Yesterday Porny Daniels testified as a witness in Alvin Bragg’s phony hush money case against former President Trump and it reportedly was not good.
When I say not good, I mean not good for the prosecution. Her testimony was completely irrelevant and she was only there to assassinate Trump’s character.
Trump’s legal team made a motion for a mistrial yesterday given the salacious details the jury heard from Daniels in the courtroom, but the judge denied it.
Former Fox News host and now Newsmax host, Greta Van Susteren, weighed in yesterday explaining that she used to teach ‘evidence’, presumably at Georgetown Law where she was a faculty member according to Wikipedia.
Greta explained that she would flunk the judge in Trump’s case after what happened yesterday in his courtroom:
I taught evidence and I would flunk the judge on this one…the issue whether to grant mistrial is NOT whether witness difficult to control BUT RATHER WHAT DID THE JURY HEAR??????? The issue is the impact on the accused and that is that the jury HEARD it and CAN NOT UNHEAR it.
I taught evidence and I would flunk the judge on this one…the issue whether to grant mistrial is NOT whether witness difficult to control BUT RATHER WHAT DID THE JURY HEAR??????? The issue is the impact on the accused and that is that the jury HEARD it and CAN NOT UNHEAR it. pic.twitter.com/ij0MNFk4d6
— Greta Van Susteren (@greta) May 7, 2024
She continued…
The lawyers DID object before the trial started this morning…and the judge overruled them…and then when the witness testified the judge then said def lawyers did not object enough?’ Huh? Plus..there is nothing to stop a judge from admonishing the prosecutor and stopping the questioning…so now the judge is trying to bail himself out of the mess he made …by blaming defense lawyers for not objecting when they did before the trial started? And also during…
Jonathan Turley made a similar point this morning, suggesting that Trump’s legal team had already been reprimanded for objections and it’s understandable why they chose not to make more objections.
Several other legal analysts say this trial is ripe for reversal now if Trump gets convicted given the Daniel’s salacious testimony wasn’t even relevant to the case. One pointed out that Harvey Weinstein had his conviction reversed on the same grounds by the New York Court of Appeals.