@ #2: Well, if we’re inclined to parse, in a molecular fashion, a statement about EVERYBODY is *technically* a statement about “any prospective juror”…
Of course he’s allowed to defend himself; that’s what “counsel for the defense” does. If he wants to say they are all lying, all he has to do is persuade his lawyer to put him on the stand, under oath, where he will almost certainly say whatever the hell he wants to say even when he is under oath to tell the truth. To him, the truth is whatever he thinks it is, and if someone contradicts him, by definition they must be lying,
But yes, he is being allowed a chance to defend himself. No kangaroos in this court. (Just another example of how Trump demonstrates little understanding for much of anything.)
But I don’t see any basis for arguing that this particular “truth” violates the order.
The order (quoted in your other post) doesn’t bar Trump from complaining about the trial or the judge.
The comments that were the subject of this morning’s hearing were about witnesses, etc.
@ #2: Well, if we’re inclined to parse, in a molecular fashion, a statement about EVERYBODY is *technically* a statement about “any prospective juror”…
Of course he’s allowed to defend himself; that’s what “counsel for the defense” does. If he wants to say they are all lying, all he has to do is persuade his lawyer to put him on the stand, under oath, where he will almost certainly say whatever the hell he wants to say even when he is under oath to tell the truth. To him, the truth is whatever he thinks it is, and if someone contradicts him, by definition they must be lying,
But yes, he is being allowed a chance to defend himself. No kangaroos in this court. (Just another example of how Trump demonstrates little understanding for much of anything.)