Brian63
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2001
- Messages
- 1,639
- Location
- Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Freethinker/atheist/humanist
Recently I had been discussing with someone the hypothetical of Donald Trump being a defendant in a courtroom and forced to testify under oath. Prosecutors would in part ask him direct yes/no questions. Given Trump's personality and history, however, he seems unable or unwilling to remain that focused. He rambles on about other topics instead, changes the subject, dodges the questions, whines about his own personal grievances, insults others who challenge him in any way, etc. He basically proceeds with a Gish Gallop of nonsense, and never gives clear concise answers.
That has worked well for him in the media and political spheres. In a judicial setting though, what would be the repercussions for that behavior? Presumably he would be warned against it several times. If he persisted though, would that constitute a "contempt of court" or something else? What would be the punishment? If it is milder than perjury or if he believes there is insufficient evidence to prove his guilt of other crimes (unless he admitted to them, or got caught by the prosecutors on the stand), then from his own selfish perspective wouldn't it be in his best interest to ramble on---even if the worst the court could do is convict him of "contempt of court"? Or his evasive behavior may be observed by the jury and taken into consideration when they submit a verdict. Then the contempt of court could be added in addition to his other guilty verdicts.
Any lawyers in the house? Thanks.
That has worked well for him in the media and political spheres. In a judicial setting though, what would be the repercussions for that behavior? Presumably he would be warned against it several times. If he persisted though, would that constitute a "contempt of court" or something else? What would be the punishment? If it is milder than perjury or if he believes there is insufficient evidence to prove his guilt of other crimes (unless he admitted to them, or got caught by the prosecutors on the stand), then from his own selfish perspective wouldn't it be in his best interest to ramble on---even if the worst the court could do is convict him of "contempt of court"? Or his evasive behavior may be observed by the jury and taken into consideration when they submit a verdict. Then the contempt of court could be added in addition to his other guilty verdicts.
Any lawyers in the house? Thanks.
