Monday, April 15th: First Ever Criminal Trial for a Former US President

[HisArpy]

The judge had to briefly stop the trial today and sent the jury away.

He then admonished Mr. Trump not to "audibly curse" in his courtroom. The judge understood that there might be some testimony that Mr. Trump might not like, but he told Trump that cursing was unacceptable.

Trump was highly agitated about Stormy Daniels' testifying that she put a naked Trump over her knees on a bed and whacked his flabby ass with a rolled up magazine.

That vivid vignette doesn't appear to be very "presidential" to me, I think that little anecdote won't play well at Trump's rallies either.

And this is relevant to whether the entries in the accounting ledgers were fraudulent?

 

[Rightguide]

Look at all the BIG WORDS our Rightguide is using today!
BIG BIG words!

We can always tell when Rob has no clue and must resort to the dictionary.

 

[Rightguide]

And this is relevant to whether the entries in the accounting ledgers were fraudulent?

Zero relevance.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The testimony is most definitely more prejudicial than probative but the question goes deeper than that. Is that prejudicial testimony more than minimal error.

I think it rises to a point it shows bias on the part of the court. The court has the authority to disallow testimony even without a motion by the parties and it failed to do so here. The judge even acknowledges that some of the testimony shouldn't have been allowed. The fact that the judge didn't stop the testimony when it wandered into irrelevancy and character assassination is sufficient in my mind to tell me the judge knew the jury was going to be tainted by the evidence but didn't care. That shows bias on the part of the court and should be enough to reverse on appeal.

The Judge admonished the Prosecution on several points of testimony, and also pointed out when Defence raised the mistrial requested, that the defence could have object at many times, but chose not to.

That lack of objection(s) may well throw out any chance of appeal on grounds of prejudicial testimony.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

And this is relevant to whether the entries in the accounting ledgers were fraudulent?

lol no, but I'm sure the jury picked up on it. Kinda shows the Judge is being impartial if you ask me.

 

[Rightguide]

The testimony is most definitely more prejudicial than probative but the question goes deeper than that. Is that prejudicial testimony more than minimal error.

I think it rises to a point it shows bias on the part of the court. The court has the authority to disallow testimony even without a motion by the parties and it failed to do so here. The judge even acknowledges that some of the testimony shouldn't have been allowed. The fact that the judge didn't stop the testimony when it wandered into irrelevancy and character assassination is sufficient in my mind to tell me the judge knew the jury was going to be tainted by the evidence but didn't care. That shows bias on the part of the court and should be enough to reverse on appeal.

This had to be the plan of the court. Nothing she could said would have been relevant to the alleged conspiracy on the part of the Trump organization to falsify their books and misreport the facts to the government. The Judge knew damn well what would happen. I think he wanted to dirty up Trump and harm his chances in the election.

 

[Rightguide]

The judge had to briefly stop the trial today and sent the jury away.

He then admonished Mr. Trump not to "audibly curse" in his courtroom. The judge understood that there might be some testimony that Mr. Trump might not like, but he told Trump that cursing was unacceptable.

Trump was highly agitated about Stormy Daniels' testifying that she put a naked Trump over her knees on a bed and whacked his flabby ass with a rolled up magazine.

That vivid vignette doesn't appear to be very "presidential" to me, I think that little anecdote won't play well at Trump's rallies either.

She probably lied.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I think he wanted to dirty up Trump and harm his chances in the election.

You think lots of shit, most of it is off the wall and not grounded in reality.

 

[butters]

The Judge admonished the Prosecution on several points of testimony, and also pointed out when Defence raised the mistrial requested, that the defence could have object at many times, but chose not to.

That lack of objection(s) may well throw out any chance of appeal on grounds of prejudicial testimony.

that's an important factor, i'd imagine

still, they'll log everything, no matter how ridiculous, for appeal if he's found guilty; it's a guaranteed time-waster intent on allowing trump (should he regain presidential status) to dismiss everything

 

[RobDownSouth]

that's an important factor, i'd imagine

still, they'll log everything, no matter how ridiculous, for appeal if he's found guilty; it's a guaranteed time-waster intent on allowing trump (should he regain presidential status) to dismiss everything

Trump's main criminal attorney has tried exactly ONE case in Federal Court.
Legal talking head analysts have not been kind to him.
Most criticized his opening remarks as meandering nonsense.

This most recent fuckup is much more serious.
The lawyer chose NOT to object to virtually anything and everything Stormy Daniels said...
....and when she was excused as a witness, the lawyer asked for a mistrial, stating Daniels statements were "deeply prejudicial" to his client.

The judge, somewhat incredulously, said that was what CROSS-EXAMINATION was for in a court of law. You can't sit on your thumbs and later ask for a mistrial.

 

[KeithD]

You can't sit on your thumbs and later ask for a mistrial.

Well, you can if you're Trumpian.

 

[Lazaran]

Trump's main criminal attorney has tried exactly ONE case in Federal Court.
Legal talking head analysts have not been kind to him.
Most criticized his opening remarks as meandering nonsense.

This most recent fuckup is much more serious.
The lawyer chose NOT to object to virtually anything and everything Stormy Daniels said...
....and when she was excused as a witness, the lawyer asked for a mistrial, stating Daniels statements were "deeply prejudicial" to his client.

The judge, somewhat incredulously, said that was what CROSS-EXAMINATION was for in a court of law. You can't sit on your thumbs and later ask for a mistrial.

Appeal on the grounds of ineffective / incompetent counsel???

 

[Intrigued42]

Appeal on the grounds on ineffective / incompetent counsel???

It's been done before, I'm sure. I can think of one Rudy, Rudy, Rudy that I'd put into that category.

 

[Intrigued42]

Of course, some people might question that claim, should he make it as he "always hires the BEST people".

 

[RobDownSouth]

Appeal on the grounds of ineffective / incompetent counsel???

Trump got caught the other day whining about being forbidden to claim he was relying on "advice of counsel".

Federal law is VERY clear on this: you CAN claim "relying on advice of counsel" in a court of law BUT you have to WAIVE "attorney/client privilege" up front and surrender ALL emails, letters, etc to the prosecution.

Trump said that he simply DID want to claim "relying on advice of counsel" BUT he did did NOT want to WAIVE "attorney/client privilege" becoz that would be "unconstitutional".

 

[butters]

Trump's main criminal attorney has tried exactly ONE case in Federal Court.
Legal talking head analysts have not been kind to him.
Most criticized his opening remarks as meandering nonsense.

This most recent fuckup is much more serious.
The lawyer chose NOT to object to virtually anything and everything Stormy Daniels said...
....and when she was excused as a witness, the lawyer asked for a mistrial, stating Daniels statements were "deeply prejudicial" to his client.

The judge, somewhat incredulously, said that was what CROSS-EXAMINATION was for in a court of law. You can't sit on your thumbs and later ask for a mistrial.

seems like they did make some objections, that were sustained, but didn't make all the provident requests to have the questions/replies struck from records; overall, they didn't follow through.

New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, the judge presiding over Trump's criminal hush-money trial, said most defense objections were sustained during the porn star's testimony and that he had, for the most part, granted any defense requests to suppress testimony.

"As a threshold matter, I agree, Mr. Blanche, that there were many things that would have been better left unsaid," Merchan told Trump's lead attorney Todd Blanche after a lunch break. "In fairness to the people, I think this witness was a little bit difficult to control."

Merchan added he was "surprised" the former president's defense team did not raise more objections during Daniels' testimony.

https://www.businessinsider.com/don...ge-stormy-daniels-testimony-objections-2024-5

 

[JohnEngelman]

According to Stormy, Donnie did it in less than ninety seconds. This trial is expected to go six weeks. That's time for lots and lots of big 'Os' for Stormy. Trump undoubtedly will be sweating bullets when she takes the stand for at least an hour.

In one of the Republican primary debates of 2016 Trump bragged about the large size of his penis. Stormy, who has probably seen a large number of penises, said that Trump's was "only average." She also said that it was unusually shaped. She will no doubt be questioned about this in the days to come.

 

[HisArpy]

The Judge admonished the Prosecution on several points of testimony, and also pointed out when Defence raised the mistrial requested, that the defence could have object at many times, but chose not to.

That lack of objection(s) may well throw out any chance of appeal on grounds of prejudicial testimony.

The defense objected at the outset that the testimony wasn't relevant. Their objection was overruled. That's sufficient and the defense need not continue to raise the objection in order to preserve it for appeal. If the judge later decided that the testimony wasn't relevant HE should have stopped the prosecution from continuing or reconsidered his earlier decision on that issue.

He did not do so. Instead he now claims the defense needed to raise the overruled objection again, which is incorrect as a matter of law. ONCE is sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal.

That means that both you and the judge are wrong.

 

[HisArpy]

Trump's main criminal attorney has tried exactly ONE case in Federal Court.
Legal talking head analysts have not been kind to him.
Most criticized his opening remarks as meandering nonsense.

This most recent fuckup is much more serious.
The lawyer chose NOT to object to virtually anything and everything Stormy Daniels said...
....and when she was excused as a witness, the lawyer asked for a mistrial, stating Daniels statements were "deeply prejudicial" to his client.

The judge, somewhat incredulously, said that was what CROSS-EXAMINATION was for in a court of law. You can't sit on your thumbs and later ask for a mistrial.

This from a guy who's never tried a case in court Federal or otherwise.

You have zero idea what's involved or the level of competence required. Instead you mouth bullshit and think you're clever for it because there's a segment of society which will lap up the kool aid flavored sewer water you're serving.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The defense objected at the outset that the testimony wasn't relevant. Their objection was overruled. That's sufficient and the defense need not continue to raise the objection in order to preserve it for appeal.

The defence could have objected to the line of questioning, answers given...you don't just a get blank check on things after you initially objection to the witness.

If the judge later decided that the testimony wasn't relevant HE should have stopped the prosecution from continuing or reconsidered his earlier decision on that issue.

The Judge did step in a couple times, but, it's up to the Defence to raise objections under direct testimony, not the Judge.

He did not do so. Instead he now claims the defense needed to raise the overruled objection again, which is incorrect as a matter of law. ONCE is sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal.

LOL sure Arpy, what ever you say.....

That means that both you and the judge are wrong.

Coming from a person who thinks water is carbon based, and you can get electrocuted from a 9 V battery...

 

[RobDownSouth]

This from a guy who's never tried a case in court Federal or otherwise.

You have zero idea what's involved or the level of competence required. Instead you mouth bullshit and think you're clever for it because there's a segment of society which will lap up the kool aid flavored sewer water you're serving.

JimArpy, I was simply paraphrasing what I heard legal analysts on MSNBC saying.

By way of comparison, how many cases have you tried in Federal court? You don't strike me as a trial lawyer.

 

[adrina]

 

[dmallord]

The defense objected at the outset that the testimony wasn't relevant. Their objection was overruled. That's sufficient and the defense need not continue to raise the objection in order to preserve it for appeal. If the judge later decided that the testimony wasn't relevant HE should have stopped the prosecution from continuing or reconsidered his earlier decision on that issue.

He did not do so. Instead he now claims the defense needed to raise the overruled objection again, which is incorrect as a matter of law. ONCE is sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal.

That means that both you and the judge are wrong.

How does not objecting, after the first objection, to the various points the defense felt 'objectionable' play out with the jury?

Is it the judge's job to come to the 'defense' of Trump's lawyers and coach them on how to persuade the jury to reject her remarks if they do not point them out?

If you, as a defense lawyer, sit on your hands and say nothing further, I would think the jury would take the claims by the prosecutor's witness as valid.

Trump's outburst and swearing certainly were observed by the jury and heard by them as well. How does that sit with them?

She sounds believable.

 

[AlexBailey]

And this is relevant to whether the entries in the accounting ledgers were fraudulent?

Asked and answered:

Trump’s motivations for committing fraud are relevant to the case.

 

[Rightguide]

Trump finds success in court with three of four cases facing significant delays​

Major delays in the majority of the court cases against former President Trump bode well for his campaign, and the "confidential documents" case is on "indefinite" hold because of possible prosecutorial misconduct.

By Steven Richards
Published: May 8, 2024 11:00pm
Updated: May 9, 2024 10:24am

At one time, unfavorable outcomes in the four court cases against former President Donald Trump seemed likely to be politically damaging for the three-time campaigner, but as the cases have faced scrutiny and delays, public opinion has recently shifted.

Yesterday, the Georgia Appeals Court agreed to hear an appeal in the state election case brought by controversial Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. Earlier this week, a Florida judge indefinitely suspended the federal trial in the classified documents case.

With the federal January 6 case delayed until the Supreme Court rules on an immunity argument it heard this spring, Trump is now set to see significant delays in three of the four court cases arrayed against him by both state and federal prosecutors. Only the New York so-called “hush money” trial is ongoing, though key witnesses such as porn star Stormy Daniels have appeared to undermine aspects of the case.

The delays come as the 2024 election fast approaches. The former president—and now the presumptive Republican nominee—has been plagued by the court cases since early 2023 frequently hampering his efforts to campaign. After recent developments, three of those cases appear increasingly likely to be delayed until after the November election, which bodes well for his campaign.

More here on the Left's train wreck of election interference:

https://justthenews.com/government/...rt-three-four-cases-facing-significant-delays