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.
Loser. I will post wherever it's relevant. Register your grievance with the management.Go misrepresent, deflect, and lie through omission elsewhere, trollboi
That's not what happened. You again lie through omission.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.
?Criminal acts are like that
So tell us what I am omitting!That's not what happened. You again lie through omission.
next
The judge did not blame the defense counsel, and the prosecutors did not engage in any misconduct.So tell us what I am omitting!
You do not think there was a ruling on what they were allowed to question her about?
Read the rulings before you make accusations- you won't look so damn ignorant all the time.
The judge blamed the defense counsel in his quote that I quoted in my post #12.The judge did not blame the defense counsel, and the prosecutors did not engage in any misconduct.
No he did not. You misrepresent what he did.The judge blamed the defense counsel in his quote that I quoted in my post #12.
His "I did what I could" remark doesn't cut it. (assuming your article is accurate, you never provide links)
Yes, it is misconduct when an attorney asks questions that are precluded in pretrial rulings.
Mischaracterizing things as a blame game (taking responsibility vs a blame game). You post and think like a spoiled child never grown up ala Mr. Trump: quotes --The judge blamed the defense counsel in his quote that I quoted in my post #12.
His "I did what I could" remark doesn't cut it. (assuming your article is accurate, you never provide links)
Yes, it is misconduct when an attorney asks questions that are precluded in pretrial rulings.
www.usmessageboard.com
Lol. You are the one who posted that stuff. Where did it come from?No he did not. You misrepresent what he did.
Mischaracterizing things as a blame game: quotes --
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.”
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.
The judge has declined to declare a mistrial. While he acknowledged that some of the evidence that came in was more than he would have liked — “better left unsaid,” is how he put it several times — he takes as much issue with the defense as with the prosecution. This must come as a major relief for prosecutors. And I can imagine that they might wish the jury was in the room right now. Justice Merchan reminds the defense that “the remedy is on cross-examination,” meaning that the defense will be able to make its own case as it questions Stormy Daniels.
again, Misrepresenting/mischaracterizing things with negative narratives like you do, is what imbeciles do.Lol. You are the one who posted that stuff. Where did it come from?
This:
"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."
is blaming the defense for something he should have taken charge of.
Saying it can be remedied in cross does not undo the prejudice that is already injected into the jurors' minds.
I agree the prosecutors would be relieved to be let off the hook...
Lol. It was your article dipshit. God you are pathetic.again, Misrepresenting/mischaracterizing things with negative narratives like you do, is what imbeciles do.
That you misrepresent and mischaracterize.Lol. It was your article dipshit. God you are pathetic.
Horseshit.That you misrepresent and mischaracterize.
"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."That you misrepresent and mischaracterize.
She did say that Trump told her she reminded him of his daughterSurfing around the networks, it doesn't sound like she helped the prosecution.
I guess they had to include her, but she had at one time denied this stuff.
In another court case in California, jerkoff Trump is on record saying that he repaid Cohen the $130,000. Bragg has filed a brief with the court to allow Trump's statement admitted as evidence. If so, Trump is toast.Thanks for admitting you see this as nothing more than lawfare.
I've been talking about lawfare for years, and so have many on the right.
Since you have been at it for so long, were the attacks against Hillary law fare?
Now you are finally getting itConsidering they didn't get to the legal phase, no. and considering she actually did illegal things, no.
