Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

Trump’s Defense Team Moves For Mistrial

According to reports, Trump’s defense team is pushing for a mistrial as Stormy Daniels takes the stand.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche didn’t hold back.

He told Judge Juan Merchan that Daniels’ testimony on Tuesday morning was just too prejudicial to ignore.

And as many have pointed out, irrelevant and only meant to shame Trump.

So naturally, this Democrat judge denied it.

“You’ll take this public shaming and like it!” seems to be the mindset we’re seeing at play here.

The legal drama continues to unfold.

Fox News reports:

Former President Trump’s defense attorneys are moving for a mistrial amid the testimony of pornographic actress Stormy Daniels.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche, after the court’s lunch break, told Judge Juan Merchan that Daniels’ testimony Tuesday morning was prejudicial.

Merchan said a mistrial was not warranted and stated that he was doing everything he could to control the witness, including once objecting to Daniel’s testimony himself.

“I agree that it would have been better if some of these things had been left unsaid,” Merchan said.

Blanche said the prosecution is trying to inflame the jury with Daniels’ testimony, including with evidence that he says does not matter. Blanche said it is prejudicial testimony and evidence, saying Daniels has been trying to sell her story about an alleged consensual sexual encounter since 2016.

The defense attorney said Daniels’ testimony on Tuesday was about “consent and danger” and that was “not the story that she was selling in 2016.” He also said Daniels was testifying about consent, and that kind of testimony “makes it impossible to come back from.” Blanche said the defense “objected as best we could, but she was able to say what she said.”

He also questioned how the defense could “come back from this” in a way that could be “fair” to Trump.

“We believe there should be a mistrial,” he said. “Or that this witness’ testimony is excluded and extremely limited.”

Blanche said Daniels’ lurid and explosive testimony “has nothing to do with this case” and is “totally irrelevant.”

He also noted that what Daniels said was “extraordinarily prejudicial testimony” and that there is a “high risk of the jury not being able to focus on the charged conduct.”


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!