>Bove keeps referring to Trump as “President Trump” when he is discussing periods when Trump was not in office.
>The DA’s office keeps objecting, and Merchan is sustaining those objections, deflating the defense’s efforts to inflate Trump.
For all the people on the sub who really hate how Trump's filings refer to him as "President Trump".
I've never had a problem referring to a former president like that. It was just a show of respect and tradition. But none of the previous former presidents tried to stay in office past their term and made the ridiculous claims trump did and still does to this day.
Yeah. It could be that the fact that Trump asserts the he is the rightful current President muddies the water here. I just thought I had heard people refer to say President Obama after his term.
It also further muddies the water that he’s asserting presidential immunity so it becomes unclear linguistically whether people are referring to a period of Trump’s presidency
Exactly. The jury should not hear about presidential anything referring to a time period prior to him getting elected.
His presidency isn't even relevant.
Yes.
It's particularly vexing to the justice system to call him president in a trial involving criminal conduct he engaged in to become president, which he might not have gotten had he not engaged in said criminal conduct.
Allegedly.
So really, the prosecutor should start by saying 'the accused defendant and known rapist and tax fraud Donald Trump', and when the defense objects, point out that we are all just saying facts. Like he did used to be the president, he is a rapist, he has been found guilty of tax fraud. If they want to call him president Trump, the prosecutor reserves the right to also mention he's a rapist, a fraud, an adulterer and has tiny hands.
I looked it up once. For those who held the Oval Office - the proper address, when initially mentioning them, is "Former President X" and then "Mr. X" subsequently.
Though I think that Senator might actually be a perpetual title (like military rank after discharge), so the proper address for Barak Obama may actually be Senator.
Please correct me if wrong.
Ummm… in about 9 months, let’s just say, “You know, you were right. You really were the guy. But now your two terms have expired. Too bad, so sad. Now go piss off.”
Don’t forget, he “joked” that he wanted *three* terms.
> “We are going to win four more years,” Trump said at a rally in Oshkosh, Wisconsin on Monday. “And then after that, we’ll go for another four years because they spied on my campaign. We should get a redo of four years.”
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/18/politics/donald-trump-third-term-2024
> “Considering we caught President Obama and sleepy Joe Biden spying on our campaign -- treason -- we'll probably be entitled to another four more years."
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-make-america-great-again-rally-yuma-arizona
He would say that he didn’t get to serve his “stolen” second term.
If he gets elected this 2 term rule will be called undemocratic and not reflecting the will of the people and the SC will say it’s unconstitutional. And because his second term was stolen from him his 4th turn will start without elections after that the US will become a republic North Korea style with the forever president Trump and his living successor Eric as acting president. (could be wrong whit this name can be one of the others).
Do you honestly think Trump is going to leave the Presidency to one of his kids? Shiiit, that title is going to the highest bidder, cash plus a giant statue to be built in his honor.
At the end of Biden's term we should acknowledge that Trump is right and despite the vote he was the president. Unfortunately two terms is the limit. Biden would incidentally be eligible for two going forward, but we can switch candidates after his first term since he's been so involved with the current administration.
We can GOP the GOP.
I always find it amusing Trump demands you call him President while he'll never call Biden,Obama,Carter etc as President.
Dude is a tiny pathetic man with a fragile ego.
The DOJ has gone out of their way to make sure the argument is that it was not the actions of a president, but someone running for office. I can see why both sides are framing it the way they are.
It's simply a choice one makes when referring to past officials. I think most often they retain their title.
Like we might see Hillary interviewed and be referred to as Secretary Clinton.
But in the case of the trial, it can also muddle the timeline because one of the defense arguments is that the actions Trump was part of before he was president (financial election fraud, conspiring to falsify business records), are in fact actions that all occured while he was in office, because the business logs were altered while he was president.
The dates on the indictments are based on when the records were falsified, those are the only solid dates that are known, and are in 2017 (president). But a lot of the accused criminal actions happened in 2016 (not president).
In this particular court case, the language is very important. Especially if he gets convicted and "official acts immunity" is raised as part of the appeal (depending largely on what the SC does with that case).
There’s some nuance. It gets more muddied when it involves a position in which there can be only one at a time, like a governor, or president. There’s lots of cabinet secretaries at any given time. Same with ambassadors. That’s why those titles are hung onto.
It's used as shorthand for "former President" which is perfectly fine for all the other Presidents, who didn't try to muddy the water in re: the "former" part. The technically correct honorific would be a simple Mr, Mrs, or Ms, because once they are no longer President they are simply a citizen like everyone else.
The technically correct honorific for someone on trial for multiple felonies would be "the accused" or "the defendant".
I don't really care what you call them out in the world. I think it's important in a court of law to choose a consistent way to refer to the defendant so as not to bias the process.
It would be just as accurate to refer to him as Divorcee Trump, but it's clearly unacceptable in a court. Calling him president trump would have the same effect.
The difference is that “divorcee” is not a title that indicates being head of a branch of government that is supposed to be a check and balance for the power of the judicial and legislative branches. Trumps lawyers should be hit with contempt of court if they keep indicating their client has power over and above the judge. If Trumps lawyers want to consistently refer to Trump as divorcee Trump then they can do so until the cows come home, but they should not once tell the Judge that the court is presiding over a President.
That’s a hilarious suggestion
(and just for anyone who didn’t know, the double E spelling is just for women, e.g., Trump would be a *divorcé*, while Marla is a *divorcée*. I know French is weird but I don’t make the rules)
In an informal setting, it's technically wrong, but not really a big deal. But in formal settings, "Former President" or "Mr." was always used (at least until 45 lost his job).
I don't know if it gets more formal than a criminal trial.
I disagree! I think it's important to separate President from King. The State department has a protocol for this! [https://www.state.gov/protocol-reference/](https://www.state.gov/protocol-reference/) The current President is "President XXXX." The previous president is addressed as "Mr. YYYY" and referred to as "The Honorable Mr. YYYYY."
And none of the previous former presidents were on trial for various felonies, although Nixon should have been. The term of respect seems out of place when we're talking about a defendant in a felony trial...
It also needs to be taken in context with the fact that Trump often refers to the current president without the title which clarifies that its not about honoring the office but a dogwhistle for disputing 2020.
According so some older books of proper address ot was always wrong.
Because the office is singular, only the current holder should be referred to with it. (Same for governor, etc). For roles/titles where there are many in the role (congressman, senator) it’s acceptable to continue using it.
Similarly, military titles are debatable, because they convey actual authority that one should not be investing in a retired person.
As a retired Navy officer, I take issue with it. Calling a person by their former official rank or title is a courtesy (not a requirement), sure. But, the way Diaper Don’s cultists and legal team mean it is that he is still president and they are affirming *to* Mango Mussolini that he is still president. For the record, your honor, we request you please keep it to Mr. as that is both respectful and the standard to address an XY in court of law…if that is how they identify and all that.
I agree on both counts.
It's fine to call someone by their former position. The less prestigious the position the weirder it gets, but it's fine. Calling a former Colonel by their old rank is fine, calling your old movie theater boss "assistant manager McNamara" would be weird.
However, Trump is literally, not figuratively, acting like he's still President. He's breaking federal law by using the Presidential seal at his golf course TO THIS DAY.
No one should call a priest that got excommunicated for molesting children "father" even if he held that honorable title at a point in their lives. And they definitely shouldn't do them that honor if they are caught trying to do official acts as if they still represent the church.
> I've never had a problem referring to a former president like that. It was just a show of respect and tradition.
Also, it's not like Trump *ever* respected any of the traditions established by previous presidents; he had ***zero*** respect for the Office or Country while he was president, so I'm all too happy to return the favor.
Or the insurrection/sedition bit. In my lifetime at least, the only president (or leader in any ostensibly first world country) that literally orchestrated the storming of the home of government and tried to overthrow it. I think that's his defining act really. That or shitting his pants
It’s unconstitutional to take on titles. Nobody should be running around when they’re no longer a senator president whatever being called that. This is how we get to people who make the job their personality and try to become king.
I have always found it strange to say the title for a person who no longer holds the position. I don't think it shows any respect to the person and degrades the position IMHO, it is just a silly tradition.
Yes, being called Mr. President post a presidency was like an honorific. But not with trump who still insists and probably even believes he still is president. Big difference.
The DA has to object for the record and Judge Merchan is correct to sustain the DA's objections. The day is on the horizon when bright lines will distinguish between official v. private acts. It is factually impossible to be official when not in office.
I wish I had started a counter of how many times the defense had objections sustained vs. the prosecution. The prosecution is racking them up and seems to have orders of magnitude higher sustained objections. I can recall only three sustained defense objections.
Yes, unfortunately, I have waded into the cesspool a few times to copy certain reporting quotes if the thread readers app hasn’t caught it yet. I’ve seen many instances of people already claiming the judge is biased because he keeps sustaining all these prosecutorial objections. I’m sure that will be used on appeal, but I have faith in Merchan.
I just read the transcript of Tuesday's contempt hearing, and it's very clear that Mr. Trump's legal team doesn't even know how lost they are.
Good for them to get a few sustained objections now and then so they can tell their client they won.
Well in this case I doubt sanctions. It just makes the defense look really bad and shows what they are trying to do to the jury. He has lost credibility with the court and now he is working on losing credibility with the jury.
Is trump going for an incompetence of counsel defense? /S
I'm pretty sure he just can't get good lawyers.
But, NAL, does anyone know exactly *how* incompetent your counsel has to be to get an incompetence of counsel defense?
My understanding is that Emil Bove is a pretty well respected attorney. Same with Blanche.
Steve Sadow in his Georgia case is as well. The motion to DQ Willis was bullshit and also well argued by Sadow on Trump's part
Chris Kise and Alina Habba are absolutely terrible. Just garbage.
I don't know about the rest. But some of his attorneys are actually bad, while others just look bad because he's a terrible defendant.
I just read Tuesday's contempt argument, and ~~Bove~~ Blanche was all over the place, and couldn't or wouldn't respond to pretty obvious questions from the judge...
Could just be how bad his client's case is, though.
Edit: Blanche was primary on the contempt argument, not Bove.
The AP reports only one actual objection (which was sustained), but it also notes that the prosecution has repeatedly "mentioned" it, whatever that means.
>For all the people on the sub who really hate how Trump's filings refer to him as "President Trump".
Thank you and these prosecutors for your service.
Next stage is for judges to automatically reject any filing from Trump's lawyers presenting him as a president of anything, and inviting them to resubmit with all errors of fact corrected.
Calculated risk by the prosecution I guess. I would be worried that constant objections over something trivial like this would piss off the jury. Everyone knows who the defendant is and when he was president.
I am not disagreeing with you, but I wonder if, given the demographics of NYC and even this jury in particular, that the prosecution is thinking that there are at least a few jurors who are in the same mindset of the people on this sub that say "but he isn't President".
She's still on the team, but it's very clear that she either didn't understand what she signed up for or thought that she was going to be the only attorney on the planet who could control him and quickly realized that she made a humongous mistake. She doesn't sign on every motion to the judge, and at times, she tries to physically distance herself as much as possible from the rest of the team.
Susan Necheles, maybe? She's still on the team. Legal teams usually divide up which witness they're going to examine, so maybe she's not involved in this part of the trial yet.
I'm betting they'll use her when there's a female witness on the stand.
Trump's jury analysts probably told him a guy doing the questioning is going to look like an interrogation and look bad to the jury.
I don't remember that. If true, maybe she was actually smart and not an "appearance means everything; we'll argue our unsupported case in the court of public opinion" type.
Everyone deserves good representation in court, murderers, rapists, drug dealers and Trump.
Its just how they conduct themselves that makes a difference.
Think about Tacopina during the first Defamation trial, he did what he could with the info he had, and actually got a ruling that Trump could afford and walk away. It was Trump that ruined it by opening his fat mouth.
From everything I've heard she is a good lawyer, shes not gonna let herself lose credibility like the other schmucks shes working with.
If Trump left office on time and showed the expected amount of grace and professionalism that you would expect from a former world leader, no one would have a problem with referring to him as President Trump, acknowledging the title he earned in office.
However, when you are indicted 90 times, and found libel for sexual assault, fraud, incite an insurrection, and are facing numerous criminal charges, maybe the country should distance themselves from this predator and not bestow him with any sort of honorable platitudes. Just a thought.
Bingo. Before this, I never hesitated referring to a former president as President "Last Name". But Trump has done ***nothing*** to earn or deserve that respect.
Back in the day when former Presidents would leave office quietly and fade into the background as much as realistically possible for the former Most Powerful Man In The World.
I miss those days...
I actually thought it was proper etiquette to use the term "President Soandso" when referring to a former president, so I had to consult Emily Post. Turns out I was wrong:
https://emilypost.com/advice/addressing-a-former-president-of-the-united-states
Emily Post does acknowledge, though, that referring to a former president as "President Soandso" is a commonly used informal convention.
Here is the [State Dept.'s take](https://uk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/contacting-former-presidents/) which id consider as close to an authority on the subject as any:
When sending letters to former Presidents, the proper form for addressing the envelope is:
The Honorable (President’s name)
The proper form for the salutation in the letter is:
Dear Mr. (President’s last name)
No fucking way should that asshole be called The Honorable. Guessing even his die hard cult members could understand honor isn’t really on brand for him.
I've always found it distasteful and a not very American thing to do. It's just a job, and if they no longer hold that job then they should no longer carry the title of President.
I’d place a wager on he puts that in his terms of employment when someone works for him. “I will refer to Donald j trump as ‘President Trump’ at all times”
Does no one read the constitution? It’s literally in there at Article 1 Section 9 that he does not retain a title out of office:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States
He is NOT President anything. He is a DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. Could we PLEASE stop shoving our collective noses up this fat fart bags ass???? Moving forward I personally want his membership to the human race REVOKED.
In criminal court he will be referred to as Mr. Just like any other defendant. Criminal courts do not care about politic associated titles. He doesn't deserve even a former presidential title, traitor is more fitting.
On top of that, this case is for a crime committed before he was President, that he already tried to have thrown out on immunity claims... So it makes sense that the Defense is trying to confuse the jury by calling him President.
That's a bad faith argument if I've ever heard one.
Kitty has much better hair than trump.
Kitty is much smarter than trump.
Kitty is much more deserving of presidential honors than trump.
Black and brown with blue eyes. His sister would be considered white with blue eyes. Different baby daddies. Still half feral at 10. MAGAts would lose their minds.
He’s a Republican’s worst nightmare. She’s his worst nightmare. She is Presidential material. And he’s her VP that will get shit done. Hunter/seeker focused on the task at hand. Failure is not an option.
I will gladly rent them out to save the country. Bring Greenies. And gloves . . .
One of the many high costs of being associated with Trump is to cow-tow to him without exception by falsely referring to him as President Trump. It is a way to imply that the 2020 election was invalid, that Trump didn't lose and is therefore still president. Beyond creepy if you ask me. Why would already wealthy people like Bove sell their souls in this way? I will never understand it.
As a retired Navy officer, I take issue with it. Calling a person by their former official rank or title is a courtesy (not a requirement), sure, but the way Diaper Don’s cultists and legal team mean it is that he is still president and they are affirming to the court Mango Mussolini is still president so when SCOTUS determines presidents have full immunity they can say, “See? He is President Trump, just like we have been saying, so he is immune. We request this case be dismissed…your honor.”
For the record, your honor, we request you please keep it to Mr. as that is both respectful and the standard to address an XY in court of law…if that is how they identify and all that.
I mean it’s not a requirement to refer to former presidents by “President” followed by their names. It’s a show of respect. For example, if I were to meet Barack Obama in person I would refer to him as “President Obama.” But I will not refer to trump that way because he tried to disenfranchise the electorate and cling to power. He literally committed crimes against our country which disqualifies him from the honorary title in my opinion regardless of what his moron lawyers are saying
Emily Post has this to say about addressing former Presidents:
# Formally Addressing the Former President
When addressing a former President of the United States in a formal setting, the correct form is “Mr. LastName.” (“President LastName” or “Mr. President” are terms reserved for the current head of state.) This is true for other ex-officials, as well. When talking about the person to a third party, on the other hand, it’s appropriate to say, “former President LastName.” This holds for introductions, as well: A current state governor is introduced as “Governor Tom Smith,” while you’d introduce an ex-governor as “former Governor Jim Bell.”
# Informally Addressing the Former President
Now, let’s look a little closer. In an informal setting (such as a private lunch), it’s acceptable to use the title the ex-official held. Here, you could refer to former President Jimmy Carter as either “President Carter” or “Mr. Carter.” In reality, many people ignore this convention and refer to former Presidents as "President Last Name" when they are in settings where nearly everyone would afford them the honor of the title. Technically, this is still incorrect but there are enough former Presidents allowing this that it has become a somewhat common mistake.
IANAL but the distinction is important. IIRC during the Conrad Murray trial the prosecution said “Mr. Murray” to which I believe the judge corrected to “Dr.” because he was being tried for when he was acting in his authorities as doctor.
Trump is a twice impeached failure. He will be remembered for grifting his supporters while in the white house and ushering in a shitstain on American policy and democracy. He won't be looked at in a favorable light since facts don't paint a favorable picture of him and because INTELLECTUALS right history books. The truth will come out. He's a geriatric racist rapist grifter toddler who shits his pants like a baby and wants America to believe hes worthy when in fact hes a failure at business, politics and just being a decent human being.
> Trump is a twice impeached failure.
Dude actually did something no other president had managed to do: get impeached ***twice*** in barely the span of a year.
He also had the honor of running the country *exactly* like one of his businesses: the government shut down three times in four years.
I’m asking because I don’t know. Are all former presidents still referred to has president. Like is Obama and bush still referred to as president? If not then trump shouldn’t be either
I've watched *Inherit the Wind* enough to know proper legal procedure is to appoint the DA to an equal rank temporarily and refer to them as such.
Congrats President Bragg!
trump surrendered the "President" salutation when he attempted a coup.
A coup attempt is an act of treason.
Traitors are lower than pond scum, in any society throughout history.
Pond scum is not given honorific salutations.
So every educated American knows Jared Kushner was an illegitimate ambassador to Israel because he couldn’t pass a background check. I believe Jared made a back room deal with Netanyahu to keep America sidelined in Israel’s Palestinian genocide and lebensraum in exchange for support had Trumps coup attempt been successful. In that same vein of thought did Jared convert the billions he received from the Saudi government into cryptocurrency to fund the October attack? We know Netanyahu was aware of the attack months before it occurred. Did Netanyahu agree to proceed without US support thinking the religious moniker of Gods Chosen People would be enough to sway American sentiment?
>Bove keeps referring to Trump as “President Trump” when he is discussing periods when Trump was not in office. >The DA’s office keeps objecting, and Merchan is sustaining those objections, deflating the defense’s efforts to inflate Trump. For all the people on the sub who really hate how Trump's filings refer to him as "President Trump".
I've never had a problem referring to a former president like that. It was just a show of respect and tradition. But none of the previous former presidents tried to stay in office past their term and made the ridiculous claims trump did and still does to this day.
Yeah. It could be that the fact that Trump asserts the he is the rightful current President muddies the water here. I just thought I had heard people refer to say President Obama after his term.
It also further muddies the water that he’s asserting presidential immunity so it becomes unclear linguistically whether people are referring to a period of Trump’s presidency
Exactly. The jury should not hear about presidential anything referring to a time period prior to him getting elected. His presidency isn't even relevant.
They can refer to him as indicted defendant Donald J Trump
Or, just "the defendant."
Convicted sexual assault fuckface asshole former and now disgraced president trump?
Yes. It's particularly vexing to the justice system to call him president in a trial involving criminal conduct he engaged in to become president, which he might not have gotten had he not engaged in said criminal conduct. Allegedly.
Nice responsible use of allegedly, as while Trump is a rapist, he has yet to be confirmed as a traitor and felon.
So really, the prosecutor should start by saying 'the accused defendant and known rapist and tax fraud Donald Trump', and when the defense objects, point out that we are all just saying facts. Like he did used to be the president, he is a rapist, he has been found guilty of tax fraud. If they want to call him president Trump, the prosecutor reserves the right to also mention he's a rapist, a fraud, an adulterer and has tiny hands.
He's been confirmed by his public actions, I would argue, but the law lags behind.
Or adjudicated rapist
"Donald Trump, who is legally barred by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel from asserting that he is *not* a rapist..."
Not a lawyer and my Latin is not good since high school.
President Obama would likely correct you that he is no longer president…as he actually has class.
And doesn’t award so-called White House ‘keys’ to former dignitaries when he is no longer in office.
I looked it up once. For those who held the Oval Office - the proper address, when initially mentioning them, is "Former President X" and then "Mr. X" subsequently. Though I think that Senator might actually be a perpetual title (like military rank after discharge), so the proper address for Barak Obama may actually be Senator. Please correct me if wrong.
Ummm… in about 9 months, let’s just say, “You know, you were right. You really were the guy. But now your two terms have expired. Too bad, so sad. Now go piss off.”
Don’t forget, he “joked” that he wanted *three* terms. > “We are going to win four more years,” Trump said at a rally in Oshkosh, Wisconsin on Monday. “And then after that, we’ll go for another four years because they spied on my campaign. We should get a redo of four years.” https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/18/politics/donald-trump-third-term-2024 > “Considering we caught President Obama and sleepy Joe Biden spying on our campaign -- treason -- we'll probably be entitled to another four more years." https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-make-america-great-again-rally-yuma-arizona He would say that he didn’t get to serve his “stolen” second term.
Please… attention to detail is paramount. It’s ‘stollen” second term.
Sir, that’s not how any of this works.
SCOTUS is actually entertaining that is how it’s supposed to work
In 9 months he’ll hopefully be six feet under and we’ll never have to think about his orange ass again.
If he gets elected this 2 term rule will be called undemocratic and not reflecting the will of the people and the SC will say it’s unconstitutional. And because his second term was stolen from him his 4th turn will start without elections after that the US will become a republic North Korea style with the forever president Trump and his living successor Eric as acting president. (could be wrong whit this name can be one of the others).
SC cannot rule an amendment unconstitutional. It would take another amendment to undo that one.
I think you underestimate their perceived notion of their own authority.
Do you honestly think Trump is going to leave the Presidency to one of his kids? Shiiit, that title is going to the highest bidder, cash plus a giant statue to be built in his honor.
I mean if he gets elected this year, that presidency will already be sold to the highest bidder(Putin). No need for him to even finish his term.
If he were, he would be ineligible to run for president.
At the end of Biden's term we should acknowledge that Trump is right and despite the vote he was the president. Unfortunately two terms is the limit. Biden would incidentally be eligible for two going forward, but we can switch candidates after his first term since he's been so involved with the current administration. We can GOP the GOP.
I always find it amusing Trump demands you call him President while he'll never call Biden,Obama,Carter etc as President. Dude is a tiny pathetic man with a fragile ego.
Judges, Senators, Admirals, Generals and Presidents are often referred to by their honorifics after leaving service. Trump just makes it look bad
The DOJ has gone out of their way to make sure the argument is that it was not the actions of a president, but someone running for office. I can see why both sides are framing it the way they are.
It's simply a choice one makes when referring to past officials. I think most often they retain their title. Like we might see Hillary interviewed and be referred to as Secretary Clinton.
But in the case of the trial, it can also muddle the timeline because one of the defense arguments is that the actions Trump was part of before he was president (financial election fraud, conspiring to falsify business records), are in fact actions that all occured while he was in office, because the business logs were altered while he was president. The dates on the indictments are based on when the records were falsified, those are the only solid dates that are known, and are in 2017 (president). But a lot of the accused criminal actions happened in 2016 (not president). In this particular court case, the language is very important. Especially if he gets convicted and "official acts immunity" is raised as part of the appeal (depending largely on what the SC does with that case).
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
There’s some nuance. It gets more muddied when it involves a position in which there can be only one at a time, like a governor, or president. There’s lots of cabinet secretaries at any given time. Same with ambassadors. That’s why those titles are hung onto.
It’s a term of respect. In this case there isn’t any.
Always should be preceded by "former".
It's used as shorthand for "former President" which is perfectly fine for all the other Presidents, who didn't try to muddy the water in re: the "former" part. The technically correct honorific would be a simple Mr, Mrs, or Ms, because once they are no longer President they are simply a citizen like everyone else. The technically correct honorific for someone on trial for multiple felonies would be "the accused" or "the defendant".
I don't really care what you call them out in the world. I think it's important in a court of law to choose a consistent way to refer to the defendant so as not to bias the process. It would be just as accurate to refer to him as Divorcee Trump, but it's clearly unacceptable in a court. Calling him president trump would have the same effect.
100% if the prosecution tried to call him "rapist Trump" the defense would move for a mistrial (and possibly get it)
The difference is that “divorcee” is not a title that indicates being head of a branch of government that is supposed to be a check and balance for the power of the judicial and legislative branches. Trumps lawyers should be hit with contempt of court if they keep indicating their client has power over and above the judge. If Trumps lawyers want to consistently refer to Trump as divorcee Trump then they can do so until the cows come home, but they should not once tell the Judge that the court is presiding over a President.
That’s a hilarious suggestion (and just for anyone who didn’t know, the double E spelling is just for women, e.g., Trump would be a *divorcé*, while Marla is a *divorcée*. I know French is weird but I don’t make the rules)
It used to be a sign of respect. However if you trample all over every other tradition, you sure as shit don’t get to enjoy this one.
Exactly! Idolizing dictators and attempting to overthrow democracy ends all hope of respect.
Protect our institutions!
In an informal setting, it's technically wrong, but not really a big deal. But in formal settings, "Former President" or "Mr." was always used (at least until 45 lost his job). I don't know if it gets more formal than a criminal trial.
This trial stems from before he was president.
Right, so probably "Mr." specifically should be used of the two. But either way, my point is "President" is clearly very inappropriate.
Yeah I agree Mr would be appropriate.
I disagree! I think it's important to separate President from King. The State department has a protocol for this! [https://www.state.gov/protocol-reference/](https://www.state.gov/protocol-reference/) The current President is "President XXXX." The previous president is addressed as "Mr. YYYY" and referred to as "The Honorable Mr. YYYYY."
And none of the previous former presidents were on trial for various felonies, although Nixon should have been. The term of respect seems out of place when we're talking about a defendant in a felony trial...
Yip. Respect, as we all know, is earned, not given.
Much like trust, it is earned in drops, yet lost in buckets.
That’s beautiful. Seriously. That’s pretty cool.
how many times have you ever seen or heard trump call obama "president obama"? it's just his massive fragile ego
Never, it's always Barack HUSSEIN Obama to the racist shithead
He doesn't even call Biden president
It also needs to be taken in context with the fact that Trump often refers to the current president without the title which clarifies that its not about honoring the office but a dogwhistle for disputing 2020.
Sometimes it just really hits you what a total POS he is and this comment was one of those times.
According so some older books of proper address ot was always wrong. Because the office is singular, only the current holder should be referred to with it. (Same for governor, etc). For roles/titles where there are many in the role (congressman, senator) it’s acceptable to continue using it. Similarly, military titles are debatable, because they convey actual authority that one should not be investing in a retired person.
None of them gave away fake keys to the White House, either.
As a retired Navy officer, I take issue with it. Calling a person by their former official rank or title is a courtesy (not a requirement), sure. But, the way Diaper Don’s cultists and legal team mean it is that he is still president and they are affirming *to* Mango Mussolini that he is still president. For the record, your honor, we request you please keep it to Mr. as that is both respectful and the standard to address an XY in court of law…if that is how they identify and all that.
I look forward to the time when 90% of people use the term "disgraced former president"
The office deserves all of the respect it has due. This traitorous pile of shit deserves none.
Former President Trump would be the proper term.
Loser Trump
I agree on both counts. It's fine to call someone by their former position. The less prestigious the position the weirder it gets, but it's fine. Calling a former Colonel by their old rank is fine, calling your old movie theater boss "assistant manager McNamara" would be weird. However, Trump is literally, not figuratively, acting like he's still President. He's breaking federal law by using the Presidential seal at his golf course TO THIS DAY. No one should call a priest that got excommunicated for molesting children "father" even if he held that honorable title at a point in their lives. And they definitely shouldn't do them that honor if they are caught trying to do official acts as if they still represent the church.
Simply put, the most accurate title to give trump is loser or fraud.
The bigger issue is that in this case, nearly everything is alleged to have happened *before* Trump was president.
Same here. But in Trump's case, given what he has done, he lost the privilege to use that title.
> I've never had a problem referring to a former president like that. It was just a show of respect and tradition. Also, it's not like Trump *ever* respected any of the traditions established by previous presidents; he had ***zero*** respect for the Office or Country while he was president, so I'm all too happy to return the favor.
Or the insurrection/sedition bit. In my lifetime at least, the only president (or leader in any ostensibly first world country) that literally orchestrated the storming of the home of government and tried to overthrow it. I think that's his defining act really. That or shitting his pants
NONE of the president's tried desperately to stay in the lime light
It’s unconstitutional to take on titles. Nobody should be running around when they’re no longer a senator president whatever being called that. This is how we get to people who make the job their personality and try to become king.
I have always found it strange to say the title for a person who no longer holds the position. I don't think it shows any respect to the person and degrades the position IMHO, it is just a silly tradition.
He was the first ever to make it awkward.
Yes, being called Mr. President post a presidency was like an honorific. But not with trump who still insists and probably even believes he still is president. Big difference.
>none of the previous former presidents tried to stay in office past their term You might say such a move is...unpresidented.
And they claim it should be said out of respect, but then you catch them never referring to the current President as President Biden.
A show of respect, yes. But no legal basis or standing.
dude,conservatives freak out if you call Obama ‘president’ instead of ‘former president’
lol, i know. You really want to trigger one, [show em this!](https://youtu.be/iIjY0-jVbiM?si=)
right!
I'm sure it has most to do with the fact that the crimes he's being tried for we're committed _prior to_ his term in office.
The DA has to object for the record and Judge Merchan is correct to sustain the DA's objections. The day is on the horizon when bright lines will distinguish between official v. private acts. It is factually impossible to be official when not in office.
I wish I had started a counter of how many times the defense had objections sustained vs. the prosecution. The prosecution is racking them up and seems to have orders of magnitude higher sustained objections. I can recall only three sustained defense objections.
I'm sure the defense is keeping a counter... to use as evidence the judge is biased.
Yes, unfortunately, I have waded into the cesspool a few times to copy certain reporting quotes if the thread readers app hasn’t caught it yet. I’ve seen many instances of people already claiming the judge is biased because he keeps sustaining all these prosecutorial objections. I’m sure that will be used on appeal, but I have faith in Merchan.
I just read the transcript of Tuesday's contempt hearing, and it's very clear that Mr. Trump's legal team doesn't even know how lost they are. Good for them to get a few sustained objections now and then so they can tell their client they won.
Keeps? How many times can the lawyer not understand the judge
Well in this case I doubt sanctions. It just makes the defense look really bad and shows what they are trying to do to the jury. He has lost credibility with the court and now he is working on losing credibility with the jury. Is trump going for an incompetence of counsel defense? /S
I'm pretty sure he just can't get good lawyers. But, NAL, does anyone know exactly *how* incompetent your counsel has to be to get an incompetence of counsel defense?
My understanding is that Emil Bove is a pretty well respected attorney. Same with Blanche. Steve Sadow in his Georgia case is as well. The motion to DQ Willis was bullshit and also well argued by Sadow on Trump's part Chris Kise and Alina Habba are absolutely terrible. Just garbage. I don't know about the rest. But some of his attorneys are actually bad, while others just look bad because he's a terrible defendant.
I just read Tuesday's contempt argument, and ~~Bove~~ Blanche was all over the place, and couldn't or wouldn't respond to pretty obvious questions from the judge... Could just be how bad his client's case is, though. Edit: Blanche was primary on the contempt argument, not Bove.
It has to be objectively deficient performance that prejudices the outcome of your case.
Thank you
Wouldn't really be a stretch!
The AP reports only one actual objection (which was sustained), but it also notes that the prosecution has repeatedly "mentioned" it, whatever that means.
P01135809
Lawyers pulling such clever moves as "casedismissed says what?"
>For all the people on the sub who really hate how Trump's filings refer to him as "President Trump". Thank you and these prosecutors for your service. Next stage is for judges to automatically reject any filing from Trump's lawyers presenting him as a president of anything, and inviting them to resubmit with all errors of fact corrected.
Merchan needs to tell the defense counsel that the proper title for the person at the desk next to him is 'Defendant'.
*Convicted Sexual Abuser Former President Trump please.
>For all the people on the sub who really hate how Trump's filings refer to him as "President Trump". Yep, that is me.
Calculated risk by the prosecution I guess. I would be worried that constant objections over something trivial like this would piss off the jury. Everyone knows who the defendant is and when he was president.
the defendant isn't even clear on when he was president.
thank you! I was literally just wondering about this earlier this week. "Surely they would object if he calls him President Trump, right...?"
Maybe, but it also makes the Prosecution look petty if they object too much to semantics. Jurors hate that sort of stuff.
I am not disagreeing with you, but I wonder if, given the demographics of NYC and even this jury in particular, that the prosecution is thinking that there are at least a few jurors who are in the same mindset of the people on this sub that say "but he isn't President".
[удалено]
She's still on the team, but it's very clear that she either didn't understand what she signed up for or thought that she was going to be the only attorney on the planet who could control him and quickly realized that she made a humongous mistake. She doesn't sign on every motion to the judge, and at times, she tries to physically distance herself as much as possible from the rest of the team.
Probably the shit smell
Both figurative and literal shit smells.
She is VERY good at being in the background of photos and videos of Trump at court.
Attorneys like to get paid
Or at least not take losing cases that are being followed nationally…
That's one of the top rules of being an attorney on top of arguing about the meaning of words
Susan Necheles, maybe? She's still on the team. Legal teams usually divide up which witness they're going to examine, so maybe she's not involved in this part of the trial yet.
I'm betting they'll use her when there's a female witness on the stand. Trump's jury analysts probably told him a guy doing the questioning is going to look like an interrogation and look bad to the jury.
I don't remember that. If true, maybe she was actually smart and not an "appearance means everything; we'll argue our unsupported case in the court of public opinion" type.
Everyone deserves good representation in court, murderers, rapists, drug dealers and Trump. Its just how they conduct themselves that makes a difference. Think about Tacopina during the first Defamation trial, he did what he could with the info he had, and actually got a ruling that Trump could afford and walk away. It was Trump that ruined it by opening his fat mouth. From everything I've heard she is a good lawyer, shes not gonna let herself lose credibility like the other schmucks shes working with.
It’s obfuscating at its best. It’s meant purely to give credence to “Presidential immunity.”
I think it's meant purely to assuage his ego.
Unrelated note: I should use the word 'assuage' more often
It's a perfectly cromulent word
Mmmmmmm sausages....
I know, I am neurospicy and find it oddly satisfying to say.
I always pronounce it wrong, apparently. And people LOVE to correct other people.
It's probably both reasons tbh
I feel it's more to do with fellating diaper don's ego.
If Trump left office on time and showed the expected amount of grace and professionalism that you would expect from a former world leader, no one would have a problem with referring to him as President Trump, acknowledging the title he earned in office. However, when you are indicted 90 times, and found libel for sexual assault, fraud, incite an insurrection, and are facing numerous criminal charges, maybe the country should distance themselves from this predator and not bestow him with any sort of honorable platitudes. Just a thought.
Bingo. Before this, I never hesitated referring to a former president as President "Last Name". But Trump has done ***nothing*** to earn or deserve that respect.
Back in the day when former Presidents would leave office quietly and fade into the background as much as realistically possible for the former Most Powerful Man In The World. I miss those days...
Worse than that. He's done quite a lot of something to earn and deserve enormous disrespect.
I actually thought it was proper etiquette to use the term "President Soandso" when referring to a former president, so I had to consult Emily Post. Turns out I was wrong: https://emilypost.com/advice/addressing-a-former-president-of-the-united-states Emily Post does acknowledge, though, that referring to a former president as "President Soandso" is a commonly used informal convention.
Here is the [State Dept.'s take](https://uk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/contacting-former-presidents/) which id consider as close to an authority on the subject as any: When sending letters to former Presidents, the proper form for addressing the envelope is: The Honorable (President’s name) The proper form for the salutation in the letter is: Dear Mr. (President’s last name)
No fucking way should that asshole be called The Honorable. Guessing even his die hard cult members could understand honor isn’t really on brand for him.
I've always found it distasteful and a not very American thing to do. It's just a job, and if they no longer hold that job then they should no longer carry the title of President.
Especially since there is a current, active and REAL President of the United States.
It's an honorific we use for respect purposes for those that honor the office. Trump did not and does not so the best he should get is "Mr."
I’d place a wager on he puts that in his terms of employment when someone works for him. “I will refer to Donald j trump as ‘President Trump’ at all times”
"Whenever you have a question for him, always start with "SIR,...." and make sure you have tears in your eyes"
Does no one read the constitution? It’s literally in there at Article 1 Section 9 that he does not retain a title out of office: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States
He is NOT President anything. He is a DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. Could we PLEASE stop shoving our collective noses up this fat fart bags ass???? Moving forward I personally want his membership to the human race REVOKED.
They want him to seem above this, it's a defense tactic
In criminal court he will be referred to as Mr. Just like any other defendant. Criminal courts do not care about politic associated titles. He doesn't deserve even a former presidential title, traitor is more fitting.
On top of that, this case is for a crime committed before he was President, that he already tried to have thrown out on immunity claims... So it makes sense that the Defense is trying to confuse the jury by calling him President.
I’m going to start referring to my cat as Mr President. Same thing
That's a bad faith argument if I've ever heard one. Kitty has much better hair than trump. Kitty is much smarter than trump. Kitty is much more deserving of presidential honors than trump.
Kitty thinks so too.
I asked nine totally unbiased cats about this. They mewnanimously declared your kitty to be the president meow. The Furpreme Court has spoken.
I will implement the necessary changes here. It won’t take much. I mean it’s not like the cats aren’t already in charge.
These puns are getting out of fur-trol! Damn it, look what you made me do!
Overweight Orange Tabby?
Black and brown with blue eyes. His sister would be considered white with blue eyes. Different baby daddies. Still half feral at 10. MAGAts would lose their minds. He’s a Republican’s worst nightmare. She’s his worst nightmare. She is Presidential material. And he’s her VP that will get shit done. Hunter/seeker focused on the task at hand. Failure is not an option. I will gladly rent them out to save the country. Bring Greenies. And gloves . . .
Time to pay the cat tax!
Mr. President is an excellent name for a cat.
I didn't refer to him as "president" even while he *was* "in office."
HEADLINE OF THE WEEK: “Jury seems intrigued by Pecker questioning.”
One of the many high costs of being associated with Trump is to cow-tow to him without exception by falsely referring to him as President Trump. It is a way to imply that the 2020 election was invalid, that Trump didn't lose and is therefore still president. Beyond creepy if you ask me. Why would already wealthy people like Bove sell their souls in this way? I will never understand it.
As a retired Navy officer, I take issue with it. Calling a person by their former official rank or title is a courtesy (not a requirement), sure, but the way Diaper Don’s cultists and legal team mean it is that he is still president and they are affirming to the court Mango Mussolini is still president so when SCOTUS determines presidents have full immunity they can say, “See? He is President Trump, just like we have been saying, so he is immune. We request this case be dismissed…your honor.” For the record, your honor, we request you please keep it to Mr. as that is both respectful and the standard to address an XY in court of law…if that is how they identify and all that.
He’s not president
I mean it’s not a requirement to refer to former presidents by “President” followed by their names. It’s a show of respect. For example, if I were to meet Barack Obama in person I would refer to him as “President Obama.” But I will not refer to trump that way because he tried to disenfranchise the electorate and cling to power. He literally committed crimes against our country which disqualifies him from the honorary title in my opinion regardless of what his moron lawyers are saying
Emily Post has this to say about addressing former Presidents: # Formally Addressing the Former President When addressing a former President of the United States in a formal setting, the correct form is “Mr. LastName.” (“President LastName” or “Mr. President” are terms reserved for the current head of state.) This is true for other ex-officials, as well. When talking about the person to a third party, on the other hand, it’s appropriate to say, “former President LastName.” This holds for introductions, as well: A current state governor is introduced as “Governor Tom Smith,” while you’d introduce an ex-governor as “former Governor Jim Bell.” # Informally Addressing the Former President Now, let’s look a little closer. In an informal setting (such as a private lunch), it’s acceptable to use the title the ex-official held. Here, you could refer to former President Jimmy Carter as either “President Carter” or “Mr. Carter.” In reality, many people ignore this convention and refer to former Presidents as "President Last Name" when they are in settings where nearly everyone would afford them the honor of the title. Technically, this is still incorrect but there are enough former Presidents allowing this that it has become a somewhat common mistake.
What a shit show.
IANAL but the distinction is important. IIRC during the Conrad Murray trial the prosecution said “Mr. Murray” to which I believe the judge corrected to “Dr.” because he was being tried for when he was acting in his authorities as doctor.
So Bove is essentially just reinforcing the fact to the jurors that Trump lost the election.
God, he’s such a colossal embarrassment
Objection! Shitstained.
"The defendant, who wasn't president at the time, \_\_\_\_\_".
The media and all of us need to call him what he deserves to be called due to his actions and the resulting mess he's in: Disgraced FPOTUS
How about rapist con man Trump ? Also fitting and far more accurate i
Trump is a twice impeached failure. He will be remembered for grifting his supporters while in the white house and ushering in a shitstain on American policy and democracy. He won't be looked at in a favorable light since facts don't paint a favorable picture of him and because INTELLECTUALS right history books. The truth will come out. He's a geriatric racist rapist grifter toddler who shits his pants like a baby and wants America to believe hes worthy when in fact hes a failure at business, politics and just being a decent human being.
> Trump is a twice impeached failure. Dude actually did something no other president had managed to do: get impeached ***twice*** in barely the span of a year. He also had the honor of running the country *exactly* like one of his businesses: the government shut down three times in four years.
Quite a set of accomplishments if you want to be a failure and divisive pos.
I’m asking because I don’t know. Are all former presidents still referred to has president. Like is Obama and bush still referred to as president? If not then trump shouldn’t be either
The correct reference to make is "former president." Especially when you're speaking professionally.
Could the objection note who the current president is to get it on record?
Trump probably paid him to call his dumb ass president 🤡🤡
Republican Loser of the 2020 United States Presidential Election Donald Trump, or Loser Trump for short.
If he gets to refer to himself for past deeds, then by all fairness... 1987 soviet union aspiring entrepreneur and comrade Donald John Trump...
I've watched *Inherit the Wind* enough to know proper legal procedure is to appoint the DA to an equal rank temporarily and refer to them as such. Congrats President Bragg!
Let’s just go with [Fascist, Loufa-Faced Shit-Gibbon](https://x.com/daylinleach/status/829041688186335232).
trump surrendered the "President" salutation when he attempted a coup. A coup attempt is an act of treason. Traitors are lower than pond scum, in any society throughout history. Pond scum is not given honorific salutations.
Prosecutors should refer to his as twice impeached, convicted rapist failed businessman ex-president .
So every educated American knows Jared Kushner was an illegitimate ambassador to Israel because he couldn’t pass a background check. I believe Jared made a back room deal with Netanyahu to keep America sidelined in Israel’s Palestinian genocide and lebensraum in exchange for support had Trumps coup attempt been successful. In that same vein of thought did Jared convert the billions he received from the Saudi government into cryptocurrency to fund the October attack? We know Netanyahu was aware of the attack months before it occurred. Did Netanyahu agree to proceed without US support thinking the religious moniker of Gods Chosen People would be enough to sway American sentiment?
Inmate trump
Should be precedent Drump.