1. My understanding is that Trump's team called Schiller and Bradley Smith but the judge wouldn't let them testify.
2. The judge basically didn't allow Robert Costello to testify, every prosecution "objection" was upheld.
3. The judge is a political hack.
4. The "covered up crime" was a Federal Election Law. The bookkeeping error is a misdemeanor, its the bullshit coverup that was the felony.
Below is my column in the Hill on the approaching closing arguments in the Trump trial. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg appears to be launching his own school of abstract legal work in the …
jonathanturley.org
1) Yes, that's the problem isn't it? People get told things, that aren't true, and then you have a whole load of supporters who claim things that Trump told them and they start believing the conspiracy because the "facts" (that were made up) support the conspiracy.
Nope, Schiller and Smith weren't called.
The judge said Smith couldn't say something which the US legal system just doesn't allow, not by law, but by precedent. It's perfectly normal.
2) Costello was one of two witnesses called by the defense.
en.wikipedia.org
"On May 20, Robert Costello also testified.
[459] Merchan admonished the witness for making comments on the stand objecting to rulings, staring at the judge, and rolling his eyes.[460]"
This is the source from the wiki article [460]
The landmark trial will kick back off in Manhattan with more defense cross-examination of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.
apnews.com
"The judge in
Donald Trump’s hush money trial cleared the courtroom of reporters Monday and then threatened to remove the defense’s witness from the trial altogether because of his behavior on the stand, which included making comments under his breath and rolling his eyes, a court transcript showed."
"Judge Juan M. Merchan told Robert Costello, a former federal prosecutor, that his conduct during testimony was contemptuous. Costello aggravated Merchan repeatedly in part by continuing to speak after objections were sustained — a signal to witnesses to stop talking. At one point, Costello remarked “jeez” when he was cut off by an objection. He also called the whole exercise “ridiculous.”"
Now, obviously this doesn't tell us much, other than the judge got pissed. Maybe Costello was right, maybe not. Here's the court transcript:
www.documentcloud.org
It starts with Costello on page 236
The first objection is pg 238
Questions are from Trump's team:
"Q Now, did you consider your conversation at the Regency Hotel that day to be subject of the attorney-client privilege?
MS. HOFFINGER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
A Absolutely.
MS. HOFFINGER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. HOFFINGER: Can the answer be stricken?
THE COURT: And the answer is stricken."
Second objection pg 240
"Q What did you tell Mr. Cohen that day?
A I explained to Mr. Cohen that when he described the search warrants, I pointed out that a search warrant of a law office is much more difficult to get than a search warrant of any other place.
MS. HOFFINGER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q What was your view that day about whether or not Michael Cohen should cooperate?
MS. HOFFINGER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q What instructions did you give Mr. Cohen with respect to cooperation?
A Okay. I explained -- I explained to Mr. Cohen that it was obvious that he was not the target of the search by the Southern District of New York, that they thought that he had committed some crimes --
MS. HOFFINGER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained."
Pg 241
"Q What, if anything, did Cohen say about Stormy Daniels during the meeting?
MS. HOFFINGER: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer.
A He began by saying: "I don't understand why they're trying to put me in jail for some F'ing NDAs," which is a Non-Disclosure Agreement. He then said, "I did an NDA with Stormy Daniels." So, I asked him to tell me about what the circumstances were, how was he involved.
MS. HOFFINGER: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. HOFFINGER: Can you strike the answer?
THE COURT: The last answer is stricken, yes."
Pg 242
"Q Did Mr. Cohen say anything about President Trump in connection with the Stormy Daniels part of the conversation?
A He did.
MS. HOFFINGER: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BOVE: May I be heard, Judge?
THE COURT: No.
Q Did President Trump's family come up?
A Yes, it did.
Q What did Mr. Cohen say about President Trump's family?
MS. HOFFINGER: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained."
Why?
"Please approach. (At Sidebar
******
MS. HOFFINGER: Mr. Steinglass would like to be heard.
MR. STEINGLASS: Thank you. Respectfully, this is exactly what you just told him not to do. If he's going to be impeaching Mr. Cohen by prior inconsistent statement, the law is extraordinarily clear on this. The witness' attention has to be specifically called to the prior inconsistency, and he has to be given a chance to explain it. Only if he maintains the inconsistency or he says he doesn't remember is impeachment by a prior inconsistent statement by a collateral witness permitted. There were two instances where that happened. One, Mr. Bove just covered. We are going way far afield of that. This is not a general: Everything that Mr. Cohen testified, did he tell you something different, did he tell you something different, did he tell you something different. He would have had to confront Mr. Cohen with those inconsistencies and say: Did you tell Mr. Costello, X, Y and Z on this date, and then Cohen would have had to have denied it; and then it would be permissible. It is not permissible to have a wholesale of everything that Mr. Cohen said --"
You can look for more of these. I don't see anything that suggests the judge was being biased. He sustained some, he allowed others.
Here you've got a reasoning for why they were sustained. They're leading Costello off and talking about things that are not part of the trial. Of "stories" as it's put on the next page.
If you find anything you think makes the judge looked biased there, tell me.
