Here’s what’s so messed up about the ridiculous motion for mistrial because Stormy’s tale of disgusting sex was ‘prejudicial’: the defense denied any sex ever happened.
So, having a witness come in to answer questions about, uh yeah, the sex that absolutely happened is not “prejudicial”, it’s just Truth curb-stomping them.
If they were actually concerned with how it would make the demented rapist look (they weren’t), then the ploy to claim sex never happened was about as misguided as anything else trump’s pitiful legal teams have ever done. Because of course they were going to establish that it had happened.
Afterwards, they throw this pathetic excuse for a legal motion out there, no doubt simply to coddle the napping baby rather than through any actual reasoning.
Keep yappin’ Donnie. Keep digging up, you demented bastard.
I have heard that you can’t appeal things that you didn’t raise objections to during the trial; there need to be mistaken rulings on the part of the judge for an appeal to work, it’s not just relitigating the case.
It’s all just delaying tactics. Diaper Don knows from a lifetime of experience how to exploit his way out of consequences. He wants to get reelected and make all his problems evaporate into a miasma of totalitarianism.
That’s why he acts like a spoiled child - he’s immune to the negative effects of even the few consequences he’s ever suffered over his whole misbegotten life.
The judge made a good point: Trump never denied the sex happened. If they had, he could have struck that part of her testimony. But they never denied it happened, have never taken any legal action to stop her from saying it, and didn’t bother raising any questions about it on cross-examination.
It’s like Trump’s lawyers expect the judge to do their job for them.
The trial isn’t about Trump having sex or paying for sex, but violating finance laws. If they had denied the sex then it wouldn’t be relevant to the case.
Here’s what’s so messed up about the ridiculous motion for mistrial because Stormy’s tale of disgusting sex was ‘prejudicial’: the defense denied any sex ever happened.
So, having a witness come in to answer questions about, uh yeah, the sex that absolutely happened is not “prejudicial”, it’s just Truth curb-stomping them.
If they were actually concerned with how it would make the demented rapist look (they weren’t), then the ploy to claim sex never happened was about as misguided as anything else trump’s pitiful legal teams have ever done. Because of course they were going to establish that it had happened.
Afterwards, they throw this pathetic excuse for a legal motion out there, no doubt simply to coddle the napping baby rather than through any actual reasoning.
Keep yappin’ Donnie. Keep digging up, you demented bastard.
It’s simpler than this. If they thought any of this was legitimately out of bounds they could have objected at any time and didn’t.
The judge even said they he was surprised they didn’t object more.
I think they planned on using it to appeal it, but the judge shut that door right on their fingers.
I have heard that you can’t appeal things that you didn’t raise objections to during the trial; there need to be mistaken rulings on the part of the judge for an appeal to work, it’s not just relitigating the case.
Preservation of error. Depends on the type of appeal.
Today, Trump’s lawyers learn that in an adversarial system of justice, it’s not the judge’s job to object to things on your behalf.
Keep going, guys, you’ll soon be worthy of a law degree.
It’s all just delaying tactics. Diaper Don knows from a lifetime of experience how to exploit his way out of consequences. He wants to get reelected and make all his problems evaporate into a miasma of totalitarianism.
That’s why he acts like a spoiled child - he’s immune to the negative effects of even the few consequences he’s ever suffered over his whole misbegotten life.
The judge made a good point: Trump never denied the sex happened. If they had, he could have struck that part of her testimony. But they never denied it happened, have never taken any legal action to stop her from saying it, and didn’t bother raising any questions about it on cross-examination.
It’s like Trump’s lawyers expect the judge to do their job for them.
How the fuck does that even work?
Moron: “Your honor, I didn’t rob that bank.”
Witness: “I’m the bank teller and I saw him rob the bank”
Paid Liar: “OBJECTION! My client said he didn’t do it, strike that from the record!”
Judge: “Ok. Guess he didn’t do it.”
The trial isn’t about Trump having sex or paying for sex, but violating finance laws. If they had denied the sex then it wouldn’t be relevant to the case.
deleted by creator