Donald Trump’s Lawyers ‘Surprised’ Judge Merchan During Trial

Judge Juan Merchan was “surprised” that former President Donald Trump’s lawyers didn’t do more to halt adult film actress Stormy Daniels’ damning testimony in the criminal trial.

Daniels, who claimed to have received a $130,000 hush money payment from former Trump fixer Michael Cohen, revealed intimate details about her sexual encounter with Trump that upset the defense.

Trump is facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in connection to the payment made to Daniels. He has pleaded not guilty and denied her allegations.

The defense took particular issue with the fact that she said they did not use a condom, that there was a bodyguard outside the room, that there was “an imbalance of power” between the two and that she “blacked out” even though it was consensual sex. Blanche also complained that she discussed future encounters with Trump that did not result in alleged sex.

After the lunch break, Trump attorney Todd Blanche announced the defense was filing a motion for mistrial based on Daniels’s testimony, arguing that it was “the kind of testimony that makes it impossible to come back from.” Merchan agreed with Blanche that “some things were better left unsaid,” but noted that Daniels was “a little difficult to control” and ultimately denied the motion.

The judge then went further and told the defense he was “surprised there weren’t more objections” from their side of the courtroom. He noted that even he stepped in to call his own objection at one point.

“When you say the bell has been rung, the defense has to take some responsibility for that,” Merchan said.

During the defense’s arguments, Blanche told Merchan, “We objected the best that we could” and noted the judge had helped cut Daniels off “several times,” but that “We believe, regrettably, there should be a mistrial.” The attorney added that if there was a mistrial and a new trial declared, Daniels’ testimony should be excluded entirely, or at least limited.

But Merchan disagreed and told Blanche that the “remedy” for the defense would be “on cross-examination.”

Susan Necheles, another defense attorney representing Trump, tried to push back, arguing that the defense had taken issue with Daniels as a witness before, but that the judge had allowed her testimony to come into the record as evidence.

Merchan quickly shut her down, telling Necheles, “That’s not accurate. If you’re going to say something like that, be accurate.”

Trump’s lawyer argued that these points had “nothing to do with the case” and that they were “extraordinarily prejudicial.” He also accused the prosecution of asking the questions to embarrass Trump and “inflame the jury.”

Assistant District Attorney Susan Hoffinger, however, argued that Daniels’s account was “not new,” and that the prosecution did not elicit new details that the witness had since remembered.

“We were extremely mindful in not eliciting too much,” she said.

She then argued that Daniels’ testimony directly addressed the witness’ credibility, which the defense has attacked, and that “At the end of the day, this is what the defendant was trying to hide in terms of the payoff.”

“This is an exhibit if you will,” Hoffinger said of Daniels’ testimony.