The people Fox brings on to explain the law are partisan hacks and/or idiots, probably mostly the latter. Again, this is not a debate about the prosecution itself (which certainly is subject to intense scrutiny) but the claim on things like "Stormy shouldn't testify/shouldn't testify about sex." Trump's dumb positions invite this stuff. He's an idiot litigant, which says a lot considering he's in court more than most attorneys.
Justice Merchan begins to address the mistrial motion. He says that after ruling against the defense's request for a mistrial on Tuesday, he went back and reviewed many of his past decisions, studying them in his chambers. He says that he came away satisfied. His voice is trembling a bit as he interrupts himself. He says at every trial, the evidence comes in a different way. Why is he saying that now, he asks? Because in going back to opening statements, he sees that the defense “denied that there was ever a sexual encounter between Stormy Daniels and the defendant.”
May 9, 2024, 4:56 p.m. ET7 minutes ago
7 minutes ago
Jonah Bromwich
Reporting from inside the courthouse
The defense opened the door to Daniels’s testimony, Merchan is saying. He seems to be suggesting that what the prosecution did in response was perfectly appropriate.
May 9, 2024, 4:56 p.m. ET7 minutes ago
7 minutes ago
Alan Feuer
Reporting from inside the courthouse
Merchan is effectively saying here that Trump’s maximalist position of utterly denying the sexual encounter with Daniels had taken place clearly opened the door for the prosecution to introduce specific evidence that it did occur.