Judge admonishes defense witness for behavior in Trump hush money trial
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 май 2024
- The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s hush money trial briefly closed the courtroom, forcing reporters into the hallway after he admonished a defense witness for his behavior on the witness stand.
Subscribe to FOX 5 NY: ruclips.net/user/fox5ny?sub_co...
Watch FOX 5 NY Live: www.fox5ny.com/live
FOX 5 NY delivers breaking news, live events, investigations, politics, entertainment, business news and local stories from New York City and across the nation.
Watch more FOX 5 NY on RUclips:
Black Entrepreneurs: • Playlist
STREET SOLDIERS with LISA EVERS: • Street Soldiers with L...
A.I. ALL IN: • Playlist
Finding Faith: • Finding Faith with Sha...
The Big Idea: • Playlist
Download the FOX 5 NY News app: www.fox5ny.com/apps
Download the FOX 5 NY Weather app: www.fox5ny.com/apps
Follow FOX 5 NY on Facebook: / fox5ny
Follow FOX 5 NY on Twitter: / fox5ny
Follow FOX 5 NY on Instagram: / fox5ny
Subscribe to the Good Day NY Morning Brief newsletter: www.fox5ny.com/email
That judge is so afraid he should be but in jail
Why? For using the tool he has to keep control of his court he is afraid?
Because when you sit in a court house, you are sitting in the court of this judge. It is the judge who decides of the break, of which witnesses are allowed and when. If a judge is pitiful enough, he can delay a witness for 10 minutes and allow a juggler to do a show for that 10 minutes. No judges does that, for professional reasons and reasons of decorum. But there is nothing in any code of conduct that would stop a judge from doing this..m
This witness was misbehaving and trying to bully the court by commenting over the judge. This judge put him back in his place and could have decided on jail sentences instead.
If I show up in your home and leave a huge dump on the carpet, wouldn't you throw me out of your house?
Seems like the judge is acting more like a CHILD instead of a JUDGE-Such childish behavior!
Of course, the judge keeps extending the dates. That's to keep Trump off the campaign trail. A damn shame what has become of the american judicial system
There is no American Judicial System. Had Trump been a LATINO or American of African descent, he would have been locked up ages ago. This is a Ringling Brothers trial.
This judge didn't put Stormy on the same short leash. He should be disbarred and disqualified.
No reasons to disbarred that judge. The conduct of Stormy Daniels was a lot milder.
The judge is compromised in this case and he is out of control -as he attempts to shape the evidence & witnesses. No way Judge Merchan. Someone need to make bar complaint for his terrible behavior in court today-the Judge. So childish.
Shame on the judge so bias how do u slept at night take ah look in the mirror😢😢😢😢😢
And here is the comment section of people with no understanding of how a courts work.
The judge had every right to put that Bob Costello in jail if he wanted. Costello's behavior was contemptuous by any legal definition. The fact that he didn't only show that this judge Merchant was lenient.
Deal with reality guys or reality will deal with you, giving you existential nightmare.
Yet, this same judge allowed unnecessary salacious testimony while the prosecution objected. When questions why he allowed it given the recent overturning of the Weinstein case he said they didn't object enough. This same judge did not allow the defense to put on witnesses regarding the very underpinnings of the case, which is the DA(s) de-facto guilty verdict regarding a federal crime, thus elevating this typical and common misdemeanor. This case should never have gone to court. Hillary and the DNC where actually fined for not declaring money spend on the dossier as a campaign expense. Trump was never fined and yet the DA says hes guilty while simultaneously stating he doesnt have to cite a federal crime.
The ENTIRE case is pure political corruption that could only take place where Progressive zealots have power.
@@michaelknight2897 Man, everything you say is out of context and inane.
"The case should never have gone to court."
To the contrary. That case should absolutely went to court, and should have gone much earlier. This isn't a political prosecution, this is the rule of law. Everyone is equal under the law, and Trump is a human being. In fact, he wasn't there as the ex-president, but as an American.
If Americans do some crimes, they might expect to end up in court. The USA is not exactly GTA - even if GTA is a satire of the USA.
Also, political prosecutions are not usually limited to one person. If these are political prosecutions, why is Trump Jr out on the street? Why is MTG still seating in Congress? You do realize that the Moscow trials had 1008 individuals prosecuted?
This is just more of Trump attack on any neutral institution and completely missing the points of what is going on.
"This same judge allowed unnecessary salacious testimony."
So we need to believe Trump lawyers claiming that he never slept with this woman? While pulling a Bill Clinton? They had sex. Bill Clinton had oral, this is sex. Monica Lewinsky gave oral, this is having sex. Donald Trump did put his sausage in Stormy's bread bun, this is sex. And giving some details is necessary to establish credibility.
The defence and the prosecution can object, the judge decides if the objections are valid. END OF STORY.
And if anyone believes that this is such a big deal, they can try to appeal on that issue alone. That would be rejected because it's some huge humbug given that we can't talk about sex without being a little bit salacious by nature. I can't talk about doing your mom without bringing details, could I?
"Hillary Clinton"
Different cases, different stories, different actions, different crimes, different endings.
In fact, the Clinton case is for failure to disclose some spending, not trying to hide spending by forging business documents.
There is a difference between mere misreporting and fraud. Trump crossed that line. These consist of different crimes due to different actions having different natures.
This is not the same starting point.
Also, Hillary took a conciliation agreement with the FEC. Trump had that option at some point and he didn't take that opportunity. This leaves not so many other options for the prosecutor to sue.
Different starting points, went to different roads by choice, and got different results. That seems normal.
Turns out that conciliation agreements are safer than going to court. Are you seriously going to blame the prosecution and the judiciary because Trump signed awful lawyers? And that Trump's awful lawyers did an awful job?
@@michaelknight2897 Man, you're wrong on everything.
Misdeaminors are still illegal.
The defence did not call people, that's on them...
Salacious testimony? Not unfairly given the subject.
And the case passed through a grand jury in March. Are you going to say that you know more than a grand jury?
You're being silly.
@@therrydicule
"Misdeaminors are still illegal."
That's a strawman. I never claimed they were not. However, they don't go to a jury trial and are not felonies. Are you claiming there is no difference between a felony and a misdemeanor, if not, what is your point?
"The defence did not call people, that's on them..."
They judged ruled they could not call witness related to campaign finance violations which is the mechanism used by the DA to elevated a misdemeanor. You made another pointless claim devoid of any sophistication or argument.
"Salacious testimony? Not unfairly given the subject."
The crime is an incorrect business tax filing. Why does the Prosecution get to call witness related to campaign finance and the defense cannot? No federal crime is being charged. The judge, like the DA, has ruled that a federal crime occurred despite there being no fine, charge, or conviction. This is why this case is unprecedented and should have never gone to trial.
"And the case passed through a grand jury in March. Are you going to say that you know more than a grand jury?"
The criteria to get a case by a grand jury is miniscule. Which is why they rarely vote to not bring a case forward. A phrase was coined in the 1987 novel Bonfire of the Vanities that read "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich'"
You have shown you have put little thought into your arguments. They are countered with ease.
@@michaelknight2897
You do realize that the Trump legal team pulled basically a Bill Clinton, claiming that Trump never slept with Stormy Daniels?
That makes Stormy Daniels testimony necessary.
Hey I am not a fan of Biden or Trump. But what I find disturbing is that there is a Judge that says rolling your eyes and or Staring at them is grounds for Contempt. I think 🤔 that That Judge needs to be in a Rubber Room, With a Straight Jacket on...
Did he actually say grounds for contempt?
@@jalapeno6847 Don't be Obstinate Jalapeno. Try some Habaneros and some Naga Jolikia Peppers. But I can tell you from personal experience, Stay Away from the Carolina Reaper Peppers and the Pepper X. Those Peppers Are Brutal...
@@markmower6507
Since you couldn't answer my question I searched for the incident. Apparently it wasn't just for staring or rolling his eyes, it was for words Costello was saying while sitting on the. stand.
@@jalapeno6847 Has the Judge heard of Freedom of Speech?! 😲 Wow, It sounds even more Serious than I originally thought!!!
@@markmower6507
Typical trump cult supporters who can't engage in a simple conversation.
See ya. 🤡
Seems like this lawyer put the judge in place. Judges are not above prosecution.
Well this one should be prosecuted
Does he have a therapist?
Camilla Rambert Trump dose not tell the ture