Quote:

---

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?

---

As others have said, because an objection does not get testimony off the record. So if an answer was given, it was before an objection was sustained.

If its said by someone, the Court reporter is going to write it down from the moment the judge says "on the record."

more likely there was no objection made to the testimony complained about, as the judge said happen often

Quote:

---

And why wasn't it striken and jury instructed to ignore it?

---

Presumably because no one moved to strike the testimony.

Quote:

---

if the objection was sustained, then the question/answer shouldn't have continued and the 'anecdotes' wouldn't be testified about/in the record

---

we don't have the transcript yet, but was there an example of this happening?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

if the objection was sustained, then the question/answer shouldn't have continued and the 'anecdotes' wouldn't be testified about/in the record

---

we don't have the transcript yet, but was there an example of this happening?

---

I have no idea - I was attempting to clarify what Hawg's point was (her point apparently based on something like that happening; or was saying he overruled the objection and didn't sustain)

from reading the cnn blog, it appears that did not happen. rather. it was that the defense did not object to certain testimony.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

if the objection was sustained, then the question/answer shouldn't have continued and the 'anecdotes' wouldn't be testified about/in the record

---

we don't have the transcript yet, but was there an example of this happening?

---

Gee, even the CNN feed had the condom question and answer on it and they have been heavily editing what they post.

If you are on X go read InnerCityPress for more actual transcript of testimony. I am not but watch Gouveia's dily livestreams that use his tweets. Much more context and quotes.

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.

---

Turley said defense attorneys don't want to be parrots. Saying "I object" to every question asked of the porn star when the judge had already overruled objections and was hellbent on letting her sabotage Trump's character even though it's completely unrelated to a business record would have been pointless.

BMX Bandit said:

---

from reading the cnn blog, it appears that did not happen. rather. it was that the defense did not object to certain testimony.

---

Dumb.

Standing objection made by the defense over and over again.

I agree about the way it looks to have to object constantly (every lawyer that tries cases has been there) but that has nothing to do with what we we are discussing.

Im Gipper said:

---

I agree about the way it looks to have to object constantly (every lawyer that tries cases has been there) but that has nothing to do with what we we are discussing.

---

But those are not Merchan's rules for his courtroom when he allows standing objections to be renewed, continued etc. He also does not allow speaking objections, not even the grounds for the objection.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

if the objection was sustained, then the question/answer shouldn't have continued and the 'anecdotes' wouldn't be testified about/in the record

---

we don't have the transcript yet, but was there an example of this happening?

---

It appears to me there was some confusion as to what occurred. I don't think we're going to see an example of Stormy Daniels giving an antectode after an objection was sustained. If that did happen, why in the world would Team Trump not move to strike? These are very good lawyers. That just would not make any sense.

Isn't the standing objection to Stormy testifying at all?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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

---

Prosecution asks a question
Defense objection
Judge sustained.

Now go ahead and answer the question for the record.

Am I missing something here? If the judge stated he granted defenses objection, then how does the question and answer her on the record?

Quote:

---

It appears to me there was some confusion as to what occurred. I don't think we're going to see an example of Stormy Daniels giving an antectode after an objection was sustained. If that did happen, why in the world would Team Trump not move to strike? These are very good lawyers. That just would not make any sense.

---

Because Merchan was disassembling from the bench? Like he has before?

Go back to right before trial. Trump's lawyers were filing notices for motions (as he required) and he harshly admonished them to stop objecting to his previous rulings or risk contempt sanctions?

Message received. Object and he'll sanction you.

Im Gipper said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

if the objection was sustained, then the question/answer shouldn't have continued and the 'anecdotes' wouldn't be testified about/in the record

---

we don't have the transcript yet, but was there an example of this happening?

---

It appears to me there was some confusion as to what occurred. I don't think we're going to see an example of Stormy Daniels giving an antectode after an objection was sustained. If that did happen, why in the world would Team Trump not move to strike? These are very good lawyers. That just would not make any sense.

---

m
True. But according to one of the posts above, the judge expressed shock at the defense lawyers not objecting to a bunch of stuff (which may include not moving to strike). Maybe unwittingly building an ineffective counsel argument into the record ….?? (Don't think that applies only to appointed counsel?)

Quote:

---

Prosecution asks a question
Defense objection
Judge sustained.

Now go ahead and answer the question for the record.

Am I missing something here?

---

What you are missing is that the scenario described didn't occur.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Prosecution asks a question
Defense objection
Judge sustained.

Now go ahead and answer the question for the record.

Am I missing something here?

---

What you are missing is that the scenario described didn't occur.

---

Then what was this about?

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?

---

Quote:

---

Message received. Object and he'll sanction you.

---

Apparently the message was not received as they have objected numerous times!

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Message received. Object and he'll sanction you.

---

Apparently the message was not received as they have objected numerous times!

---

Apparently you have never been in court when youare the only lawyer or in a small group wherein duties have been assigned. When I was third chair, I handled docs to get to the speaking attorney timely as their examinations continued.

Second chair? Assigned certain witnesses for cross.

Now when I was representing the plaintiff? First chair. My trial.

Quote:

---

Apparently you have never been in court when youare the only lawyer or in a small group wherein duties have been assigned.

---

You'd be very wrong about that. No clue what that has to do with my pointing out Team Trump has objected plenty and not been sanctioned.

Cohen has gone BSC on his tiktok. He's nuts.

If the state calls him, chaos grenades going off.

aggiehawg said:

---

Cohen has gone BSC on his tiktok. He's nuts.

If the state calls him, chaos grenades going off.

---

Looks like Trumps lawyers now have a clear example to show the judge if witnesses being able to talk. Remember when the judge asked for specific examples?

Quote:

---

Yes but there was a standing objection to the sexual details as well.

---

the transcript does not support this.

they said:

Quote:

---

we want to renew our objection to her testifying, in particular, to her testifying about any details of any sexual acts.

---

that is not asking for a standing objection.

asking for a standing objection requires you to to get a ruling. if the court denies it, you have to object every time. it sucks. i know.

if the court grants the standing objection and overrules the objection, you don't have to object every time and the objecttion is preserved for appeal


if you object to a person testifying, as trump did with daniels, and that is overruled you have to object to specific questions.

also, when testimony is stricken from the record, its not immediately taken out of the transcript. it is still there, its on appeal that is not a "part of the record"

aggiehawg said:

---

Cohen has gone BSC on his tiktok. He's nuts.

If the state calls him, chaos grenades going off.

---

Oh we will see those on cross for sure!

Cohen is NY's only shot to tie Trump to this and he's going to be so terrible it's going to be legendary.

That's exactly how it works!

Im Gipper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Cohen has gone BSC on his tiktok. He's nuts.

If the state calls him, chaos grenades going off.

---

Oh we will see those on cross for sure!

Cohen is NY's only shot to tie Trump to this and he's going to be so terrible it's going to be legendary.

---

Not a toc ticker. What is he saying? Doing?

aggiehawg said:

---

Court sketch artist does not like Stormy.

---

Stormy Daniels Offers Hush Money To Courtroom Sketch Artist To Please Stop Drawing Her https://t.co/PYUGCl9ELQ pic.twitter.com/L4xExf68JV

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) May 9, 2024

Science Denier said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Prosecution asks a question
Defense objection
Judge sustained.

Now go ahead and answer the question for the record.

Am I missing something here?

---

What you are missing is that the scenario described didn't occur.

---

Then what was this about?

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?

---

---

Merchan didn't say that.

Merchan said (and did) sustain *many* of their objections. And he struck a number of statements made after sustaining those objections.

He did not sustain a number of objections, too. And testimony after those times, plus what wasn't actually struck, would remain "in the record."

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Apparently you have never been in court when youare the only lawyer or in a small group wherein duties have been assigned.

---

You'd be very wrong about that. No clue what that has to do with my pointing out Team Trump has objected plenty and not been sanctioned.

---

Not in court and in real time because the judge threatened them.

Look, I have been intimidated by a judge multiple times, causing me to think and hesitate for a moment. That was earlier in my trial career.

BUT I had a client in construction that I told him was a losing case because of sovereign immunity issues. He insisted I file and we drew a female judge with whom I had a shall we say, a mixed relationship. She hammered me at times and other times not so much.

Could I have been sanctioned for even filing the case? Maybe, even likely. But she allowed it to go to trial. And in a jaw dropping moment for me she addressed my client directly saying, "Mr. X, your attorney has presented a very compelling case here. If the law allowed me to do so, I would rule in your favor but the law does not allow me to do so. I'm sorry and wish you the best."

And my client gave me a hug and thanked me for doing what he felt was the right thing. And he was correct. A few city employees were fired and contractors prosecuted based of the evidence I brought out in that case.

I do think the defense missed an opportunity today to remind the jury that Stormy has basically said that she'd be willing to go to jail to make Trump suffer, and that she is already refusing to pay court ordered sanctions. What's to say she's not lying here? They brought those points up on Monday, but it's been two days. They could have brought them up again just to remind the jury.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Speaking for the prosecution, Chris Conroy is saying that "it seems as though the other side almost lives in an alternate reality."
"If somebody wants to respond to something said in this room, that can happen in this room. It's not supposed to happen out there," Conroy says.
Conroy says there are people saying things "with the defendant in mind. I'm not in the position to say at his direction or anything close to that."

---

Jerk.

---

Trump got **** on just for shaking his head in that room. So, I'm gonna call BULL**** on him here...

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan appears to be pushing back on the Trump team's argument in favor of the former president being allowed to speak publicly about Stormy Daniels' testimony.

Quote:

---

"My concern is not just the protection of Ms. Daniels, or a witness who has already testified," Merchan says. "My concern is protecting the integrity of the proceedings."

---

The judge said witnesses who have not yet testified would watch Trump's comments about Daniels if they were permitted, and that could influence their own testimony.

---

Which trial is he watching?

---

If you ever wanted proof that this trial is solely about smearing Trump knowing he can't respond, well, here you go.

Is Stormy a victim or is Donald Trump is the best thing that ever happened to this lady?

Right? She was broke. No one cared. Then Trump. She's made a lot of money from this. Her reputation?

PLLEEEEEASSSSSSSE

Question. Has anyone experienced this? I'm watching food Network on regular optimum cable box tonight and all of a sudden I have a cut in from CNN, detailing, more like sensationalizing aspects of the testimony from Stormy and painting Trump in a horrible light. I don't remember the exact verbage used, bc I was still focussed on trying to figure out how the hell I was watching CNN . Anyone else experienced this kind of a cut in? Is this some new strategy media conglomerates are taking to try as a smear campaign?