Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
It is quite clear to me that the testimony by Stormy Daniels proves without a doubt that the current trial of Trump has nothing to do with a lasting conviction, and is only out to damage Trump. As Andrew McCarthy notes:
For nothing more than the purpose of humiliating the Democrats’ political nemesis and their opponent in the 2024 presidential election, Manhattan’s elected progressive Democratic district attorney, Alvin Bragg, has proffered Stormy Daniels’s sensational story of a sexual encounter with Donald Trump in the unprecedented, media-saturated first-ever trial against a former U.S. president.Trump’s lawyers objected to the testimony, which — as I’ve previously contended, here, here and here — is not relevant to the business-records falsification charges in the case. In particular, Team Trump strenuously objected to graphic details of the sexual encounter that Daniels claims she had with Trump in 2006. As we’ve come to expect, Judge Juan Merchan overruled Trump’s counsel.But then, quite remarkably, after allowing the jury to hear the salacious testimony — a minute-by-minute account of the alleged tryst — Merchan had the jury leave the courtroom and proceeded to dress down the prosecutors for doing what he allowed them to do.Now, this shows that both the prosecutors and Merchan are out to damage Trump. There is no way to undo what the jury has heard. Merchan allowed the prosecutors to simply have negative testimony that has nothing to do with the case, solely to paint Trump in a bad light. I think the term is "unduly prejudicial," but I am not a lawyer.
As he goes on to say:
The core defense objection was not that Daniels is incredible; it was that her testimony about a sexual encounter in 2006 is irrelevant to whether Trump falsified business records in 2017 detailing the repayment of a 2016 debt to Michael Cohen. (Emphasis in the original)
It is quite easy to see letting in testimony that is both irrelevant to the actual charges and is unduly prejudicial is simply a way to hurt Trump.
Bryon York has this to say:
Perhaps the weirdest, and by far the most unjust, thing about former President Donald Trump's trial in New York is that we do not know precisely what crime Trump is charged with committing. We're in the middle of the trial, with Trump facing a maximum of more than 100 years in prison, and we don't even know what the charges are! It's a surreal situationHow is it, in America, that someone is on trial without knowing the exact crime he is charged with committing? This whole case is built on layering crimes, one of which is simply not told to anyone. It is quite clear, again, there is nothing there.
I do think Trump will be found guilty because it is clear that is the intent of the judge. He wants that verdict and will allow anything that helps get there.
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.
Discussion (22)
I think we keep hoping someone in authority is going to step up and slap down all these evil prosecutors and judges.
That's not going to happen.
When the highest law enforcement body in the nation is itself is corrupt, to what higher authority do you appeal?
God? I guess we need to put all the imprecatory Psalms on endless repeat.
I wish the voters would punish them.
But, based on responses I have seen to the Florida documents trial, apparently, putting a trail date off because the Prosecution lied about its handling of evidence and admits it, proves the Judge is corrupt.
There's a reason that the first thing revolutionaries do is take over the media.
That's what they did here. That's how they can successfully mind-control the populace into accepting so much injustice.
I suppose the question is, short of another Revolution, how do we take back the media?
More on this from Victoria Taft:
Prosecutors S**t the Bed With Stormy Daniels Testimony in Trump Trial; Judge Denies Mistrial
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I wish I was back in law school now. I wonder how the professors would teach rules of evidence and civil procedure in light of this case. I presume the professors would be against Trump, and of the "by any means necessary" interpretation of law, yet still have a duty to instruct in the law.
Well, I don't really wish I was in law school now. I imagine it to be a terribly hostile environment for anyone not far left of center.
You're seeing five of 22 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.