Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Now you are finally getting it
In spite of attempted “law fare” against Hillary, there was insufficient evidence for a Grand Jury
In contrast to the overwhelming evidence and testimony against Trump
There was insufficient desire to prosecute her, like the insufficient desire against most progs/dems.
Get serious
Trump had no desire to prosecute Hillary?
I'm talking about the deep state stooges and the dem political hacks.
LMAO. That is nowhere in your OP that quoted Merchan's comment, (which I quoted in my post)."the matter at the heart of the case — whether there was a conspiracy to cover up a hush-money payment made to a porn star, Daniels, before an election, and whether business records were falsified in the process."
get a hobbyLMAO. That is nowhere in your OP that quoted Merchan's comment, (which I quoted in my post).
You are accusing me of misrepresenting something that is not anywhere in this thread.
Yes dipshit, we know the theory of the case. It is TOTALLY irrelevant to my post regarding Merchan's lack of control in his own courtroom.
Equal Protection has been replaced by "prosecutorial discretion".There was insufficient desire to prosecute her, like the insufficient desire against most progs/dems.
I have a hobby. You should learn to read.get a hobby
Loser. I will post wherever it's relevant. Register your grievance with the management.
The judge runs the courtroom. It's up to him to hold both sides to the rules he lays out in advance.
You can't blame the defense counsel when the prosecutors engage in misconduct.
Of course they did, the judge just said they didn't do it often enough.You can blame the Defense for not objecting. Which they didn’t do.
A lawyer in Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial on Thursday sharply attacked Stormy Daniels over her account of having had sex with Mr. Trump, suggesting that she has continually sought to make money off their liaison.It's understandable. The prosecution wants to set some things up. But they also knew how uncontrollable Daniels is as a witness. Sort of like Trump-lite.
But I believe the defense has a higher bar to set for a true mistrial arguments to be held up on appeals. They are worried about what they call being unable to unring the bell. We shall see as the rest of the prosecution case is presented.
Reporting from inside the courthouse
The judge is on the bench. The defense is moving for a mistrial. This is not unusual for Trump's lawyers — in his civil fraud trial, his lawyers asked that a mistrial be called several times. They were unsuccessful.
Todd Blanche, one of Trump's lawyers, argues that the testimony was overly prejudicial, and that the government was asking questions “to inflame this jury,” in addition to the “pure embarrassment” factor. He says there’s no way the court can instruct the jury in a way to “unring this bell.”
Reporting from inside the courthouse
Justice Merchan says he’ll rule now. He says he agrees that it would have been better if Stormy Daniels hadn't gone in certain directions, and says as a witness she is “a little bit difficult to control.” He adds, “Having said that, I do think” that there were “guardrails in place.” He adds: “I dont think we’re at the point where a mistrial is warranted.”
Reporting from inside the courthouse
Merchan adds, “I was surprised that there were not more objections,” admonishing the defense team. “The defense has to take some responsibility for that,” he says, adding that he did all he could. “I objected on my own,” he says.
