‘This Is Embarrassing’: Turley Says He Is In ‘Utter Disbelief’ Over Bragg Trial Opening Statements

[CreatedInSpace]

That’s tough to do when there’s only 1 dot and, with an expired statute of limitations, that one is invisible.

[HDGristle]

They've got three sets of dots to connect, whether you agree or not. Whether it's a compelling case is up to the jury.

[eyecu2]

Something that Trump fans should take into consideration is the old saying PT Barnum used: any publicity is good publicity, and you can't get more publicity than a morning cup of coffee and watching Trump roll into court, while he can say anything he wants to the cameras that go out to every news organizations that are publicizing this.

Honestly it's probably the biggest method for him to actually get in front of people that don't like him and perhaps his message will resonate with them - or they'll be repulsed by the reason he's in court.

But I don't think PT Barnum really gave a shit as long as you were watching

[Smarty1]

eye

I’m pretty sure Trump thinks a lot like old PT did. Love him, hate him, or (if you happen to live under a rock somewhere) be indifferent to him, but nobody can really deny that he loves the attention and publicity. There is no doubt in my mind that the main reason he came down that escalator in 2015 was to grab attention and headlines. I’m not sure even he thought he could actually win the election.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by berryberry

“What is clear is in this case, Trump is right,” Turley said. “I mean, this is an embarrassment. I mean, the fact that we are actually talking about this case being presented in a New York courtroom leaves me in utter disbelief. .
.
Fox News’ John Roberts pointed out that the prosecution is “being led in part” by Michael Colangelo, who served as the U.S. Associate Attorney General under President Joe Biden’s administration, then left his position to become a state prosecutor for Bragg’s office. Turley said Colangelo’s role supports Trump’s accusations that the case is “coordinated.”

So we have one prosecutor who donated to Senile Biden, one prosecutor was paid by the DNC and worked for Senile Biden, the lead prosecutor campaigned against Trump, and the judge is a Senile Biden donor. The whole thing is a sham. How have the federal courts not long ago shut down this abomination?

[CreatedInSpace]

You forgot the judge’s kid, who collects millions of dollars for anti-Trump propagandists. A banana republic at its finest.

[berryberry]

Below is Turley's New York Post column on the unseemly scene in the courtroom of Judge Juan Merchan as prosecutors used porn star Stormy Daniels to present lurid details on her alleged tryst with former president Donald Trump. It was a dumpster fire that Judge Merchan watched burn for a full day and then said the jury may have to disregard much of what they saw and heard.

Here is the column:

Before the start of the Manhattan prosecution of former president Donald Trump, I characterized the case of District Attorney Alvin Bragg as based on a type of obscenity standard.

In a 1984 pornography case, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote “I shall not today attempt further to define [obscenity]. . . . But I know it when I see it.”

Bragg has refused to clearly define the crime that Trump was seeking to conceal when payments for a non-disclosure agreement were listed as a legal expense.

We would just know it when we saw it at trial.

We are still waiting, but this week, Bragg seems to be prosecuting an actual obscenity case.

The prosecution fought with Trump’s defense counsel to not only call porn star Stormy Daniels to the stand, but to ask her for lurid details on her alleged tryst with Trump.

The only assurance that they would make to Judge Juan Merchan was that they would “not go into details of genitalia.”

For Merchan, who has largely ruled against Trump on such motions, that was enough.

He allowed the prosecutors to get into the details of the affair despite the immateriality of the evidence to any criminal theory.

Neither the NDA nor the payment to Daniels is being contested.

It is also uncontested that Trump wanted to pay to get the story (and other stories, including untrue allegations) from being published.

The value of the testimony was entirely sensational and gratuitous, yet Merchan was fine with humiliating Trump.

Daniels’ testimony was a dumpster fire in the courtroom.

The most maddening moment for the defense came at the lunch break when Merchan stated, “I agree that it would have been better if some of these things had been left unsaid.”

He then denied a motion for a mistrial based on the testimony and blamed the defense for not objecting more.

That, of course, ignores the standing objection of the defense to Daniels even appearing, and specific objections to the broad scope allowed by the court.

This is precisely what the defense said would happen when the prosecutors only agreed to avoid “genitalia.”

There was no reason for Daniels to appear at all in the trial.

Even if he was adamant in allowing her, Merchan could have imposed a much more limited scope for her testimony.

He could also have enforced the limits that he did place on the testimony when it was being ignored by both the prosecutors and the witness.

Merchan said that he is considering a limiting instruction for the jury to ignore aspects of the testimony.

But that is little comfort for the defendant.

The court was told that this would happen, it happened, and now the court wants to ask the jury to pretend that it did not happen.

Merchan knows that there is no way for the jury to unhear the testimony.

More importantly, the prosecution knew that from the outset.

Daniels appeared eager to share the stories for the same reason that she was eager to sell her story. While she said that she “hates” Trump and wants him “held accountable,” Daniels is no victim.

She had an alleged tryst with Trump and then sought to cash in on the story.

It is a standard form of extortion of celebrities.

She later sought to cash in on the notoriety by appearing in strip clubs as part of a “Make America Horny Again” tour.

She is in her element in Merchan’s courtroom.

In New York, the relevance or credibility of witnesses like Daniels is largely immaterial.

This is a district that voted against Trump, 84.5% to 14.5%, in the 2020 presidential election.

New Yorkers elected a state attorney general, Letitia James, who ran on the pledge to bag Trump on something — without specifying any crime.

Bragg then indicted Trump without clearly defining any crime — a debate that continues among legal experts after two weeks of testimony.

This is entertainment for many in New York — as is the thrill of the possibility of his going to jail under Merchan’s poorly written and arguably unconstitutional gag order.

When it comes to a thrill kill trial, who better to call than Daniels?

After all, she has been treated as a heroine by many, even being given the key to the city of West Hollywood, California, on “Stormy Daniels Day.”

Well, it was Stormy Daniels Day in Judge Merchan’s courtroom this week, and it is a bit late for the court to express shock over her testimony.

It is not the witness, but the case that seems increasingly obscene.

You have a judge who should have recused himself given his daughter’s major role as a Democratic activist and fundraiser.

You have a gag order that is allowing a New York Supreme Court justice to regulate what the leading candidate for the presidency may say in an election on the weaponization of the legal system.

You have a lead prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo, who not only left the Biden Justice Department to revive this case, but once worked for the Democratic National Committee.

You have a case based on two dead misdemeanors shocked back into life by a still mysterious theory of an undefined crime.

In comparison, Daniels may be the only authentic part of the entire case in New York v. Trump.

Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.

[berryberry]

Jonathon Turley - Bragg is even losing CNN hosts and legal analysts:

Fareed Zakaria: "I doubt the New York indictment would have been brought against a defendant whose name was not Donald Trump"

Elie Honig: If brought in a less democratic district " I would say there's no chance of a conviction."