if this is accurate, this is a problem for trump. When the prosecutor objects to you telling the jury it is not wrong to try to influence an election, and the judge sustain the objection, it is perceived by the jury as nothing less than Trump’s lawyer lied to me and the judge corrected him.
I have always told every witness in every trial or deposition I’ve been in that as we start the proceedings, there is a bucket of credibility filled to the brim that goes with them. when they are found to be lying, the bucket gets kicked over. And usually all of the credibility spills out on the floor. If the jury thinks you are lying, they normally do not care if you are lying 20% of the time or 60% of the time, they know you were lying.
I’m not talking about normal memory impaired things like the exact time or day exact words, but I’m talking about lying about important things. You normally either have credibility or you don’t. there is very likely a pattern jury instruction telling the jury that if they find a witness non-credible, they can disregard everything that person says in their testimony. Not 20%, not 40%, but all of their testimony.
That seems like a rookie mistake, or something they had to say to please the boss it may be the best thing we have going for us is Trump will direct parts of the trial.