Mind numbing activism on the part of the judge. He doesn’t need his career from here on out. The book deals and speaking engagements will enrich him and his family. The political favors are already stacked up for his daughter. Mind blowing exposition of lawfare.

jeebling wrote:

Activism?
How so?

rfenst wrote:

No no, everything about this case is totally on the up and up. I look forward to the sentencing.

HockeyDad wrote:

Activism?
How so?

rfenst wrote:

Activism?
How so?

rfenst wrote:

One example is the wide berth the judge has given the prosecution in what they brought to trial and what the material with which they will be allowed to cross examine Trump such as the Carroll defamation verdict or the verdict of the civil fraud trial that Letitia James brought. The judge is giving the prosecutor leeway and support in the courtroom that he is denying the defense. I believe he’s doing this for political reasons. His campaign donations to Biden and Democrats are worthy of discussion for recusal and his daughter suddenly raising $100M for the DNC on the publicity of this trial certainly garners political favor. That’s what I’m thinking. How about you?

jeebling wrote:

"Judge Merchan flatly told the defense that former President Trump could not make an advice-of-counsel argument.

The judge said the defense was being "disingenuous" by raising it now when Trump was given a deadline months ago to say whether he would invoke the defense that, in his conduct, he was relying on the advice of lawyers.

"It was concerning when notice was not given initially. It was concerning when the term was changed to 'presence of counsel.' I couldn't believe when I saw in your submission, 'involvement of counsel,'" Merchan told the defense regarding their efforts to advance that argument.

"My ruling is the jury will not hear that instruction from the bench, nor are you permitted to make that argument, period," Merchan said."

And...

"Judge Merchan denied a request from defense lawyers to broaden the scope of testimony from their expert witness Bradley Smith, who is an expert on campaign finance regulations."

And...

"An expert is not permitted to present or interpret the law," Merchan said.

Merchan also expressed concerns about Smith's testimony prompting a "battle of the experts" between Smith and an expert called by prosecutors, which Merchan said would confuse the jury.

Merchan said that Smith could still testify, as long as he follows the limits imposed in his pretrial ruling on the case's motions in limine.

"The court will monitor this testimony closely to ensure full compliance," Merchan said in a pretrial ruling. "Any deviation from this ruling could result in sanction up to and including striking the expert's entire testimony."


https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/trump-hush-money-trial/judge-wont-let-defense-expand-expert-witness-testimony-110397633?id=110388136 


What kind of fuckery is going on here?

DrMaddVibe wrote:

An expert witness on the law is not necessary. The judge determines which law is applicable and how it should be applied. Expert wittnesses on this would essentially be closing arguments from the wittness box- uncalled for. Innapropriate.

rfenst wrote:

I bet he is just calling "balls and" strikes and giving Trump more leeway than the state because he is the famous defendant politician. Yesterday, I watched FOX almost all day and its analysis of the very same testimony as MSNBC and CNN, but comes to entirely opposite conclusions. Hmmmmm... I have now first hand knowledge. Do You?

rfenst wrote:

Fox News is Fair & Balanced... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

I haven’t watched FOX or CNN or MSNBC in a very long time. Certainly not this year. I don’t think I understand what you mean by first hand knowledge but I’m guessing if I haven’t watched those channels then I don’t have it. I read magazine length articles, such as the ones often posted here. I generally avoid NYT, WaPo, Atlantic, Rolling Stone and I try to take WSJ and NYP w/a grain of salt. I suppose most of the stuff I read has Conservative bias but I attempt to avoid Ingram, Hannity, etc..

jeebling wrote: