I heard analysts saying today that those objections are the only basis for appeals. If they didn’t object, they wouldn’t have grounds for appeal or dismissal.
I don't know. This has been discussed before. There were also pre-trial motions on the same subject that Merchan rejected, so objecting again in trial would be ineffective.
This specifically was during the Stephanie Clifford testimony. During pre-trial motions, the defense objected to her appearing because she was not relevant to the book-keeping charges and the defense said her testimony would be prejudicial. Merchan denied the objection and allowed her to testify, and then said later that he regretted it. Why continue to object during her testimony, only for the judge to continue to deny them again and give the testimony the imprimatur of legitimacy?
Also, if the defense continuously objects to the Daniels testimony, it gives the jury the impression that President Trump has something to hide. That's why those motions are made pre-trial before a jury is seated.
In short, Merchan left a large trail of things that can be appealed.
-PJ