- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 5 minutes into this mornings Stormy Daniels cross and Judge Merchan is working mighty hard
Posted on 5/9/24 at 11:20 am to loogaroo
Posted on 5/9/24 at 11:20 am to loogaroo
quote:
This judge is like something out of a movie. Hell, it wouldn't even be believable in a movie.
Reminds me of that movie Pain & Gain, Mark Wahlberg and Dwayne Johnson. Supposedly, everything they did in the movie was based on actual events, and they had to cut out other things that were true, as well, because the real story was so over the top that they didn't think the audience would believe it.
If this case was a movie, the audience would be seeing a judge with an agenda.
1
Posted on 5/9/24 at 11:29 am to stuckintexas
Just heard that she claims she can speak with the dead. 
Posted on 5/9/24 at 11:33 am to Lsuhoohoo
I have not followed this that closely, but this is pretty egregious and blatant from the judge. Assuming there are at least a couple of jurors that are somewhat neutral fair-minded and intelligent (hopefully Trump's team was able to get a couple that weren't in the bag for the prosecution) don't you think they will easily see what the judge is doing to the point that it will actually help Trump with those jurors? Sometimes a judge blatantly favoring one side over the other and not allowing the jurors to hear what is clearly relevant, important, and admissible can be counterproductive to what the judge thinks he is doing.
Defense: You said this yesterday, but there is sworn testimony and previous statements where you said the opposite, let's look at those previous statements so you can tell us which time you were lying.
Judge: No, I'm not going to allow the jury to see that.
Jury: What the frick - I want to see this information and figure out if this witness is lying to us.
Defense: You said this yesterday, but there is sworn testimony and previous statements where you said the opposite, let's look at those previous statements so you can tell us which time you were lying.
Judge: No, I'm not going to allow the jury to see that.
Jury: What the frick - I want to see this information and figure out if this witness is lying to us.
Posted on 5/9/24 at 11:42 am to Lsuhoohoo
Regardless of whether the affair happened or not, that is certainly a legitimate question to ask on cross examination. The judge’s disallowing it just gives Trump more ammunition for an appeal.
Posted on 5/9/24 at 11:43 am to Lsuhoohoo
Reading that transcript, Stormy is an evasive moron. The judge is a scum bag. This is absurd.
Posted on 5/9/24 at 11:49 am to geauxpurple
You don't want it to go to appeal as it wouldn't be until after the election. Meanwhile the dems will crow he was convicted which will have an effect on some people.
Posted on 5/9/24 at 12:02 pm to Lsuhoohoo
Its clear the Judge is acting as though he has nothing to lose by being as outwardly contempt as he can be, So, Stormy is allowed to testify to to Trumps sleeping arrangement with his own wife, but she cant be asked to testify to her own statements made and published.
Posted on 5/9/24 at 12:15 pm to fwtex
This judge close to retirement?
He may not give a frick about anything beyond this trial.
He may not give a frick about anything beyond this trial.
Posted on 5/9/24 at 12:16 pm to Lsuhoohoo
He needs to be disbarred and brought up on charges.
Posted on 5/9/24 at 12:16 pm to BuckyCheese
He was born in roughly 1962.
He isn’t what I would consider “close to retirement” unless NY has mandatory retirement at 65.
He isn’t what I would consider “close to retirement” unless NY has mandatory retirement at 65.
Posted on 5/9/24 at 12:22 pm to teke184
quote:
But given the kind of shite allowed yesterday, being prevented from establishing potential perjury is a huge fricking problem.
It seems rather important that the prosecutor never lays the foundation for the objection
An unbiased judge. would have asked for the basis for the objection before sustaining
I might've tried to embarrass the judge by asking the basis for the objection On the record and make the judge try to delineate the basis
This post was edited on 5/9/24 at 12:23 pm
Posted on 5/9/24 at 12:26 pm to Lsuhoohoo
If the pointless testimony about spanking with a magazine wasn’t bad enough of an error . . .
First step of impeachment is to call a prior inconsistent statement to the attention of a witness, and then to give them a chance to deny/or ask them if they remember?
Second step is to show them the inconsistent statement and then ask for it to be introduced into evidence
I’m not sure exactly sure WTAF the objection would be? This is basic cross-examination
First step of impeachment is to call a prior inconsistent statement to the attention of a witness, and then to give them a chance to deny/or ask them if they remember?
Second step is to show them the inconsistent statement and then ask for it to be introduced into evidence
I’m not sure exactly sure WTAF the objection would be? This is basic cross-examination
Posted on 5/9/24 at 12:28 pm to Wednesday
quote:
I’m not sure exactly sure WTAF the objection would be? This is basic cross-examination
“It’s damaging to my case!”?
Posted on 5/9/24 at 12:29 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
arrests aren't admissible, just convictions. Arrests can be used at sentencing.
I’ve used them in the civil context where if, for example, the person lies about ever having been arrested in a discovery depo
Posted on 5/9/24 at 12:34 pm to Wednesday
Absolutely correct - first question is always - have you ever been arrested (discovery)
Posted on 5/9/24 at 12:37 pm to Lsuhoohoo
If people actually knew what a "shark" "that senses blood in the water for money" that Whorme Sexiels is, then people would see her for what she is. She is a snake in the grass.
Posted on 5/9/24 at 12:38 pm to BuckyCheese
quote:
This judge close to retirement?
His daughter is getting big bucks from democrats for “campaign work”. I’m sure she has been “contracted” to do some more “work” this year.
And then there is a probable 10% to the big guy in relation to all this “work”.
So he is probably closer to retirement than most realize.
This post was edited on 5/9/24 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 5/9/24 at 12:43 pm to Wednesday
quote:
I’m not sure exactly sure WTAF the objection would be? This is basic cross-examination
That's the million dollar question, what's the legal bases for the objection considering it's impugning prior testimony on record?
Posted on 5/9/24 at 12:51 pm to Lsuhoohoo
Most lawyers absolutely love this. They're oozing with conceit and literally believe they're better humans than blue collar folks without any education beyond high school. 80% of my law school class were absolute douchebags. Do we honestly believe the "moderate" lawyers on this board object to this? Of course not. They preach about "democracy" and "the rule of law" and yet are perfectly fine with a judge doing things like this when his daughter is literally making a fortune off of Democratic clients.
Posted on 5/9/24 at 1:12 pm to BuckyCheese
quote:
This judge close to retirement?
He may not give a frick about anything beyond this trial.
You serious?
This is a free campaign advertisment for him for the entire state of New York.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News