It goes to her credibility before the Court not the issues in the divorce. It is sort of the undergirding of her evidence since so much depends on the Judge’s impression of the litigants veracity. Here, she jeopardized that in a foolish stunt. She reminds me of the witnesses in major criminal cases who sell their story before or during the trial. It never bolsters their credibility–just the opposite. For an example of another foolish stunt impugning a client’s veracity see Clements, Roger-”Press Conference Denouncing Government Witness.”

The court did seem persuaded by the video against Trish.
Is the video really supposed to be taken into account when deciding this case? Does it bear on the law?

Not serious now–perhaps Trish needs to make a new video about the judge!