Hacker News Reader

Comment by bradley13 | Hacker News Reader

He's not wrong. Consider just one aspect of the trial: the charges are about bookkeeping: mislabeling transactions. Therefore, it was essential to have Stormy Daniels testify about the sexual positions they used? The sex wasn't illegal. Paying her for an NDA wasn't illegal. Any competent judge would have disallowed this testimony.

Even if the verdict is correct, the conduct of the trial was entirely partisan.

View on HN

The judge can only disallow the testimony if the opposing counsel objects.

Trump’s legal team didn’t object.

The judge said he was surprised they didn’t object, and that he would have blocked some of her testimony if they had done so.

Nope.

The defence strongly objected multiple times and sought a mistrial over Daniels' testimony; Judge Merchan ultimately allowed most of it over their objections, setting up a likely issue for appeal by Trump's team.

The defence attempted to engineer grounds for appeal. We will see whether they were successful in that. Trump’s legal defence MO is to delay everything for as long as possible and hope it goes away.

They have certainly done enough to convince Trump’s supporters, but that was a low bar to clear.

The defense is attempting to get a mistrial because Donald Trump is so obviously guilty of this crime that no sane court could find otherwise.

Much like when he lost the election, his preferred strategy is to pretend the rules shouldn't apply to him.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com