially taking judicial notice of official county assessor values for the properties. Never mind that they are almost never challenged if too low (because that means that you pay lower taxes), which means that they grossly fail the requirement for inherent reliability, required for judicial notice.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

I need to come up with a #TrumpChallenge on a Trump thread. It sounds like impossible, but that’s what a real challenge could be.

Making a non Trump thread comment about Trump is just too easy.

rcocean said...

That Pacino clip is classic. First we got Jack Warden in a mustache. And in judicial robes. lol. I guess Martin Balsam or Jack Klugman weren't available.

Then you got John Forsyth as the creep. Mr. Guilty anglo-saxon. And we get Al Pacino ranting as only pacino can.

I hope Trump sees this and says those lines to the corrupt Leftwing prosecutor and the Leftwing weirdo Judge: "You're out of order, this whole trial is out of order"

rcocean said...

No one was defrauded by Trump. The whole trial is a leftwing Democrat hitjob. Lawfare designed to destroy Trump, because Liberal/leftists don't like him.

Just be glad these hate-filled liberal/leftists aren't killing people. Because they're capable of it.

mezzrow said...

"(By the way, calling all judges and prosecutors "corrupt democrats" just makes you look more than a wee bit...hysterical and crazy.)"

Only the prosecutors and judges assigned to process Trump business will be corrupt Democrats. Not all. Only enough to get the job done, and since this is an inside job, they know exactly what is required. That's the part of how this works that you'd like to sweep aside.

Also. We can be totally hysterical and crazy at the same time that we are correct on the facts of the case. You have ignored that possibility as well. These are a few of the reasons the world looks the way it does when you look at it. That 'ick' filter isn't as much of a multitasker as you may presume. Be assured, your friends on the left share most of this with you, and that's why you're so comfortable listening to each other.

narciso said...

no parties were defrauded, if anything he overpaid in taxes

Mark said...

Trump will be Trump, meaning that he talks himself INTO trouble as much as he thinks he can talk his way out of it. He's his own worst enemy. And he better start taking this stuff seriously.

John henry said...


I think Trump may be similar: that he uses shows of strong emotion for a purpose but keeps his real feelings close and private.


That has been pretty obvious going back 40 years or more.

As for being a "tabloid businessman" it sounds like jealousy from the non-tabloid NYT. $0-$9,000,000,000 in 20 years or so?

I need to look up the number for the NY Post. See if I can become a "tabloid businessman".

John Henry

wendybar said...

(By the way, calling all judges and prosecutors "corrupt democrats" just makes you look more than a wee bit...hysterical and crazy.)

Sticking up for the judges and prosecutors who ARE "corrupt democrats" proves you ARE hysterical (in a funny way) and crazy.

John henry said...

Blogger Robert Cook said...

Well, isn't that what the proceedings will determine?

Shouldn't the trial start with premise that somebody has been defrauded and who?

You sound like the red queen "First the sentence, then the trial."

It's not a good look, Cookie.

John Henry

Ampersand said...

This is a blatant instance of the use of state power to suppress the exercise of political freedom. Only a few years ago, I would have been shocked by the nonchalance of the public's reaction.
Brings to mind Ben Franklin's warning that we have a republic, if we can keep it.

Joe Smith said...

So the NYT is waiting for the Perry Mason moment when the supposed witness on the stand just can't take it anymore, and in a fit of anger confesses to the murder?

Mason G said...

"Trump’s Credibility, Coherence and Control Face Test on Witness Stand..."

The NYT on credibility? Maybe they're thinking about getting some?

Narr said...

What bilge.

A good editor would not have allowed "tabloid" twice in the same sentence.

Narr said...

Should have reviewed comments before posting about editors, Others noticed the clumsy, obscure usage also.

Who did Letitia James bribe to pass a bar exam?

n.n said...

To be fair, his antagonists are self-incriminating. One need not be Stork to expose progressive corruption in liberal culture.

Robert Cook said...

"To Robert Cook, 9:11: Trump did not call 'all judges and prosecutors "corrupt democrats."' He simply called 'these' judges and prosecutors corrupt democrats . . . a considerably lower bar to prove."

I wasn't referring to something Trump said. I was referring to the statement made above by I stand w Isreal. Leftists, Mullahs, Hamas-Palistinian terrorists can suck it said..., the very first commenter on this very blog thread.

That said, Trump regularly traffics in wildly extravagant and indiscriminate accusations and name-calling about all and sundry he perceives to be antagonists to him on any level. He would come across as hysterical and crazy, but it's obvious he's calculatingly aiming his tirades and calumnies at his hypnotized cultists. They are either stupid, credulous or crazy enough to feed on his rhetoric, digest it, and incorporate it into their bedrock worldview. Thus, he builds his tribe and he makes them ever more mesmerized, ever more loyal, ever more inextricably wedded to him in their hearts and minds.

He is one of the greatest cult leaders of modern times!

n.n said...

"the red queen"

Abort the "burden"... uh, burden, and sequester their... his carbon.

Narr said...

It's like Woody Allen in "Bananas"(?)--he's not only guilty, he's -incredibly- guilty.

The squeaky asshats on the toobs, SNL, and the Trump-haters I know, have always assumed that their disdain and contempt for him will reduce him to quivering goo, psychologically.

That's how stupid they are.





Robert Cook said...

"Shouldn't the trial start with premise that somebody has been defrauded and who?"

Presumably they do. The evidence presented and verdict rendered will determine if the law does or does not find those "somebodies" to have been defrauded as charged. But you know that and you knew what I meant.

Robert Cook said...

"no parties were defrauded, if anything he overpaid in taxes"

Jeez! Why didn't you appear at the courtroom to provide this crucial piece of information?! You could have preempted all further legal proceedings!

jaydub said...

"Isn't that what the proceedings will determine."

Then Latitia should have charged Trump with first degree murder. If the prosecutors can prove that Trump is guilty of fraud without anyone having been defrauded, why not just try him for first degree murder without anyone having been killed? Latitia don't need no stinkin' body. He just needs to be convicted of a capital crime and executed. Once he's dead and gone, maybe Cookie can rest in peace.

Michael K said...


Blogger Mark said...

Trump will be Trump, meaning that he talks himself INTO trouble as much as he thinks he can talk his way out of it. He's his own worst enemy. And he better start taking this stuff seriously.


Lefty Mark takes seriously a trial for fraud when no fraud victims can be identified.

Michael K said...

Blogger I stand w Isreal. Leftists, Mullahs, Hamas-Palistinian terrorists can suck it said...

We all recall - it wasn't just the NYT who lied about Sarah Palin.

Many Stalinist left "news" outlets lied about anyone at anytime - to fit the political narrative.


The Arizona shooter never had any connection to Sarah Palin. Nothing. Zip. The left created it out of whole cloth. This is why we will never pay for the crap NYT.


It was even worse than that. The shooter's mother worked for the Democrat sheriff of Pima County. She hid all the complaints about her son's psychotic behavior. That sheriff was the source for much of the anti-Palin demagoguery.

Iman said...

This mook of a judge seems mentally impaired and he appears to be using his law clerk to conduct this trial.

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

Cook - "Presumably"

Well - if a loan was not re-paid - we would all know that by now.

Cook - your precious party is corrupt. Period. Sorry that you cannot manage to let that sink in.

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

It's a civil case and the Judge is already planning to find him guilty. Same with the hack-D press.

HE'S GUILTY!

This is all punishment for losing to crook Hillary.

The Crack Emcee said...

Shane Gillis as Trump never gets old

Night Owl said...

The delusional people who rant about Trump being some sort of threat to humanity and democacy scare me more than Trump ever did. There is no lie or act too outrageous for these miscreats in their attempts to take Trump down.

And I can't be the only one in this situation; while not really a big fan of Trump* as a person, I absolutely hate with white hot fury the hypocrisy of these trials.

These crooks are going to force me to vote for Trump as an act of defiance against the corruption of our so-called system of justice. This is why the more they go after him with these trumped-up** charges, the higher he rises in the polls.
______________
*I am impressed with what he was able to accomplish during his term, despite all the DC bureacracies and the media relentlessly undermining him from the day he announced his campaign. We had zero wars during his presidency, in spite of all the lunatics who swore his mean tweets would lead us to WW III.

** I can't help it; the term just fits.

Robert Cook said...

"Cook - your precious party is corrupt."

I'm not a Democrat. I started as a Republican and switched to Dem when I was 25. However, I have voted third party for presidential races since 1996. Now, in my new locale, I have no party affiliation.

Rocco said...

ronetc said...
To Robert Cook, 9:11: Trump did not call "all judges and prosecutors 'corrupt democrats.'" He simply called "these" judges and prosecutors corrupt democrats . . . a considerably lower bar to prove.

Agreed. After all, that’s what these proceedings will determine.

Narr said...

Night Owl says "These crooks are going to force me to vote for Trump as an act of defiance against the corruption of our so-called system of justice."

That's what happened to me in '20.

But I don't think he (or FJB) will be on the tickets, and I also doubt that the votes reported will have anything to do with reality anyway.

Rich said...

“Who lost money” and “where’s the harm,” far from being “central” to the case, are very precisely immaterial to the issue of liability in the New York cases. NY law imposes a duty of honesty on those conducting business in the state without regard to any putative “no harm, no foul” defense. That distinguishes this case from a common law fraud claim brought by a private litigant. That’s also why Justice Engoron has already granted summary judgment in favor of the Attorney General on liability in the case. Trump has been found to have committed fraud already. While the issue of injury does play a role in the penalty phase, which is essentially what is being tried, the penalty can be based on disgorgement of profits Trump obtained through his fraud—something like an “unjust enrichment” penalty.

Because this is a bench trial, Justice Engoron seems to be granting the defense broad latitude. Were this being tried to a jury, I think the sorts of erroneous arguments being tolerated by the Justice would not be allowed. I'm very interested how this case will evolve.

Iman said...

“Now, in my new locale, I have no party affiliation.”

Not to worry… if you serve your time as a “model prisoner” they may let you vote again.

pacwest said...

He is one of the greatest cult leaders of modern times!

No. That would be Obama. Hands down. It's not that hard to imagine his supporters drinking the Jonestown kool-aid. Thrill up the leg, Nobel Peace Prize, creased pants, kindergarteners singing and all that. Not even close.

wendybar said...

pacwest said...
He is one of the greatest cult leaders of modern times!

No. That would be Obama. Hands down. It's not that hard to imagine his supporters drinking the Jonestown kool-aid. Thrill up the leg, Nobel Peace Prize, creased pants, kindergarteners singing and all that. Not even close.

11/6/23, 2:25 PM

100%

The Godfather said...

I get kind of confused. Is this the case where the judge has already ruled that it's fraud to say that your property is worth more than the tax assesment?

walter said...

Blogger Rich said...
NY law imposes a duty of honesty on those conducting business in the state without regard to any putative “no harm, no foul” defense.
--
Have a citation for that law?
Perhaps this?
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2020/11/16/a-narrow-lane-navigating-claims-for-breach-of-the-duty-of-good-faith-and-fair-dealing/?slreturn=20231006194752
"It is tempting to invoke this duty liberally. After all, most plaintiffs probably believe that the defendant did not act in good faith and/or that the result was unfair. But contract law is all about allowing parties to agree on how their business relationships will be ordered, and courts are loath to make rulings that might vary the terms to which the parties agreed. A party’s conduct either breaches the terms of the agreement or it does not; if it does not, that is generally the end of the line for a breach of contract claim. A party seeking to impose an additional duty on the ground that it is “implied” bears a heavy burden."

How often is the state a plaintiff in a private sector agreement?

Rusty said...

Robert Cook said...
"I'm still waiting for these corrupt democrat judges and prosecutors to tell us who was defrauded?"

"Well, isn't that what the proceedings will determine?"
In the normal course of legal business the "who" brings the case. If the prosecution is just accusing someone of fraud they must already know who is seeking redress.

Jamie said...

“Who lost money” and “where’s the harm,” far from being “central” to the case, are very precisely immaterial to the issue of liability in the New York cases. NY law imposes a duty of honesty on those conducting business in the state without regard to any putative “no harm, no foul” defense. That distinguishes this case from a common law fraud claim brought by a private litigant.

This is what I was talking about before, and what I thought you were arguing against, Rich. (Again I was surprised to be agreeing with someone I usually don't agree with!)

I think it's bs, but the state of New York seems to disagree. I a n a l, of course.

Cookie, my friend, you have not ever talked like a Republican in all the time I've seen you on this site; you've talked like a straight-up late-20th-century neo-Marxist. That's ok, man, be true to yourself! If you're actually a Republican, you're a very... unorthodox one, so just feel free to say what you want to say and defend what you want to defend. You are a valued member of this rather unique commentariat, and I want you to know that I, and I'm sure others, appreciate your contributions even though I almost uniformly disagree with them!

In this instance, I know you 100% think another Trump presidency would be a disaster, but I suggest that - especially if you were ever the Republican you say you were - you consider both the facts on the ground (not the media hyperventilation, nor, I urge, the unique circumstances of the early days of COVID) of his first presidency, and the facts on the ground of Biden's term so far. Have we seen anything resembling the Abraham Accords in this term? How about the holding of refugees in Mexico, at least technically a safer country than that from which the refugees originated and therefore the place where they should have sought refuge under international law, while appropriate vetting could take place? Take those two things alone.

Jamie said...

To be clear - I'm not suggesting to Robert Cook (who claims former Republican status though he talks like a Marxist now - who knows what happened there?) that he ought to vote for Trump; that seems a bridge too far. I'm just saying, look at what you've been told, and look at the evidence before your eyes, the actual things that Trump did and that happened during his presidency. Do they match up?

If not, maybe reconsider your faith in what you're told about Republicans.

I listened to a Triggernometry thing, interview, I guess, with Bill Maher today. He didn't know that Hillary Clinton had claimed that Trump was an "illegitimate president" after the 2016 election. Having been shown the evidence, he pivoted to the idea that because Trump didn't explicitly concede the 2020 election, he ought not just to be barred from running again but was - you know what's coming - a fascist. Despite the fact that he walked out of the White House on his own on Jan. 20 and, unlike the glorious Obama (can't stand that guy), actually left DC to live as a private citizen in Florida. Maher, for all his occasional flashes of reason in liberalism vs. progressivism, remains utterly blind to the idea that Trump wasn't uniformly a terrible thing for the US (especially in contrast to the alternative, then or now!). Mean tweets, Big Macs, spray tan - shudder.

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

Hey Rich - Looks like the real Fraud and crook is Crook Joe.

Where is the Judicial rigor?

With Crook Joe - we have those who are defrauded. The US tax payer. Money laundered.

Robert Cook said...

"To be clear - I'm not suggesting to Robert Cook (who claims former Republican status though he talks like a Marxist now - who knows what happened there?) that he ought to vote for Trump; that seems a bridge too far."

A Marxist? Hahahaha! Do you even know what a Marxist has to say? What have I said that is "like a Marxist?"

As far as my dispensing with my Republican status and ideas, I outgrew my family's ideas and formed my opinions based on what I saw (and see) in the world around me. It will not actually be a vote for Biden, but a vote against Trump, (which was the case for many people who voted for Biden in 2020).

As for voting for Trump: I have voted for the Green Party candidate for President in every election starting in 1996. I could not support either the Republican or Democrat candidate in any of the past 20 years. Even in 2020 I voted for the Green Party candidate. However: if Donald Trump is on the ballot for the Republican Party for 2024, I will hold my nose and vote for Joe Biden in hopes my vote and the votes of others who deplore Trump will give him another (and final) loss in the race for President. This will not be a vote for Biden, but a vote against Trump, (just as many of the votes "for" Biden in 2020 were actually votes against Trump).

Narr said...

I'm reading the original NYT headline, and it just struck me--what grown man doesn't "think he can talk or fight his way out of most situations"?

What are the other options? Run away? Grovel? (That involves talking . . .)

Silently put his wrists out to be cuffed!

That's the ticket.

Robert Cook said...

"I'm reading the original NYT headline, and it just struck me--what grown man doesn't 'think he can talk or fight his way out of most situations?'"

Sensible men who realize they are probably NOT the baddest-ass talkers or fighters who ever walked.

Narr said...

You think talking oneself out of a situation makes one a badass, Cook?

Not up to your sometime sensible takes.

So, again, if one won't try to talk (if possible) or fight (if necessary), what does one do?

Silently put your hands up?





Narr said...

Besides the arbitrary NYT formulation of talking and fighting as bad if Trump does them, the concept of "most situations" needs unpacking.

I don't have a clear idea of most situations, especially those that I am not physically present to experience. But most of the situations that I have experienced personally in my three score and ten have involved talking. Only a few have involved showing a readiness to fight (which conduced to talking), and even fewer have involved actual fighting (if drunken swings and lunges count).

And why wouldn't a defendant in a trial or judicial proceeding attempt to talk his way out of it? No, denying one's guilt and telling one's side is not--what's the phrase?--ah yes
Obstruction of Justice. That was a big deal a while back, when a certain combative talker was POTUS.

Perhaps Cook's experiences have been different enough to account for a different interpretation of what the NYT meant, and what I meant in my comment.