Right? I think his lawyers already had it entered into evidence. And the fact that the judge suppressed or ignored it. By Trump trolling the Judge it allowed Trump to bring it into the formal record in court - kinda like I got a picture wanna see it? KEK
Why would he need to read it on the stand and why can't it be simply used by his counsel during the course of the trial?
Right? I think his lawyers already had it entered into evidence. And the fact that the judge suppressed or ignored it. By Trump trolling the Judge it allowed Trump to bring it into the formal record in court - kinda like I got a picture wanna see it? KEK
Let's call it: show-value.
And it gives these hacks the option to show their bias.
At least, that is how I read it, after carefully following Boston Legal ...
By reading it the stenographer has it on record. That's not a bad thing.
Trump was a witness for the STATE's case. The AG called him. His lawyers could have cross-examined him.
They chose not too.
The defense will begin Monday I think
By not cross-examining Trump, I believe they can call him back to the stand.
It's also already in evidence. It's part of financial statements at the heart of this case.
I think you're spot on with your assessment Fren.
Is he a fren?
He seemed to have a lot of disdain for Trump as a handshake just a month or so ago.