Robert, I don't believe you're really following this case too well. The judge is NOT saying any of what you're suggesting. At all. No one has said any of what I wrote yet. It is too early in the trial.
...
The judge in Donald Trump’s trial was an absolute tyrant, though he appeared to the jury to be a benevolent despot. He seemed automatically to be ruling against the defendant at every turn. Maybe that is what was warranted.
But when the defense’s only substantive witness (about what?), the experienced attorney Robert Costello, raised his eyebrows at one of New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan’s rulings, the court went berserk. There was a hell of a lot more to it than that. What Costello did- read the transcript yourself- is grossly improper and unprofessional. If I did what he did in a courtroom, I'd be held in contempt.
Losing his cool and showing his thin skin, the judge cleared the courtroom of everyone including the media. Clearing the courtroom like he did is the proper way to do things.
For some reason, I was allowed to stay, and I observed one of the most remarkable wrong-headed biases I have ever seen. The judge actually threatened to strike all of Costello’s testimony if he raised his eyebrows again. Yep.
That of course would have been unconstitutional because it would have denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses and to raise a defense. False.
It would have punished the defendant for something a witness was accused of doing. He was called by the defense and the burden to control him was on them.
Even if what Costello did was wrong, and it was not, it would be utterly improper and unlawful to strike his testimony — testimony that undercut and contradicted the government’s star witness. Cohen did not give expert testimony. Defense wasn't entitled to use one to contradict him.
The judge’s threat was absolutely outrageous, unethical, unlawful and petty. Bullchit. He was being disrespected in front of the jury which is prejudicial to a fair outcome.
...
The public should have been able to see the judge in action, but because the case is not being televised, the public has to rely on the biased reporting of partisan journalists. YES!
Even when journalists do report on courtroom proceedings, their accounts must be taken with a grain of salt. When you watch CNN or MSNBC, you generally see an account of a trial that never took place.
They spin the events so much that reality is totally distorted.But the same statements don't apply to Derschowitz? LMFAO!
...
There is absolutely no good reason why a trial of this importance, or any trial, should not be televised live and in real time.
Allowing the public to see their courts in action is the best guarantee of fairness.
As Justice Louis Brandeis wisely said a century ago, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” YES.
...
Said it before, I'll say it again...If they can do this to an ex-President that's all but secured the GOP nomination for a 2nd term and happens to be a billionaire...they can do it to you...AND THEY WILL!
DrMaddVibe wrote:
