'Are you missing my point?' Trump lawyer 'tests the judge's patience' at end of hearing
Donald Trump's attorneys keep getting on the bad side of the New York judge presiding over former president's criminal hush money trial.
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan nearly browbeat Trump's attorney Emil Bove over what prosecutors alleged was a "totally improper line of questioning" regarding the cross-examination of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker.
Bove had been pricking Pecker, the 72-year-old who used to lord over The National Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc. (AMI), over his recollection of a 2015 Trump Tower meeting.
ALSO READ: 16 worthless things Trump will give you for your money
It was this pivotal huddle up in Trump Tower where Pecker suggests was the moment that the tabloid became Trump presidential campaign’s “eyes and ears” to ferret out stories that could hinder his standing and pump out negative ones that would hinder rival candidates like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) among others.
"Mr. Bove, are you missing my point?” the frustrated judge said. “Because I don’t think you’re responding to what I’m saying,” according to a post by former federal prosecutor Harry Litman. "You gave the impression there was something in the document when there wasn't. So please be more careful."
Bove appeared to try and catch Pecker misremembering key details about a purported Trump meeting.
Others saw Merchan's seemingly losing patience once again as substantial.
Litman noticed how Bove's verbal warning wasn't as harsh as colleague Todd Blanche's (when Merchan scolded him for "losing all credibility).
"Not as bad as 'you're losing all credibility,' but not great," he wrote in his post.
"Emil Bove tests the judge's patience," Just Security fellow Adam Klasfeld tweeted.
That prompted Don Keyhoty to reply: "Trump lawyers pounding the table, not the facts in the case."
"Judge hears argument," writes legal analyst Terry Austin. "Prosecution said question was improper impeachment on prior inconsistent statement because defense gave document with no reference."