Jonathan Turley Says Judge Merchan “Crossed the Line” by Suggesting a Witness Be Called by Alvin Bragg’s Team

[Catsnmeters]

No, that’s literally why I asked you to be. Who are they?

The lawyers on left leaning outlets doing the same thing Turley is doing but for Democrats.

Did you actually think that no lawyers agreed with Bragg's case? Really?

 

[struth]

The lawyers on left leaning outlets doing the same thing Turley is doing but for Democrats.

Did you actually think that no lawyers agreed with Bragg's case? Really?

Can you name any of them???? The issue isn't if they agree with Bragg's case, the question was about the Judge behavior when he told Bragg who to call.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Can you name any of them????

Watch CNN or MSNBC.They are there every night I would guess. Just like on the right. Telling the viewers what they want to hear.

The issue isn't if they agree with Bragg's case, the question was about the Judge behavior when he told Bragg who to call.

He told Bragg to call someone?

 

[struth]

Watch CNN or MSNBC.They are there every night I would guess. Just like on the right. Telling the viewers what they want to hear.



He told Bragg to call someone?

So you are just making things up?

 

[Catsnmeters]

So you are just making things up?

Yeah. It's made up. All lawyers agree with Trump.

 

[struth]

Yeah. It's made up. All lawyers agree with Trump.

I didn't say they did, I simply asked you to name the ones you claimed disagreed with Turley here, as you claimed.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Let the defense object.

 

[tahuyaman]

We've been here before.

Nothing Turley says has any meaning, He's totally owned by Faux Niwz.

You continually post stupid comments which are not supported with anything factual.

 

[Catsnmeters]

I didn't say they did, I simply asked you to name the ones you claimed disagreed with Turley here, as you claimed.

That wasn't my claim but I probably should have been more clear.

I was referring to the trial in general.

As far as Turleys claim. Historically he is contradictory and self serving. Merchan made the suggestion to both the prosecutors and the defense. So what?

What law was broken?

 

[TheParser]

Does he think he's back in his native Colombia?

​

Whoa, Nellie!!!

To be fair, however, he did come here when he was only 6 years old.

But maybe if someone comes here in his/her twenties, maybe s/he should seek employment other than being a judge. Maybe s/he might be too old to be inculcated with American values of justice.

After all, only native-born Americans can be president.

 

[struth]

That wasn't my claim but I probably should have been more clear.

I was referring to the trial in general.

As far as Turleys claim. Historically he is contradictory and self serving. Merchan made the suggestion to both the prosecutors and the defense. So what?

What law was broken?

when did the Judge make a suggestion to the Defense on who to call?

And just because a criminal code wasn't violated, doesn't mean it wasn't unethtical, and potentially reversed error. Judges aren't allowed to interfere with the parties cases, like telling them who to call.....

When has Turley been contridictory and self-serving? Got some examples?

 

[Blaster]

Judge Judy makes Merchand look pathetic.

 

[Catsnmeters]

when did the Judge make a suggestion to the Defense on who to call?

And just because a criminal code wasn't violated, doesn't mean it wasn't unethtical, and potentially reversed error. Judges aren't allowed to interfere with the parties cases, like telling them who to call.....

When has Turley been contridictory and self-serving? Got some examples?

He's just doing whatever he wants while ignoring the actual rule of law. Does he think he's back in his native Colombia?

This embarrassment has grown even worse and redounds on the entire judicial branch in New York State, not just Manhattan.

​

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said Friday that the judge in former President Donald Trump’s trial crossed “the line” with a suggestion to prosecutors.​

​

New York Judge Juan Merchan suggested that Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg testify after prosecutors from the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg sought to introduce Weisselberg’s severance package into evidence, according to Politico. Turley called the suggestion “very unusual” when asked about the development by Fox News host Martha MacCallum.​

​

“It reminds me of a judge when I started out as a lawyer who was notorious because he would say, ‘Is the defense ready to present its case,’ and turn to the prosecutors and say ‘Are we ready to present our case?’ This is a little bit crossing the line. You’re not supposed to be making this a mutual effort,” Turley said.​

​

WATCH:​

​

​

​

...​

Jonathan Turley Says Judge Merchan "Crossed the Line" by Suggesting a Witness Be Called by Alvin Bragg's Team - 🔔 The Liberty Daily

If you love the news, check out The Liberty Daily's homepage. (DCNF)—George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said Friday that the judge in former President Donald Trump’s trial crossed “the line” with a suggestion to prosecutors. New York Judge Juan Merchan suggested that...

thelibertydaily.com

The link is the referenc link in the OP. (Politico).

The liberty daily article ignored context in their article to create a false narrative but at least they provided a supporting link for those who like to look into claims.

"The issue arose after Trump lawyers objected to a plan by prosecutors to show jurors a severance agreement that calls for Weisselberg to receive $750,000 over the rest of this year. “What we are trying to do is to explain from our perspective why he’s not here,” prosecutor Christopher Conroy said, suggesting that the money is discouraging Weisselberg from testifying.

“There are a host of reasons that Mr. Weisselberg is not going to be a witness in this case. ... It’s a very complicated situation and it’s not completely explained by this document,” defense lawyer Emil Bove responded.

The judge wanted to know if either side had subpoenaed him, but neither has. Trump’s lawyers then looked visibly concerned that the judge proposed discussing bringing Weisselberg into court, although it would initially be outside the presence of the jury. Bove quickly chimed in, saying: “I think there are procedural problems with trying to add him to the witness list at this point.” The judge said he wants to think over the situation before ruling."

 

[Rawley]

when did the Judge make a suggestion to the Defense on who to call?

And just because a criminal code wasn't violated, doesn't mean it wasn't unethtical, and potentially reversed error. Judges aren't allowed to interfere with the parties cases, like telling them who to call.....

When has Turley been contridictory and self-serving? Got some examples?

They irrationally hate Turley. He exposes their cult's lawfare for the scam that it is.

 

[struth]

The link is the referenc link in the OP. (Politico).

The liberty daily article ignored context in their article to create a false narrative but at least they provided a supporting link for those who like to look into claims.

"The issue arose after Trump lawyers objected to a plan by prosecutors to show jurors a severance agreement that calls for Weisselberg to receive $750,000 over the rest of this year. “What we are trying to do is to explain from our perspective why he’s not here,” prosecutor Christopher Conroy said, suggesting that the money is discouraging Weisselberg from testifying.

“There are a host of reasons that Mr. Weisselberg is not going to be a witness in this case. ... It’s a very complicated situation and it’s not completely explained by this document,” defense lawyer Emil Bove responded.

The judge wanted to know if either side had subpoenaed him, but neither has. Trump’s lawyers then looked visibly concerned that the judge proposed discussing bringing Weisselberg into court, although it would initially be outside the presence of the jury. Bove quickly chimed in, saying: “I think there are procedural problems with trying to add him to the witness list at this point.” The judge said he wants to think over the situation before ruling."

So, again, where did he tell the Defense to call him? Sounds like the Defense never wanted him.

and it sounds like the State couldn't get him and were trying to back door evidence in without him

 

[Catsnmeters]

So, again, where did he tell the Defense to call him? Sounds like the Defense never wanted him.

The prosecutors and defense were both present during the conversation.

I don't see an issue with a judge asking a question like that to both parties.

Again, is that against the law...or even against some code or something?

What exactly is Turleys issue?

and it sounds like the State couldn't get him and were trying to back door evidence in without him

Then you didn't read the article.

It wasn't that the defense couldn't get him. They just didn't try because they expected him to simply claim the 5th.

 

[struth]

The prosecutors and defense were both present during the conversation.

I don't see an issue with a judge asking a question like that to both parties.

Again, is that against the law...or even against some code or something?

What exactly is Turleys issue?


Then you didn't read the article.

It wasn't that the defense couldn't get him. They just didn't try because they expected him to simply claim the 5th.

1) nobody said they weren't both present.
2) yes, again, it is unethtical, and reserved error for a Judgeto get involved on one side or the other, and tell them whom to call and not call as a witness

3) He explains it clearly, just like I just did.

4) no i read what you highlighted for me to read

 

[Catsnmeters]

1) nobody said they weren't both present.

Nobody has too. It's obvious they were together based on the conversation cited in the article.

2) yes, again, it is unethtical, and reserved error for a Judgeto get involved on one side or the other, and tell them whom to call and not call as a witness

I disagree. He didn't tell them anything. He simply asked.

Is the defense claiming this question from the judge was inappropriate?

3) He explains it clearly, just like I just did.

Yes, he told us his thoughts and feels.

If the defense doesn't raise an objection then I guess they think Turleys thoughts and feelings are irrelevant.

4) no i read what you highlighted for me to read

Right. The entire conversation that took place, not the links scarce narrative bereft of context.

It worked too. This thread is proof.

 

[struth]

Nobody has too. It's obvious they were together based on the conversation cited in the article.



I disagree. He didn't tell them anything. He simply asked.

Is the defense claiming this question from the judge was inappropriate?



Yes, he told us his thoughts and feels.

If the defense doesn't raise an objection then I guess they think Turleys thoughts and feelings are irrelevant.


Right. The entire conversation that took place, not the links scarce narrative bereft of context.

It worked too. This thread is proof.

Amazing how you have yet to produce one lawyer that disagreed with him

 

[Catsnmeters]

Amazing how you have yet to produce one lawyer that disagreed with him

The prosecutor.

The defense too if they don't bring it up at trial.