"Come up to the bench." The phrase has been a frequent refrain from U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia, as she's presided over the presentation of evidence and questioning of witnesses in Roger Stone's trial for four days.

Federal prosecutors have objected time and again to questions from Stone's defense attorney. Stone's lawyers have objected to the prosecution's questions as well, but less frequently. Hints can be gleaned from the private conferences about what lawyers want to ask but can't bring up, and the kinds of information attorneys on either side aren't eager to have publicly discussed in front of the jury.

Stone's attorneys have tried, largely unsuccessfully, to block questions that could reveal the Trump campaign's reactions to updates on WikiLeaks, and even Trump's own contacts with Stone about upcoming email dumps from the group.

On the other hand, prosecutors have been able to block several of Stone's lawyers' questions, particularly about the character of the witnesses testifying in the trial, which could undermine their credibility to the jury. Those government witnesses have been explaining and contextualizing the plethora of documents entered as evidence in the trial.

Stone's lawyers called no witnesses in defense of their client as testimony came to a close Tuesday. Closings are scheduled for Wednesday afternoon.

Some objections are more memorable than others, like when the Department of Justice protested a question apparently about Jerome Corsi, who Stone is alleged to have contacted in 2016 while seeking information about WikiLeaks.

During a cross-examination Nov. 7 of Michelle Taylor, the FBI case agent for Stone's case, Stone attorney Bruce Rogow began to ask if Taylor knew that Corsi "wrote a book that said 'Hitler didn't….'"

The jury didn't get to learn what Corsi claims Hitler didn't do, since the DOJ objected and Jackson sustained. Rogow subsequently moved on to another line of questioning.

Rulings on other objections seem to be more consequential, even if not in the course of the trial itself.

Stone's team upped their objections during prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky's questioning of former Trump campaign deputy manager Rick Gates. They protested questions about the reactions from Trump campaign staffers about WikiLeaks announcements or release of information.

Zelinsky then tailored his questions to ask Gates about more general reactions from the campaign in response to WikiLeaks.

But Stone's lawyers, again, objected when Zelinsky asked Gates to recount what Trump told him after a phone call Trump had with Stone in late July 2016. It appears they failed on that objection, as Zelinsky was then able to ask the question.

And it elicited one of the more damning pieces of information as to whether Trump was in touch with Stone about forthcoming information from WikiLeaks.

"He indicated that more information would be coming," Gates said of Trump's remarks, referring to emails apparently obtained by WikiLeaks.

That testimony stands in contrast to Trump's written answers to special counsel Robert Mueller, in which the president said he did not recall ever discussing WikiLeaks with Stone. Trump also said he didn't recall the specifics of any conversation he had with Stone from June 2016 to November 2016.

Prosecutors have objected at other times during the trial, like when they protested Rogow's question about whether Gates had committed "other crimes" beyond charges brought against him by the government.

Gates, a longtime associate of former Trump campaign head Paul Manafort, has agreed to cooperate with the government as part of a plea deal on fraud-related charges. Other charges filed in the Eastern District of Virginia were dropped in exchange.

After Rogow asked about the outcomes of other trials where Gates has also been a government witness, prosecutors objected again. Jackson called them back to the bench, and Rogow dropped the question.

Jackson has told the jury that the objections don't mean anyone has done anything wrong. Rather, she said, it's normal in court proceedings and that each party deserves to have their arguments heard and ruled on by the court.

But Jackson issued a warning before Stone's trial even began, seemingly aimed at Stone's lawyers. She said at a final pretrial conference last week, the day before jury selection began, that if lawyers got off track, she would "politely" call them up to the bench.

But if attorneys got off topic too often, Jackson made it clear that the politeness could drop and that she may admonish the lawyers in front of the court, including the jury. The judge has not yet resorted to that option during the trial, instead sticking to private bench conferences.

Some of those bench conferences seem to center around clarifying lines of questioning.

For example, Rogow on Nov. 8 asked trial witness Margaret Ratner Kunstler whether she was upset by the "use of her name" in an email she received in 2016 from her friend, Stone associate and fellow trial witness Randy Credico. Credico was asking Kunstler, who has ties to WikiLeaks, to try and figure out if WikiLeaks had certain emails from Hillary Clinton or the State Department in its possession, a request that came from Stone.

But there seemed to be confusion about the question, as Stone was blind copied on the email, meaning Kunstler couldn't see Stone's email address when she received the message. But Rogow didn't seem to fully grasp that concept until Jackson called the parties up to the bench for another private conference.

"You wouldn't have seen the blind copy, would you?" Rogow then asked.

Kunstler replied that she learned Stone was included on the message when an assistant U.S. attorney showed her a copy of the email.

Read more: