I'm simply pointing out that a judge had better have a good reason to forbid a witness from answering a question.No, that's the idiotic strawman you invented. Because you are apparently terrified of the actual facts and arguments on the table.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm simply pointing out that a judge had better have a good reason to forbid a witness from answering a question.No, that's the idiotic strawman you invented. Because you are apparently terrified of the actual facts and arguments on the table.
Every Democrat does that, moron.Typical of the orange liar, blame everyone but himself.
Trump has done that his entire life.
None of those people would have stormed the Capitol had Trump not spent months riling them up.
They are all going to jail, so should he.
And trump will lie, then the prosecution will roll tape.
Rinse, repeat.
I think judges know that. And they have to explain it to the jury. Each time.I'm simply pointing out that a judge had better have a good reason to forbid a witness from answering a question.
Yes, but that has always been a possibility in our justice system.You leave out the very real possibility of a MAGAt lying his or her way onto the jury and voting not guilty on everything present against Rump.
So the prosecutor would be better served to keep his trap shut. Works for me.I think judges know that. And they have to explain it to the jury. Each time.
No, the judge and prosecutor and the United States that he represents would be better off not allowing a defendant to muddle the proceedings.So the prosecutor would be better served to keep his trap shut. Works for me.
Who cares what the prosecutor wants? He's just a player in the whole scheme of things. The judge is not part of the prosecution and if he wants to allow the defendant to sing, "It's raining men", he can, and the prosecution can suck eggs while he's doing it.No, the judge and prosecutor and the United States that he represents would be better off not allowing a defendant to muddle the proceedings.
Actually, in our court system, things are weighted in favor of the defendant. The prosecution, just for one example, has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt while the defense doesn't have to prove anything.Like Trump, you seem to be forgetting who holds all the cards. Who has the power.
Hint: it's not the criminal defendant.
The people he represents.Who cares what the prosecutor wants?
And actually, the judge and jury have all the power. The defendant has none. If the judge rules the defendant cannot say something in court, then that defendant shuts his idiot piehole or sits in a jail cell and hears about the trial second hand.Actually, in our court system, things are weighted in favor of the defendant.
Damn, I can smell Comrade Smith's flop sweat out here in Los Angeles. The boy is getting quite desperate.Democrats go full fascist part 380 in a continuing series.
Trump should be barred from blaming others for Jan. 6 riot at trial: Special counsel
If a defendant chooses to blame space aliens, that is for the defendant to choose and the jury to decide if it really was space aliens. But Democrats know he can defend himself, so are now taking actions to ensure the kangaroo court finds a guilty verdict.
MSN
www.msn.com
Unless it’s illegally obtained guns by a Democrat, then it’s no big deal.
the judge and prosecutor are not on the same team, nor should they be.The people he represents.
In this case, that would be the United States.
And my saying what the prosecutor wants refers to his fling of the request. And he will likely get a ruling in his favor, as the judge will want to preserve the integrity of the proceedings.
Oh, I'm sure that any leniency will be immediately met with shrieks of, "Corrupt!", "Bought off!", etc. It's inevitable.And actually, the judge and jury and prosecutor have all the power. The defendant has none. If the judge rules the defendant cannot say something in court, then that defendant shuts his idiot pinhole.
This is all starting to sink in for the orange idiot.
And rest assured... the judges in the jury trials will NOT be as lenient with Trump as Engoron has been.
Irrelevant non sequitur.the judge and prosecutor are not on the same team, nor should they be.
Irrelevant whining. There will be no leniency or tolerance for Trump's irrelevant outbursts, in a jury trial.Oh, I'm sure that any leniency will be immediately met with shrieks of, "Corrupt!", "Bought off!", etc. It's inevitable.
Nope.Except his VP whose only duty is to count the votes. Illegal and unconstitutional.
And they may say no way and give it back.SCOTUS will likely overturn Colorado's collosal blunder and the Dems will look stupid... again
On what grounds? Or is this just kind of a basal, lizard brain outburst?SCOTUS will likely overturn Colorado's collosal blunder and the Dems will look stupid... again
That depends on his view of the integrity of the proceedings. If he wants to make sure everything comes out, he will allow a lot more. If he just wants a kangaroo court with a pre-determined outcome, he won't.Irrelevant non sequitur.
The judge is on the side of the integrity of the proceedings.
When a witness is answering a question on the stand, it would be unusual for a judge to tell him to shut up.Irrelevant whining. There will be no leniency or tolerance for Trump's irrelevant outbursts, in a jury trial.
As with every judge and every proceeding. I am not interested in the cult excuses you are saving up for your rainy day.That depends on his view of the integrity of the proceedings.
In fantasyland. In reality, judges have to admonish witnesses all the time. They have to tell them to answer the question and tell them not to speechify.When a witness is answering a question on the stand, it would be unusual for a judge to tell him to shut up.