Sharpshooter said:
Trump just called the Judge corrupt.
*** Official Trump Hush Money Trial Thread ***
605,075 Views |
6827 Replies |
Last: 4 hrs ago by BMX Bandit
They had a standing objection! What a dishonest judge!Quote:
Trump is leaning back and stretching as the judge knocks the defense for not objecting to more of Stormy Daniels' testimony.
Merchan has mentioned several portions of the proceedings he thinks Trump's lawyers could have objected to as he explains his ruling.
Quote:
Judge Juan Merchan has denied the defense's motion for a mistrial.
Merchan says he disagrees with the Trump team's assertion that Stormy Daniels gave a new account in her testimony this week.
Before the ruling, Mechan says the jurors have to decide who they believe in the case of the encounter between Donald Trump and Daniels.
He notes that the people do not have to prove the encounter happened but because the defense has called her credibility into question, prosecutors have to make an effort to show her story is credible to prove their case.
"The more specificity Ms. Daniels can provide about the encounter, the more the jury can weigh whether the encounter did occur and if so whether they choose to credit Ms. Daniels' story," Merchan says.
There were "many times Ms. Necheles could have objected but didn't," the judge says.Merchan says: "For some unexplained reason that I still don't understand" there was no objection to certain testimony cited in the motion for a mistrial and again today.Quote:
"For some unexplained reason that I still don't understand" there was no objection to certain testimony cited in the motion for a mistrial and again today, Merchan says.
"Why on earth she wouldn't object to the mention of a condom I don't understand," Merchan says of Necheles.
Quote:
After issuing his ruling, Judge Juan Merchan dismissed the court until tomorrow morning.
"I'll see you tomorrow at 9:30," he said.
Sharpshooter said:
Trump just called the Judge corrupt.
LOL OLD
Agree and love that Movie. Especially the music.Tramp96 said:Sharpshooter said:
Trump just called the Judge corrupt.
To?
I'm not a lawyer, and I've only read a couple John Grisham novels, but why does a lawyer have to object to something if the judge knows it's something he is going to sustain? It seems stupid if the law requires the lawyer to object to something the judge knows is wrong. The judge should have the power to just say, "Nope, that's not relevant and we all know that."aggiehawg said:
"Why on earth she wouldn't object to the mention of a condom I don't understand," Merchan says of Necheles.
Different judges handle objections in different ways. One judge may never allow standing objections and forcing counsel to object nearly everytime, all of the time. Juries tend to get a little annoyed at that.AustinAg2K said:I'm not a lawyer, and I've only read a couple John Grisham novels, but why does a lawyer have to object to something if the judge knows it's something he is going to sustain? It seems stupid if the law requires the lawyer to object to something the judge knows is wrong. The judge should have the power to just say, "Nope, that's not relevant and we all know that."aggiehawg said:
"Why on earth she wouldn't object to the mention of a condom I don't understand," Merchan says of Necheles.
Other judges will allow speaking objections when an objection is made, counsel gives the reason for it, the opposing counsel gives their reason, or withdraws the question or rephrases it. And that all happens in front of the jury without sidebars.
Other judges require sidebars for all objections and don't allow speaking objections in front of the jury.
Merchan allowed standing objections ruled against speaking objections and relied on sidebars for argument. Further, Stormy's appearance at all in this trial had already been addressed pretrial on a motion in limine. Merchan ruled agains defense then. Then they brought up their standing objection again when they learned Tuesday morning that Stormy was about to be called. Merchan shot them down again. So between his rulings, not allowing speaking objections in front of the jury Merchan hamstrung them from doing their job.
So for him to come back and criticize the defense team because they didn't object enough is appalling and indicative of his bias. BTW, judges can always interrupt counsel or a witness and tell them to move on, instrut the witness not to answer, etc. So for Merchan to claim that Necheles didn't stand up and scream objection! when the prosecutor asked about whether Trump used a condom or not is disingenuous. He could have stopped that immediately, called for sidebar or order the jury out so he could admonish that prosecutor about decorum in his court.
Any guess on the odds the defense will now file a writ of mandamus over this?
SwigAg11 said:
Any guess on the odds the defense will now file a writ of mandamus over this?
Zero if they any to maintain credibility with appellate court
Not sure it is worth the bang for the bucks at this point.SwigAg11 said:
Any guess on the odds the defense will now file a writ of mandamus over this?
But I will go out on a limb and predict Trump does not testify. Too risky for him to do so. He's royally pissed and very rightfully so but with this judge allowing absolutely everything and the kitchen sink into evidence, it would be one chaos grenade after another.
Thank you. No idea how that works.
They do have an appeal up on the gag order.BMX Bandit said:SwigAg11 said:
Any guess on the odds the defense will now file a writ of mandamus over this?
Zero if they any to maintain credibility with appellate court
Which they have legitimate arguments on.
This mistrial? Not so much
This mistrial? Not so much
Strongly disagree. Merchan has shown his hand today and the prosecutors admitted to misconduct in extensively coaching a key witness in Stormy Daniels.BMX Bandit said:
Which they have legitimate arguments on.
This mistrial? Not so much
aggiehawg said:Quote:
Reading another line of testimony, Todd Blanche notes that Stormy Daniels said "there was an imbalance of power for sure" when referring to her allegation of a sexual encounter with Donald Trump.
Blanche says the jury has heard about a power dynamic and "none of that information goes to the motive of anybody in this case including President Trump."Quote:
Trump attorney Todd Blanche is continuing to suggest that prosecutors asked questions they shouldn't have during Stormy Daniels' testimony, such as what Daniels' reaction was to seeing Trump when she left his bathroom before their alleged sexual encounter.
"It's not relevant and it shouldn't have been asked," Blanche says.
"That is a description that is extremely prejudicial," the Trump attorney argues, referring to questions intended to sway the jury's emotions against a defendant.
The descriptions didn't have anything to do with an arrangement involving Michael Cohen and the National Enquirer, which is the core issue at hand, Blanche argues.
Blanche argues that prosecutors "didn't abide by the court's rules" in their line of questioning.
He also points to the question about what their relative heights were.
"How is that relevant to that case? That is so prejudicial," he argues.Quote:
Trump attorney Todd Blanche is saying that Judge Juan Merchan said they did not need to know the details of the alleged sexual encounter between Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump, but "the people still asked."
"There was no basis for the government to ask that question," Blanche argues.
"The government wouldn't stop," Blanche says. "We didn't know these questions were coming."
"We were sitting here hearing that for the first time on the witness stand yesterday," Blanche says.Gee judge, if you sustained their objection how did it get into the record?Quote:
Judge Juan Merchan pushes back at the defense's arguments about anecdotes provided by Stormy Daniels during her testimony.
He is saying he sustained objections to many of the accounts that Trump attorney Todd Blanche now cites in his mistrial motion.
What? Of course they're "in the record."
How would you appeal a judges ruling on objections if they aren't in the record? The whole point of the record is to document this stuff.
aggiehawg said:That's a lie. They spent two days with Pecker and Davidson talking about McDougal. Why do that if she was never going to be called?Quote:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass confirms Karen McDougal the model and actress who has said she was also paid to keep quiet about an affair with Trump will not be called to take the stand.
"She was on our witness list, but we have never indicated an actual intention to call her," he says.
They said before the trial started they weren't sure they would call her.
It's not really different than Stormy. Stormy can't really add much about the accounting and handling of her NDA or how Trump and Pecker and them handled these things amongst themselves, so her testimony was tangential. McDougal's personal testimony is even more tangential to this case.
Maybe I am missing what's being discussed here, but if a question is asked, objection lodged and sustained, of course that's on the record.
I'm Gipper
I'm Gipper
pretty clear this judge has sided with the prosecution against the defendant. I'm not talking one instance, I'm talking about him overall being partial towards the prosecution. Corrupt as hell and a kangaroo court.
Yeah that's pretty clear, but nowhere near a mistrial at this point.
I'm Gipper
I'm Gipper
Im Gipper said:
Maybe I am missing what's being discussed here, but if a question is asked, objection lodged and sustained, of course that's on the record.
Yep. Bless you're heart, you must be clueless too
fredfredunderscorefred
Joined:
Sep 14, 2003
Posts:
3,497
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The objection/ruling would be on the record. But if the objection was sustained, then the question/answer shouldn't have continued and the 'anecdotes' wouldn't be testified about/in the record (unless under the idea of an offer of proof).Im Gipper said:
Maybe I am missing what's being discussed here, but if a question is asked, objection lodged and sustained, of course that's on the record.
Yeah, you are missing the point. The testimony of which Blanche was complaining was on the record. That means it got in but Merchan says he sustained their objection, so how was the witness answer in the record? And why wasn't it striken and jury instructed to ignore it?Im Gipper said:
Maybe I am missing what's being discussed here, but if a question is asked, objection lodged and sustained, of course that's on the record.
Merchan himself said on Tuesday that Stormy's testimony went too far and it was "unfortunate" that happened when defense made their first motion for mistrial but he went further and said he did not feel it warranted a mistrial at this stage.
Now two days later, he still doesn't acknowledge that he allowed it to happen by losing control of his own courtroom.
P.S. Thanks again for filling in for me this morning while I was indisposed. Really appreciate it.
fredfredunderscorefred said:The objection/ruling would be on the record. But if the objection was sustained, then the question/answer shouldn't have continued and the 'anecdotes' wouldn't be testified about/in the record (unless under the idea of an offer of proof).Im Gipper said:
Maybe I am missing what's being discussed here, but if a question is asked, objection lodged and sustained, of course that's on the record.
Anything improper after a sustained objection can be stricken from the record if need be, but Hawg shouldn't be scratching her head why the record would show the judge sustained objections.
All I can think about is A Few Good Men. I strenuously object. Oh you strenuously object. I should take some time reconsider.
Not remotely what I said. You are the one missing the point.Quote:
Anything improper after a sustained objection can be stricken from the record if need be, but Hawg shouldn't be scratching her head why the record would show the judge sustained objections.
fredfredunderscorefred
Joined:
Sep 14, 2003
Posts:
3,497
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
she isn't scratching her head why the record shows the objections; she is pointing out that the 'anecdotes' complained about shouldn't be in the record if the judge sustained the objections to the anecdotes:TXAggie2011 said:fredfredunderscorefred said:The objection/ruling would be on the record. But if the objection was sustained, then the question/answer shouldn't have continued and the 'anecdotes' wouldn't be testified about/in the record (unless under the idea of an offer of proof).Im Gipper said:
Maybe I am missing what's being discussed here, but if a question is asked, objection lodged and sustained, of course that's on the record.
Anything improper after a sustained objection can be stricken from the record if need be, but Hawg shouldn't be scratching her head why the record would show the judge sustained objections.
Gee judge, if you sustained their objection how did it get into the record?Quote:
He is saying he sustained objections to many of the accounts that Trump attorney Todd Blanche now cites in his mistrial motion.
Don't know about New York, but that is not how is work in the Lone Star State.fredfredunderscorefred said:The objection/ruling would be on the record. But if the objection was sustained, then the question/answer shouldn't have continued and the 'anecdotes' wouldn't be testified about/in the record (unless under the idea of an offer of proof).Im Gipper said:
Maybe I am missing what's being discussed here, but if a question is asked, objection lodged and sustained, of course that's on the record.
Every word said is put in the record and remains there unless a motion to strike is made.
I'm Gipper
fredfredunderscorefred said:she isn't scratching her head why the record shows the objections; she is pointing out that the 'anecdotes' complained about shouldn't be in the record if the judge sustained the objections to the anecdotes:TXAggie2011 said:fredfredunderscorefred said:The objection/ruling would be on the record. But if the objection was sustained, then the question/answer shouldn't have continued and the 'anecdotes' wouldn't be testified about/in the record (unless under the idea of an offer of proof).Im Gipper said:
Maybe I am missing what's being discussed here, but if a question is asked, objection lodged and sustained, of course that's on the record.
Anything improper after a sustained objection can be stricken from the record if need be, but Hawg shouldn't be scratching her head why the record would show the judge sustained objections.Gee judge, if you sustained their objection how did it get into the record?Quote:
He is saying he sustained objections to many of the accounts that Trump attorney Todd Blanche now cites in his mistrial motion.
She's connecting different quotes and parts of what was a long discussion in the court room.
The judge sustained a lot of objections. He didn't sustain others.
The judge struck testimony after sustained objections from the record multiple times
He also notes that where there were objections and motions to strike testimony, he granted them. He also notes that he was surprised there weren't more objections—at one point the court suasponte objected when the defense did not.
— Tyler McBrien (@TylerMcBrien) May 7, 2024
Im Gipper said:Don't know about New York, but that is not how is work in the Lone Start State.fredfredunderscorefred said:The objection/ruling would be on the record. But if the objection was sustained, then the question/answer shouldn't have continued and the 'anecdotes' wouldn't be testified about/in the record (unless under the idea of an offer of proof).Im Gipper said:
Maybe I am missing what's being discussed here, but if a question is asked, objection lodged and sustained, of course that's on the record.
Every word said is put in the record and remains there unless a motion to strike is made.
In New York you also must motion to strike. It's not automatic
Quote:
Yeah, you are missing the point. The testimony of which Blanche was complaining was on the record. That means it got in but Merchan says he sustained their objection, so how was the witness answer in the record? And why wasn't it striken and jury instructed to ignore it?
Was a Motion to Strike lodged? That is required. If an objection is sustained, any testimony that came out beforehand stays in the record.
Quote:
P.S. Thanks again for filling in for me this morning while I was indisposed. Really appreciate it.
No problem! But it won't happen again! LOL
I'm Gipper
fredfredunderscorefred
Joined:
Sep 14, 2003
Posts:
3,497
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
agree - didn't say otherwise.Im Gipper said:Don't know about New York, but that is not how is work in the Lone Start State.fredfredunderscorefred said:The objection/ruling would be on the record. But if the objection was sustained, then the question/answer shouldn't have continued and the 'anecdotes' wouldn't be testified about/in the record (unless under the idea of an offer of proof).Im Gipper said:
Maybe I am missing what's being discussed here, but if a question is asked, objection lodged and sustained, of course that's on the record.
Every word said is put in the record and remains there unless a motion to strike is made.
are you saying that if an objection is sustained, then the question/answer SHOULD continue and be testified about?
objection sustained - answer shouldn't be testimony/in the record and no motion to strike necessary. Obviously if testimony gets in that shouldn't, then mtn to strike.
Look at the times and dates of those tweets.
I didn't say anything to suggest I think that.Quote:
are you saying that if an objection is sustained, then the question/answer SHOULD continue and be testified about?
Saying an objection was sustained so something shouldn't be in the record is just wrong. Which is what was implied even if not meant.
I'm Gipper
Court sketch artist does not like Stormy.
fredfredunderscorefred
Joined:
Sep 14, 2003
Posts:
3,497
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
what about this is wrong then?
if the objection was sustained, then the question/answer shouldn't have continued and the 'anecdotes' wouldn't be testified about/in the record
do you think it SHOULD continue and get in the record? Obviously it COULD continue despite the objection and get in the record and a mtn to strike necessary. Or the answer COULD get in the record before the sustain and a mtn to strike necessary. I think you read an implication in that wasn't there.
Edit: I'm pretty sure we agree completely on alll this except for reading an implication into it. Which wasn't intended. .
if the objection was sustained, then the question/answer shouldn't have continued and the 'anecdotes' wouldn't be testified about/in the record
do you think it SHOULD continue and get in the record? Obviously it COULD continue despite the objection and get in the record and a mtn to strike necessary. Or the answer COULD get in the record before the sustain and a mtn to strike necessary. I think you read an implication in that wasn't there.
Edit: I'm pretty sure we agree completely on alll this except for reading an implication into it. Which wasn't intended. .
Featured Stories
See All
SEC Round-Up: Dawgs facing possible playoff elimination this week
by Olin Buchanan
33:59
18h ago
1.7k
Pick 'Em & Rip 'Em sponsored by PrizePicks: Week 12
by Matthew Dawson
29:44
37m ago
347
23:22
47m ago
358
ElkoSZN
Instead of scheduling tough non-conference games like ND...
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
51
Cm214
Thoughts Thread - Dan Campbell for College Gameday Guest Picker?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
37
LosAngelesAg00
Instead of scheduling tough non-conference games like ND...
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
37
Redbeard85
Thoughts Thread - Dan Campbell for College Gameday Guest Picker?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
31