I'm sure Claude would give "your brother" top marks for his legal acumen...
Posted on 05/07/2024 11:47:36 AM PDT by thegagline
Porn star Stormy Daniels is on the stand at former President Donald Trump’s “hush money” trial in New York today — a pivotal moment in the case.
Daniels is describing their alleged sexual encounter, at times in so much detail that Judge Juan Merchan scolded the prosecution, saying the nitty gritty was “unnecessary.” *** “In fairness to the people, I think the witness was a little bit difficult to control the witness," Justice Merchan said***
Trump attorney Todd Blanche moved Tuesday for a mistrial, citing what he called Stormy Daniels' "prejudicial" and salacious testimony about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump.
Daniels mentioned some details about her alleged tryst with Trump — like that there was an "imbalance of power" between her and the real estate mogul — that could unfairly "inflame the jury," Blanche argued.
“It’s extremely prejudicial to insert safety concerns in a trial about business records," he told the court.
“The issue is she has testified today about consent, about danger – that’s not the point of this case. That’s not the point of her testimony," he added.
***
Blanche also accused Daniels of changing her story about the encounter over the years.
Judge Merchan declined to grant the mistrial, but said he agreed with Blanche "that there are some things that would have been better left unsaid."
In fairness to the prosecutors, though, he added, "I believe that the witness was very difficult to control."
Donald Trump appeared to write a note on a legal pad as the judge tossed his attorneys' move for a mistrial.
He then passed the legal pad in the direction of Todd Blanche, his attorney.
“I was surprised there were not more objections to this testimony," Justice Juan Merchan says, after Trump attorney Todd Blanche moved for a mistrial.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
We have passed the point of a need to suspend disbelief and attempts to fit this into some rational, logical, equitable, legal framework.
Since the defense objected to the testimony before any of it was given, doesn’t that make any subsequent appeal of that testimony seem timely? In other words, if they objected to the entire thing, why would they have to keep objecting throughout to specific things?
Thank you for link. I will read this tomorrow as I am off to see a concert: Echo and the Bunnymen- I know, I’m old but so are they.
“Trump is charged with violating a New York state law that forbids false entries in a business accounting ledger.”
Which is a misdemeanor. The reason Trump is being charged with felonies is that prosecutors argue he made the false entries in an effort to hide other crimes.
She is like a high school drama queen. This is all so juvenile. I guess the judge enjoys hearing this stuff. It makes him happy. Sick people. Juvenile.
If you can believe Avenetti the whole thing was an extortion scheme. Honor among thieves?
Your understanding is that you can count on other posters to have not read the numerous posts on this threat detailing what went down.
You could have had "your brother" read them, and explain them to you.
But that's not why you posted this claptrap.
A more informed and less Trump-hating freeper wrote: "Jonathan Turley just eviscerated the judge for allowing the testimony. The Defense DID attempt to object to her testimony but was over ruled. The judge claiming he was concerned for lack of objections when the defense objected to her even being there."
Keep your lies and misdirection to yourself, Democrat Party operative.
I do believe it was extortion, even without the proof from creepy porn lawyer, anyone with an IQ over AOC knows this was total extortion which is a CRIME
You expect anything different from Turley? Trump could shoot someone on 5th Ave in cold blood and he’d come up with some sort of scenario that Trump was being picked on.
Good day.
I highly doubt Trump had anything to do with spermy Daniels. He is germifobic.
I'm sure Claude would give "your brother" top marks for his legal acumen...
My guess is that defense counsel made their objections and were denied. This trial and the judge himself are an indictment of the American judicial system. They discredit our legal system.
Claude?
Thank you. I knew the reference, of course, as a yuge Woody Allen fan since I first saw him on Hootenanny as a standup comic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCHjKzSAELk
Thanks for the video.
Once again, I agree.
However, they have yet to identify what the other crime is.
Trying to influence a federal election?
Whoops!
State of New York - prosecuting a federal crime?
State of New York - prosecuting prostitution from another state?
Two weeks into the case, and we still do not know what the underlying crime is.
Also - think about the precedent this sets in New York state.
Every business ledger in the state has Legal Fee entries that can now be examined with a Legal Microscope!
This is how the rape conviction of Harvey Weinstein was over-turned. The appeals court said that the prosecutor allowed irrelevant evidence that misled/confused the jury and prejudiced the case.
The Trump defense knew that if there was numerous objections, the jury would become suspicious and think they were hiding something. The plea for a mistrial was done in a sidebar beyond the ears of the jury.
Being a prosecutor or defense attorney requires understanding trial gamesmanship. It will be interesting to see how an appeals court views today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.