Holy crap.....(Brian Cates)
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (24)
sorted by:
Sussmann's defense team is arguing that Judge Cooper needs to strike certain portions of Marc Elias's testimony as 'nonresponsive and prejudicial', prohibit any further reference in the trial to Elias' testimony but that's not all.
They go on to ask the judge to permit the defense to publish a transcript of Elias' revised testimony to the jury.
I have never in 30 years of covering court cases heard of such a thing.
"This guy testified the wrong way, he said things he shouldn't have, so we want that stricken from the record, Judge! And then we have a prepared transcript of what the witness SHOULD HAVE testified to that we want to give to the jury."
-- BC
Oh I get it. It is like all those times you know you F d up but too late cause everyone heard what you said, so impossible to take it back. UNLESS you are in a court of so called law. GOD give us justice.
Thanks turbo retard
“I object your honor!”
—“Why?”
“BECAUSE IT’S DEVASTATING TO MY CASE!!”
-Liar Liar
Did someone use a ludicrous speed reference?
u/#paw
Its just a motion thus far. When is the expected ruling? It shouldn't take but a magasecond to strike this thing down...but corruption and all...
I can’t believe the Judge is allowing Sussman’s team to do this, because they don’t like the testimony. Won’t this set a precedent for other trial witnesses? Are they going to do this with every witness?
When did the Judge allow this? Just because someone ask for it does not mean it was done.
I don't think the judge allowed it. Cates is just pointing out how absurd it is that Sussman's defense would ask for it. Desperation.
I think it was on the X22 report that the Judge agreed to strike Marc Elias’s testimony. Whether the Judge will accept the Sussman’s defense team’s written correction is another thing. Nothing surprises me these days, especially with all the connections by marriage, family or children interacting with each other.
I can. Obama judge.
An Obama judge who offered to recuse themselves, but the Prosecution said it wasn't necessary. If you want to blame someone, this one is on Durham.
Probably won’t happen. The defense brought up the line of questioning.
This is losing game 7 of the World Series by 15, then saying you want another game 7 when your star pitcher has a full week of rest. It's that ridiculous.
So, he didn't say what he said. Got it
Adam Schitt enters the room reading a made up telephone call.
Why should it be allowed?
Apparently it has to do with the 5th Amendment and Sussmann refusing to testify. I guess the prosecution isn’t allowed to question or even reference that decision, because to do so is considered a violation of that Amendment. The prosecution’s questioning did make reference to Sussmann’s silence, which is why the defense suggested a mistrial. I think the judge rejected it though.
I think I saw on Red Pill news last night that this motion was denied?