In reply to Pumpkinhead

Pumpkinhead said:

---

I think it very unlikely that Trump didn't cheat on his wife and it wouldn't be that unlikely either of payoffs. But elevating Trump from a bad hubby and distasteful character into a campaign finance criminal seems pretty ridiculous and very difficult legal case to make. This trial seems like a complete waste of time. Stupid politics games.

---

and without a doubt a lot of those suffering from TDS use this as rationale in not voting for him. We have too many voting based on who they'd feel comfortable being best friends with instead of how their policies will affect their lives. So they vote for soft cuddly pedo Joe.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The first witness took the stand in former President Donald Trump's hush money trial on Monday after both sides laid out parts of their cases to the jury in opening statements.
During his testimony, David Pecker described his job at the time as the former chairman of the National Enquirer's parent company.
Here's a recap of what he said:

• Pecker told the jury about his role at National Enquirer's parent company and said that any big stories involving celebrities had to go through him.
• He said editors could spend up to $10,000 to investigate and publish a story, but anything more than that would have to be vetted and approved by him.
• Pecker also testified that he had a private email for things he didn't want his assistant to see.
• Remember: Pecker has been granted immunity in exchange for his testimony and the parent company, American Media Inc., signed a non-prosecution agreement with prosecutors.
• During opening statements, prosecutor Matthew Colangelo focused on the case, telling the jury it is "about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up."
• During his turn, Trump's attorney Todd Blanche told the jury, "President Trump is innocent" and that "none of this was a crime." He said they will find "plenty of reasonable doubt" in the prosecution's case.

The judge has excused the jury until 11 a.m. ET tomorrow.

---

Quote:

---

While speaking with Judge Juan Merchan, Trump attorney Emil Bove addressed a few issues that they expect to come up with David Pecker's testimony.
Bove asked for limiting instructions to the jury about American Media Inc., the parent company of the National Enquirer, and its non-prosecution agreement, similar to Michael Cohen's.
Bove said it needs to be modified slightly and Merchan asked to submit a proposal this afternoon

---

Quote:

---

Lawyers in the courtroom now discussing evidence related to newspaper articles and business records from AMI, the National Enquirer's parent company.

As Donald Trump attorney Emil Bove is discussing the records with the judge, Trump and another one of his attorneys, Todd Blanche, are whispering to each other.

---

Quote:

---

The judge asks both sides if there's anything more they like to submit ahead of tomorrow's hearing on the gag order.
Donald Trump attorney Emil Bove said no, but prosecutor Chris Conroy asked if they could approach the bench.

---

Quote:

---

Trump's team learned David Pecker was the first witness at 3 p.m. ET on Sunday, the former president's attorney Emil Bove said.
Bove said they would've brought up the records issue sooner had they known Pecker was first up in the witness order.
Some background: Prosecutors initially refused to give Trump's team a witness lineup, saying they don't trust Trump won't post on social media or attack them publicly.
On Friday, Joshua Steinglass acquiesced and said that they'd inform Trump's team of the first witness with brief notice, so Trump wouldn't have ample time to attack the witnesses on social media.

---

Quote:

---

The court has adjourned for the day.

There will be a hearing tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. ET over whether Donald Trump violated the gag order. The jury will return at 11 a.m. ET.

---

So any thoughts on the opening statements? Seems to me the state threw a lot of extraneous crap at the jury that is not all that relevant much less material to the charges within the indictment. That means muddying the waters instead of presenting a tight case that follows the statutes cited in the indictment.

---

Kinda hard to present a "tight case" when your entire case is as flimsy as this...if they followed the statutes in their presentation, they'd probably HARM their case.

In reply to Ag with kids

Quote:

---

Kinda hard to present a "tight case" when your entire case is as flimsy as this...if they followed the statutes in their presentation, they'd probably HARM their case.

---

You know the old lawyer adage:

If the facts are not on your side pound the law, if the law is not on your side, pound the facts. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.

I'd say the state pounded that table enough today that it is what decorators called "distressed."

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Kinda hard to present a "tight case" when your entire case is as flimsy as this...if they followed the statutes in their presentation, they'd probably HARM their case.

---

You know the old lawyer adage:

If the facts are not on your side pound the law, if the law is not on your side, pound the facts. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.

I'd say the state pounded that table enough today that it is what decorators called "distressed."

---

This was exactly what I was thinking as I read your post...

Bringing in the Door Man doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Cohen paid him off despite the story being proven to be completely false and with what seems like no direct conversation with Trump.

In reply to aggiehawg

Quote:

---

So any thoughts on the opening statements? Seems to me the state threw a lot of extraneous crap at the jury that is not all that relevant much less material to the charges within the indictment. That means muddying the waters instead of presenting a tight case that follows the statutes cited in the indictment.

---

The defense didn't get off to a good start connecting the dots of their theory of their defense.

To have two objections and to be called to the bench during a relatively short opening statement doesn't set a good tone with a jury, who I think tend to quickly assign credibility to the lawyers and by extension their whole theory of the case.

Short video about the Sandoval hearing.

Any masochists out there??

NEW: NY Courts will release daily transcripts of Donald Trump's criminal trial. pic.twitter.com/Uv4COykfuF

— Frank G. Runyeon (@frankrunyeon) April 22, 2024

In reply to TXAggie2011

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

So any thoughts on the opening statements? Seems to me the state threw a lot of extraneous crap at the jury that is not all that relevant much less material to the charges within the indictment. That means muddying the waters instead of presenting a tight case that follows the statutes cited in the indictment.

---

The defense didn't get off to a good start connecting the dots of their theory of their defense.

To have two objections and to be called to the bench during a relatively short opening statement doesn't set a good tone with a jury, who I think tend to quickly assign credibility to the lawyers and by extension their whole theory of the case.

---

This would be important IF this was a fair jury. This may be the most partial jury in the history of litigation.

In reply to Gyles Marrett

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

I think it very unlikely that Trump didn't cheat on his wife and it wouldn't be that unlikely either of payoffs. But elevating Trump from a bad hubby and distasteful character into a campaign finance criminal seems pretty ridiculous and very difficult legal case to make. This trial seems like a complete waste of time. Stupid politics games.

---

and without a doubt a lot of those suffering from TDS use this as rationale in not voting for him. We have too many voting based on who they'd feel comfortable being best friends with instead of how their policies will affect their lives. So they vote for soft cuddly pedo Joe.

---

This.

In reply to Im Gipper

Im Gipper said:

---

Any masochists out there??

NEW: NY Courts will release daily transcripts of Donald Trump's criminal trial. pic.twitter.com/Uv4COykfuF

— Frank G. Runyeon (@frankrunyeon) April 22, 2024

---

Think I'l just listen to Gouveia as he has said he will be reading them on his streams as they become available.

That will be more entertaining.

legal expert Jonathan Turley said former President Donald Trump's trial in Manhattan over allegedly falsifying business records has left him "in utter disbelief."

"What is clear, is in this case, Trump is right. I mean, this is an embarrassment. I mean, the fact that we are actually talking about this case being presented in a New York courtroom, leaves me in utter disbelief. I mean, the the arguments today did in fact capture all the problems here," Turley said Monday afternoon on Fox News.

"You had this misdemeanor under state law, that had run out, this is going back to relate it to the 2016 election. And they zapped it back into life by alleging that there was a campaign finance violation under the federal laws that doesn't exist," he said.

Turley was reacting to the trial Monday, which has officially kicked off in earnest after jury selection last week, as well as a recent poll finding 31% of Americans find Trump's behavior at the crux of the case unethical, but not illegal. While an additional 14% said there was "nothing wrong" with Trump's actions, and 35% who said his actions were "illegal."

"This case should not have been brought , and if it were brought, there was no reason to have this right before the election in my view. But this is becoming the split screen election," Turley said. "Earlier it was pretty damaging to see the split screen between Trump in different courtrooms. This is even more effective when the other side of the screen shows Biden campaigning in key states like Pennsylvania, while he's held in this courtroom."

"It really brings home something that bothers a lot of Americans, including people don't particularly like Trump, that this is the weaponization of the criminal legal system. It's something we should all be able to condemn."

https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/april-22-trump-hush-money-trial-opening-statements

This case is a steaming pile of s***. Opening statements did not provide any clarification of where the state is heading in their theory of the case because they have no theory of the case. Throw it all against the wall and see if anything sticks.

Getting in the malicious prosecution territory which is not something I say lightly because I want to hear for myself if maybe I have been missing something and there is something there after all. But that opening did not answer anything for me.

In reply to TXAggie2011

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

So any thoughts on the opening statements? Seems to me the state threw a lot of extraneous crap at the jury that is not all that relevant much less material to the charges within the indictment. That means muddying the waters instead of presenting a tight case that follows the statutes cited in the indictment.

---

The defense didn't get off to a good start connecting the dots of their theory of their defense.

---

That this is what concerns you about this case is damning of you.

In reply to Phatbob

Phatbob said:

---

Amazing what we justify because it is convenient for our political views...

---

Sort of agree.

If this were a dem, I would expect the right to bleat endlessly about this and for the left to diminish what's going on, Like what is happening now, only reversed. I guess the problem is that it's the way the MSM is covering it.

Partisanship is a *****.

In reply to AggieVictor10

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Amazing what we justify because it is convenient for our political views...

---

Sort of agree.

If this were a dem, I would expect the right to bleat endlessly about this and for the left to diminish what's going on, Like what is happening now, only reversed. I guess the problem is that it's the way the MSM is covering it.

Partisanship is a *****.

---

Not true at all. Dersh is a life long Dem. Turley probably is as well. McCarthy is in the middle. But CNN's own analyst Elie Honig also thinks it is a crap case.

Weismann and McCabe do not because they have been involved in lawfare in the past.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Amazing what we justify because it is convenient for our political views...

---

Sort of agree.

If this were a dem, I would expect the right to bleat endlessly about this and for the left to diminish what's going on, Like what is happening now, only reversed. I guess the problem is that it's the way the MSM is covering it.

Partisanship is a *****.

---

Not true at all. Dersh is a life long Dem. Turley probably is as well. McCarthy is in the middle. But CNN's own analyst Elie Honig also thinks it is a crap case.

Weismann and McCabe do not because they have been involved in lawfare in the past.

---

Assuming it's the same Weismann - he should be taken out and shot for his disgusting lawfare from Arthur Anderson prosecution and treatment of Merrill Lynch. 9-0 on appeal for Arthur Anderson. They ruined a VERY well respected firm. Horrible.

In reply to GenericAggie

Quote:

---

Assuming it's the same Weismann - he should be taken out and shot for his disgusting lawfare from Arthur Anderson prosecution and treatment of Merrill Lynch. 9-0 on appeal for Arthur Anderson. They ruined a VERY well respected firm. Horrible.

---

It is.

Ummmmm…

JURY TAMPERING: The star witness in the Trump trial just made a veiled threat to jurors that if they sit on the jury tomorrow their identity will become public and their lives destroyed. @DonaldJTrumpJr pic.twitter.com/cT4PkNBTIa

— @amuse (@amuse) April 22, 2024

In reply to AggieVictor10 Lawfare is a tool of the left. As is the media.

Only one side is trying to eradicate the other. Your moral equivocation exposes you.

In reply to TXAggie2011

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

So any thoughts on the opening statements? Seems to me the state threw a lot of extraneous crap at the jury that is not all that relevant much less material to the charges within the indictment. That means muddying the waters instead of presenting a tight case that follows the statutes cited in the indictment.

---

The defense didn't get off to a good start connecting the dots of their theory of their defense.

To have two objections and to be called to the bench during a relatively short opening statement doesn't set a good tone with a jury, who I think tend to quickly assign credibility to the lawyers and by extension their whole theory of the case.

---

Until this post, I've thought of you as a liberal, but fair attorney...

It appears my opinion was incorrect...

Mornin' all. Gag order hearing is the first matter of business this morning at 9:30 Eastern. Jury was instructed to arrive at 11:00 AM to continue with the evidentiary portion of the trial. National Enquirer's former chief, David Pecker, is still on the stand under direct examination by the state.

CNN live blog link is HERE

Again, this is CNN's take.

Quote:

---

The judge overseeing Donald Trump's first criminal trial will consider this morning whether the former president should be fined for repeatedly violating the gag order barring Trump from publicly discussing witnesses or jurors in the criminal hush money case.

Here's what to know about the gag order imposed on Trump by Judge Juan Merchan in late March:

Why was it imposed? Merchan implemented the gag order because, he said, the former president has a history of making "threatening, inflammatory, denigrating" statements against people at all levels of the justice system, including jurors. According to CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig, the fundamental reason for the gag order is to protect members of the jury.

What does it do? The ruling limits the former president from making statements about potential witnesses in his hush money criminal trial. It prevents Trump from criticizing his former attorney, Michael Cohen, or adult film star Stormy Daniels, who will be witnesses at trial. But it does not prevent Trump from talking about New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who is a public figure, or Merchan himself.

Merchan also ruled that Trump can't make statements about attorneys, court staff or the family members of prosecutors, lawyers, family members of the court and family members of the Manhattan district attorney. Trump is also barred from making statements about any potential or actual juror.

What does Trump say? Trump and his attorneys have argued that as the leading Republican candidate for president, Trump's speech should not be restricted as he appeals to voters in the 2024 election. When Merchan expanded the original order to include family members of the court in early April, Trump's lawyers indicated they would appeal it, arguing it went too far.

---

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump was chatting with his lawyer Emil Bove before Judge Juan Merchan entered.
"Good morning, Mr. Trump," Merchan said.
Remember: The jury is not in the room for the gag order hearing; they have been instructed to arrive to court today at 11 a.m. ET.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked to approach the bench and now all the lawyers have left the courtroom to sidebar.
Donald Trump is seated alone at the defense table.
Trump's aide came up to offer him a bottle of Fiji water, which he declined. He is looking straight ahead as the lawyers are with the judge.

---

Quote:

---

The attorneys have re-entered the courtroom after side-barring with Judge Juan Merchan.

---

Jury is not there, why did they leave the courtroom? Doesn't make sense to me.

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Chris Conroy is at the podium and is handing the 10 alleged violations of the gag order to Judge Juan Merchan and Trump's attorneys.
He said there are other papers he may reference in the bundle.
"The purpose of this hearing find out if the defendant, Mr. Trump, should be held in contempt" for one or all of these violations, Merchan said.

---

Quote:

---

"Judge, each of the 10 posts that I just handed the court" violate the gag order, prosecutor Chris Conroy said.
Each of Trump's posts "pose a very real threat" to the proceedings, he added.
Conroy said that the posts intimidate "both the defendant's direct targets" and others who may be called to testify.

---

These leftist fascists consider "the jury is biased, the judge's daughter works for Kamala" as "attacks" and violations of the gag order. If nothing else, this court will steal some more of Trump's money, just like the Carrol and James case did.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is now hearing arguments on whether Donald Trump should be held in contempt of court for allegedly violating the gag order on the case at least 10 times in the days before and after the trial began. Prosecutors are seeking the punishment for Trump to be $1,000 per allegation.
Merchan has said in prior court orders he will be looking at possible instances of violations where Trump was primarily sharing commentary about expected trial witness Michael Cohen who called him a "serial perjurer."
Those instances are:

• Truth Social post, April 10, 10:07 a.m.
• Truth Social post, April 10, 10:48 a.m.
• Truth Social post, April 13, 12:56 p.m.
• Truth Social post, April 15, 9:12 a.m.
• Truth Social post, April 15, 10:26 a.m.
• Campaign website post, April 15
• Truth Social post, April 16, 1:50 p.m.
• Truth Social post, April 16, 7:09 p.m.
• Campaign website post, April 16
• Truth Social post, April 17, 5:46 p.m.

It's not yet known if Merchan will also want to discuss Trump's comments on Tuesday after court, in which he appeared to double down with on-camera comments in a courthouse hallway criticizing Cohen, his former personal attorney.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Chris Conroy told Judge Juan Merchan that "going after Michael Cohen is a recurring theme in these posts."
Conroy noted Trump's post of a story calling Cohen a "serial perjurer."
"Clearly a reference to Michael Cohen, clearly a reference to this proceeding," he said
More context: Trump has continued to feud with Cohen, his former attorney and a key witness for the prosecution in the case, and complained that Cohen has been posting about him and he's not allowed to respond. Trump nevertheless went after Cohen in remarks on camera after leaving court on Monday.

---

Cohen's livelihood revolves around trashing Trump as that has now beceome a cottage industry these last few years. To steal a line from Steel Magnolias, "If you have something bad to say about Trump, come sit by me."

The thing about Cohen is he is easily excitable, foul mouthed and routinely makes amorphous threats against reporters who ask questions that he doesn't like. Heard a few of those taped phone calls on a Good Lawgic stream yesterday. Cohen sounds very angry almost unhinged in most of those conversations.

Quote:

---

Trump has also referenced former Manhattan prosecutor Mark Pomerantz, according to prosecutor Chris Conroy.
Conroy said Trump has also tried to make Pomerantz "somehow at issue in this case."

---

Pomerantz very publicly quit when Bragg declined to bring this case against Trump when Bragg was first elected and replaced Cy Vance, who also declined to bring this case before him.

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Chris Conroy now mentions Donald Trump's Truth Social post about jurors in which he quoted Fox News' Jesse Waters calling them "undercover Liberal Activists lying to the Judge."

Quote:

---

"This is a very troubling post," Conroy says.
"I think the link to the jurors in this case in this proceedings is very clearly a violation of the order," he adds.

---

Conroy says the day after the post, a juror was excused after saying she was no longer comfortable serving on the jury. "What happened here is precisely what this order was designed to prevent, and this defendant doesn't care," Conroy said.

"It came from a segment specifically discussing juror profiles in this case," Conroy said. "To me, that shows very clear deliberation and willfulness in making the post."

---

And indeed a few jurors had tried to conceal some political issues from their past advocacy for Democratic agendas. Not earth shattering given that it is Manhattan where nearly everyone is a yellow dog Dem

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Chris Conroy told the judge that the appellate department denied Donald Trump's attempt to fight the gag order before the trial began.
"There is no provision in this order for responding to attacks," Conroy said.
Conroy said that Trump's lawyers are trying to "muddy the waters" by arguing he can respond to attacks.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Chris Conroy said his team is not seeking an "incarcerary penalty."

"We are asking the court to impose the max $1,000 fine for each of the 10 violations," Conroy said.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Chris Conroy says his team is asking the court to order Donald Trump to remove the 10 offending posts eight from his social media and two from his campaign website.
Conroy says the court should "remind him that incarceration is an option should it be necessary."

---

Quote:

---

Trump attorney Todd Blanche is now speaking for Donald Trump.

"President Trump does in fact know what the gag order allows him to do and not allow him to do," Blanche said, adding, "there was absolutely no willful violation of the gag order."

---

Its ridiculous to gag Trump when Cohen is free to say anything he damn well pleases while the trial is ongoing. But this whole charade of a trial is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Donald Trump attorney Todd Blanche said posts the former president made involving Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen "were in direct response" to statements those two made and not about the trial.

Blanche added that Cohen directly responded to one of Trump's posts "politically." It was not about the case or his testimony, Blanche said.

---

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Donald Trump attorney Todd Blanche said posts the former president made involving Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen "were in direct response" to statements those two made and not about the trial.

Blanche added that Cohen directly responded to one of Trump's posts "politically." It was not about the case or his testimony, Blanche said.

---

---

LOL

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is now hearing arguments on whether Donald Trump should be held in contempt of court for allegedly violating the gag order on the case at least 10 times in the days before and after the trial began. Prosecutors are seeking the punishment for Trump to be $1,000 per allegation.
Merchan has said in prior court orders he will be looking at possible instances of violations where Trump was primarily sharing commentary about expected trial witness Michael Cohen who called him a "serial perjurer."
Those instances are:

• Truth Social post, April 10, 10:07 a.m.
• Truth Social post, April 10, 10:48 a.m.
• Truth Social post, April 13, 12:56 p.m.
• Truth Social post, April 15, 9:12 a.m.
• Truth Social post, April 15, 10:26 a.m.
• Campaign website post, April 15
• Truth Social post, April 16, 1:50 p.m.
• Truth Social post, April 16, 7:09 p.m.
• Campaign website post, April 16
• Truth Social post, April 17, 5:46 p.m.

It's not yet known if Merchan will also want to discuss Trump's comments on Tuesday after court, in which he appeared to double down with on-camera comments in a courthouse hallway criticizing Cohen, his former personal attorney.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Chris Conroy told Judge Juan Merchan that "going after Michael Cohen is a recurring theme in these posts."
Conroy noted Trump's post of a story calling Cohen a "serial perjurer."
"Clearly a reference to Michael Cohen, clearly a reference to this proceeding," he said
More context: Trump has continued to feud with Cohen, his former attorney and a key witness for the prosecution in the case, and complained that Cohen has been posting about him and he's not allowed to respond. Trump nevertheless went after Cohen in remarks on camera after leaving court on Monday.

---

Cohen's livelihood revolves around trashing Trump as that has now beceome a cottage industry these last few years. To steal a line from Steel Magnolias, "If you have something bad to say about Trump, come sit by me."

The thing about Cohen is he is easily excitable, foul mouthed and routinely makes amorphous threats against reporters who ask questions that he doesn't like. Heard a few of those taped phone calls on a Good Lawgic stream yesterday. Cohen sounds very angry almost unhinged in most of those conversations.

---

Is truth not an absolute defense? Michael Cohen is indeed a convicted serial perjurer.

Quote:

---

Defense lawyer Todd Blanche tells the judge that two things about a Trump post referencing Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen make it political, pointing to a reference to being pardoned and how Daniels and Cohen are making money posting about the former president and their strong dislike of him.
Judge Juan Merchan steers Blanche back on track asking him to refer directly to the posts at issue rather than inferring the general meaning of public comments from Cohen and Daniels.
"So the pardon is what makes it political?" Merchan asks Blanche.
"Of course," Blanche responds.

Quote:

---

"When your client is violating a gag order, I expect more than one word," Merchan said in response to Blanche's argument that a reference to pardons is political in nature

---

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan pressed defense attorney Todd Blanche on specifics about Michael Cohen attacking Donald Trump politically.
"There's no specific post that you're referring to?" he asks Blanche.
Blanche said he's generally referring to repeated attacks from Cohen and Stormy Daniels, who he said "have ramped up their political attacks and their attacks on him as a candidate as well" in the weeks leading up to the trial.

---

Not very persuasive argument to me. I'd be going back to the fundamental unfairness of allowing people on the witness list to publicly discuss their upcoming testimony. Stormy had a mockumentary fimed and released just days before the original start date of the this trial.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan again pushes Donald Trump attorney Todd Blanche to zero in on what specific attack from Michael Cohen or Stormy Daniels prompted the former president's posts on social media.

"There must've been a very recent attack to cause him to pull out a document that is six years old and is going to be used at trial," he told the court.

---

Six years old. you say?

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan just raised his voice while talking to Donald Trump attorney Todd Blanche.
"I'm asking the questions. I'm going to be the one who decides whether your client is in contempt," he said.
"I keep asking you over and over again for a specific answer, and I'm not getting an answer," Merchan said to Blanche.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan wants Todd Blanche to explain Donald Trump's post about former Manhattan prosecutor Mark Pomerantz.
Merchan asks why Trump had to discuss someone who's on the witness list.
Blanche says Pomerantz is not a witness expected to testify at trial.

---

Okay, this is getting weird. Pormerantz was a prosecutor on Bragg's team. Why would he ever be witness on a case that he was prosecuting, no matter how briefly?