Blame Game: Judge Merchan Tells Trump Defense They Should Have Objected More to Stormy Daniels’ Testimony

AP Photo/Mary Altaffer

Judge Juan Merchan allowed porn performer Stormy Daniels to babble on at length about her alleged affair with Donald Trump, including salacious details that would seem to have little relevance to whether the former president falsified business records, which is what Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s prosecution is allegedly about. 

It became so ridiculous that jurors reportedly had trouble keeping straight faces and were even smirking.


Trump Manhattan Trial Tuesday Evening Wrap-Up – ‘What the Hell Happened?’ Edition

Judge Slaps Down Trump’s Mistrial Request in ‘Hush Money’ Case As Stormy Daniels’ Testimony Rocks Court

Although Merchan refused to call a mistrial Tuesday as requested by the Trump team, even he admitted that too much irrelevant information was allowed and that the witness, Daniels, was “difficult to control.”

“There are some things that would have been better left unsaid,” he admitted. She also was apparently caught once again telling falsehoods:

In her book “Full Disclosure” Stormy said that while talking to Gloria Allred she denied having a romantic relationship with Trump, but Daniels testified that she told Allred otherwise.

When presented with the book, Daniels was speechless for a moment before saying “I denied it in a phone conversation, but when I met her in person I told her everything.” 

This case is such a joke.  Why can’t they put it on TV so we can all laugh at Alvin Bragg and his witnesses?

Merchan later shirked responsibility for the clown show and blamed defense lawyers at least partly for her prejudicial testimony.

Judge Juan Merchan also says he was surprised there weren’t more objections from Trump’s team during Stormy Daniels’ testimony.
“The defense has to take some responsibility for that,” he says.
“When you say ‘the bell has been rung,’ the defense has to take some responsibility for that,” Merchan adds, referring to Trump attorney Todd Blanche’s argument for a mistrial in which he asked “how do you unring a bell?”

When you completely lose control of your courtroom, blame the lawyers—I guess that’s the lesson here.

Some prominent legal minds, however, think today’s events are actually a big deal and could make grounds for an appeal should Trump be convicted. George Washington Law School Professor Jonathan Turley ripped Merchan:

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.

Attorney David Limbaugh agreed:

Lawyer and former ambassador to Israel during the Trump administration David Friedman eviscerated Merchan’s handling of the case:

What the judge is letting in today in the Trump trial in NYC will be remembered as a dark stain on our judicial system, reminiscent of corrupt dictatorships. Shame on the prosecution for undermining our judicial system.

This lurid drama has turned into a complete joke at this point. It might be too much to hope that New York jurors will see through the charade, but the American people should be taking note and acting accordingly when the vote that really matters takes place in November.

More Trump on Trial:

WHOA: Judge Indefinitely Postpones Trump’s Classified Docs Case Because DOJ Mishandled Evidence

Fani Willis Refuses to Appear Before Georgia Senate Investigative Committee, Chairman Threatens Subpoena


  1. he is right they need to object each and every time to keep their objections for appeal—-legal parakeets.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here