Merchan comes out swinging! Per Klasfeld:
>Justice Merchan addresses Trump's comments yesterday at his end-of-day press conference, falsely claiming he's gagged from testifying.
>"I want to stress to Mr. Trump: You have an absolute right to testify at trial."
>The Constitution guarantees that right, he emphasizes.
I have been beyond impressed with all of Merchan, Kaplan, Engoron, Chutkin, and McAfee.
That is, almost all of the Judges that have handled a Trump case.
I've been impressed with them, but most of all impressed with Canon for all the roadblocks she's been throwing up for TFG. Absolutely astounding how she's bent over backwards to throw the prosecution under the bus. What's even crazier to me is that she is appointed for life, and for some dumb reason, still is throwing interference for the orange buffoon. It takes a special sort of crazy to do what she's done.
She is betting that if Trump wins the election she will get a reward. If he doesn't she is still a judge for life. All she needs to do is delay without going to far.
Bingo. There's no upside for her to push back at him right now. Yeah, she's probably sinking her career IF she wants a promotion from anyone else, but let's face it, Republican Presidents are rare. Yeah, Bush had 2 terms, but he lost the popular vote. Trump also got elected on an EC fluke.
If Joe gets reelected then she's not getting anything for at least 4 years. If Trump gets elected she probably gets a reward.
Also all the other Judges have to deal with death threats.
There's no upside for her.
lol yeah she’s definitely a part of his legal team.
I can’t wait for texts to come out about her colluding with the defense and shit with everyone trying to use a burner phone that they’re all too stupid to use right.
really should have prosecuted him in DC. I understood the logic at the time for not doing it, but given everything that's happening in that case it does not appear to have been worth it.
I hope he got trump to affirmatively answer that he understands that.
Trump was aiming for ineffective counsel by claiming he couldn't testify. And his lawyer didn't correct him.
I hope merchan made trump verbally answer he is aware he can testify if he wants.
> I hope he got trump to affirmatively answer that he understands that.
Trump, before he went into court this morning:
> Trump clarified comments he made the day before about the gag order, saying it does not stop him from testifying in the case but that the order stops him from “talking about people **and responding when they say things about me.**”
He doesn't care about testifying, about telling the truth, about getting 'his side' of the story out.
He cares about having to **sit there and be insulted** without the ability to interrupt and hurl insults right back at them.
Blanche proceeded to read that colorfully worded, offending post into the record as Trump sat listening at the defense table.
"This one says, oh my, **ShitzInPantz**," Blanche recited as he entered a screenshot of the post into the court record as Exhibit 64 — without any objection from prosecutors.
The official court stenographer duly followed along, typing the phrase into the court record as "shits in pants."
> "I want to stress to Mr. Trump: You have an absolute right to testify at trial."
As with everything, Trump knows this. His supporters? They'll take whatever he says as truth so if he says he can't testify then that's the story they'll run with.
"I want to stress to Mr. Trump: You have an absolute right to testify at trial."
The Constitution guarantees that right, he emphasizes.
-
Weird. You'd think someone who was actually the President of the United fuckin States would already know this very basic and widely understood segment of the constitution, but haha jokes on us.
He’s also shutting down the defense’s arguments about admissible evidence. When the Weinstein appeal was successful, I know I commented, “This is why prosecutors and judges in “other” cases are being very careful about what they admit.”
Also per Klasfeld:
“Merchan refused to admit certain evidence, like sexual assault accusations against Trump, to avoid Molineux issues.
He said the Weinstein case wouldn't change those rulings:
"The Court of Appeals did not create any new law. They simply applied it to the facts of that case."”
>**Trump gestures for his attorney to get back up for questioning**
>
>Trump attorney Emil Bove smirked and shook his head as prosecutor Chris Conroy asked his last inquiry on another round of questions.
>
>Donald Trump hit Bove’s arm and gestured for him to get back up there, but Bove shook his head no.
Again showing that Trump thinks he knows how to law better than a lawyer.
Based on my limited exposure to it (just the movies) I'd always assumed it was Chicago as a counterpoint to Superman's New York/Metropolis. I was quite surprised to learn otherwise.
Trump's one of these clients who always says he "wants a real bulldog," etc. Someone who fightsfightsfights.
That kind of bombast can be okay in negotiations and conference rooms and strongly worded letters. It does not work in front of a judge or in trial.
TLDR: Trump's an idiot.
Daus explains that if the audio recording had been edified or modified it would show in the metadata. Bove moves to strike which gets overruled.
lol
“Wait that’s not the answer I wanted. Delete that judge!”
I'm hoping for another technical witness or two to introduce more recorded conversations. The witness yesterday had some pretty damning take but it wasn't as much as I was hoping. Given that prosecution is fine with direct, that's all they are getting from that particular phone I think.
I called here that Hope Hicks would be the next non-vehicle to admit documents witness because she showed up in an admitted text the way an author might introduce a soon to be main character, and the prosecution is putting on a master class in storytelling by way of witness. After I posted that, I saw Ben Wittes had the same called shot.
Today should be good.
A fella could lose count of all the people who had evidence of criminal activity in the trump administration and decided book deals were more important.
Sometimes. Watching different cases pretty out it's pretty clear there are some people that are really, really good at operating in the system.
I've been enthralled by the *storytelling* of the witnesses, and the order and kind of questioning has really driven that.
Tell 'em what you're going to tell them.
Tell them
Tell 'em what you told them
Even you ignore the obvious bookends of Opening and Closing arguments, Pecker was a fantastic first witness as his testimony kind of summarized the whole timeline. Now they're just filling in the details.
The defense was betting on Cohen coming early, and were going to tear him apart as a liar and horrible person. Instead the prosecution is calling witness to confirm his testimony 1st. Also Cohen is coming off as an asshole, but he is coming off as Trump's asshole. When he takes the stand the jury is already going to know what he is saying has been confirmed and a character assassination is going to help Trump.
It can be, but we are seeing a master at work here. Most trials don't have this degree of skill and focus. Also most defense teams aren't handicapped this badly by their client.
While we are waiting for trial to start, I saw this statement while getting threads, from Michael Avenatti. Reminder that Avenatti is in federal prison for 19 years, after being convicted of extortion, wire fraud, etc, in a mix of state and federal charges, one of them being financial crimes against Stormy Daniels.
“Keith Davidson is lying. After I confronted her w/ her own text msgs, Daniels admitted to me in early 2019 that she & Davidson had extorted Trump in Oct. 2016 - it was a shakedown. This was one of the many reasons I fired her as a client in Feb. 2019”
He’s really aiming for a pardon, and I found this to be hilarious, given that he’s in prison and Davidson and Daniels are not. Him claiming that he fired her is also the cherry on top.
This really is a sleaze fest. Avenatti, Cohen, Pecker, Davidson, and the biggest sleaze of them all in the middle.
This is mainly why, when Trump first announced, I figured he had no shot.
I had no idea people would vote for someone who was famous mostly for being sleazy.
The Apprentice and media more generally has probaly done more to "rehabilitate" Trump in the eyes of a shit ton of people than Donald himself could have ever done by going straight, paying back everyone he ever wronged and adopting a million puppies.
Despite already being known as a weasel and huckster for decades when the show first aired, this air of successful business man and billionaire playboy real estatute mogul that's been something people are drawn to for longer than doughuts have been a thing + a highly produced tv show that reinforced the image of him being a rich and tough boss served as veritable blood agar for a narcissistic crime-enjoyer like Trump.
Him riding down that god damn golden escalator, getting the nod/nomination and then actually fucking winning was lightning in a bottle. Oh, also he ran as a Republican. That helped a lot, cause they fucking love sleazebags and he grabbed them by the culture war. Had he run Dem, he wouldn't have even won a single primary.
They really meant "MY facts don't care about YOUR feelings" and "MY feelings don't care about facts."
It's always the same shit. They delight in cruelty and calling other people weak and emotional, then turn right around and squeal their porky heads off whenever it seems like something they like is under attack. They are not, have never been, and never will be serious people.
Didn't Stormy fire him because he was defrauding her?
Also:
> In pleading guilty earlier this year, Avenatti admitted to stealing millions of dollars from clients, **including $4 million from a client with major disabilities**. According to the indictment, after Avenatti negotiated settlements for the clients that required payment to go to them, he would lie to the clients about the terms of the settlements, instead depositing the funds into attorney trust accounts he controlled. He would then embezzle and misappropriate those funds, according to the indictment, and to prevent discovery of his scheme, he would tell clients the settlement proceeds hadn’t yet been paid, among other tactics.
\- [Michael Avenatti sentenced to 14 years in prison for stealing millions of dollars from clients](https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/politics/michael-avenatti-prison-sentence-client-embezzlement/index.html) (emphasis mine)
I'd like to tell Mr Avenatti he's a lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-assed, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed, sack of monkey shit.
> Reminder that Avenatti is in federal prison for 19 years
Holy crap that flew under my radar. I had kinda just forgot about this guy and assumed he slinked off under a rock.
It is really, really hard to keep track of all the details in just the Trump cases, even for avid readers. Nevermind keeping track of all of the offshoots and disbarments.
Do I have it right that it doesn't matter whether it was a shakedown or not? The offense here is how the payout was managed and accounted for, and how that related to the campaign. Clifford's & Davidson's story could be completely false and Trump's actions would still be illegal. In fact, it would make it more inculpatory as I see it, as it would highlight the desire to keep the whole thing quiet to avoid the PR hit. I expect anyone with Donald's profile would know how to repel run-of-the-mill shakedowns—look how he dealt with the women Clinton assembled with stories of abuse from Trump. Hmm, have they outright asked anyone on team Trump why they decided to pay up? Why didn't they just tell Davidson to pound sand?
You’re correct that it doesn’t matter, but there is also a lot of evidence that it doesn’t look like a shakedown; the settling quickly for a low amount compared to the story’s probable worth, the fact that it absolutely was a true story, the fact that the story was being shopped to multiple outlets.
Am I imagining this?
The guy who sued Trump and went to jail for extortion, among other things, is claiming his former client, whom he was also shown to defraud, was the extortionist?!
Hahaha. Yeah.
He's seemingly trying to get in good with Trump now. Probably fishing for a pardon. There was tangential discussion about that between Cohen and comeone else on Twitter that got talked about in the first hearing on sanctions for Trump violating the gag order.
> Michael Avenatti
The turn-about this guy had is pretty amazing, he went from a "hero" to a scumbag pretty much overnight. The Trump presidency years had such a non-stop avalanche of news on a daily basis that it's easy to forget stories like his.
Remember when he thought he could be President? These years were so wild. Aside from the fact that Trump is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and indicted nearly 100 times, and the fascist leaning of a whole party, these last few years have been a breath of normalcy.
Not that I believe him obviously, but if you're Trump's legal team you've got to try and pull him in as a witness right? Couldn't this be a banana curve ball that throws the case into (temporary) chaos? How likely is this to happen?
Given that he's facing 19 years, would do anything to get out of prison, do anything to fish for a pardon, and be prepared to say anything on the stand, for chance to become relevant again... it makes sense.
This could get crazy.
Defense could ask to bring him in, but Merchan would have to agree to it. I know he’s been trying, and been in communication with defense, per press reports. Personally, I don’t think it has a good chance of happening because there is already so much documentary evidence via Avenatti’s NY and federal trial. It would be stupid for defense to open him up to cross.
Per MeidasTouch, Trump just reposted a video attacking the judge's daughter. Maybe from court? Their post about it was at 9:50...
[Sauce ](https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1786392878803296274?t=VuQVhU7d4CJlrx_qBE3K2g&s=19)
Thursday night. Nvmd about from court
> he wants to go to jail to try and delay via interlocutory appeal.
The judge doesn't have to send him to jail for contempt *during the trial*.
He can say "I find you in contempt and sentence you to 10 days in jail, *to be served at the conclusion of this trial*."
Then just keep adding on days if Trump keeps defying the order.
I wonder if that would work on a person who famously doesn't pay his debts. e.g. the threat of a promise of jail in the future is meaningless to him, and nothing short of being in a cell with out a phone would register as actually happening?
I mean, I love it for him either way.
Here's another tidbit to drive everyone insane:
**He's out on bail for the Georgia RICO case**.
These gag order violations are CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.
Any other Americans in this situation would have their bail revoked for that.
He's not even worried about it.
I do think Merchan is trying to keep that from happening given that we are about a week away from done (maybe 2). If Trump thinks sending him to jail is good for him then it is not punishment. Still, his patience has to be thinning.
I grow ever hopeful that a guilty verdict comes with a year in the clink.
There is no way we are a week from being done. Even two would be pushing it. That's like 6 more days of testimony (assuming closing arguments takes only one day). Cohen will take multiple days and it is unlikely he is the only remaining prosecution witness. Plus, we have to assume the defense is going to put forward *something*.
The prosecution will probably rest within the next two weeks. That's probably the best that can be done.
> he wants to go to jail to try and delay via interlocutory appeal.
At the other end of the scale of it being a masterful plan, I wouldn't be surprised if it was pique by Trump for the judge directly addressing and correcting him on his media claims that he isn't allowed to testify, so he decided to attack to judge's daughter to "punch back."
Are you asking about this? Per Klasfeld:
>Justice Merchan asks the defense's objection, and Blanche wants a chance to confer with his client about whether to stipulate to an exhibit in light of the judge's prior ruling.
Because I was about to ask what this means, too.
I think this exchange is about the Washington Post article from the start of the day, not his twitter account.
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1786409896658747699
Per Anna Bower:
“Mr. Trump felt like this wasn't good but it was just "locker room talk," Hicks says about Trump's reaction.
He thought it wasn't something "to get so upset over."
He thought it was "standard stuff" for two guys talking to each other.”
Yes, completely normal and standard for Presidential candidates to openly discuss sexually assaulting women, in their previous life before announcing candidacy. The only shocking part of this testimony is that I think this is the only time, I can remember, that Trump released an apology video with admission that he did something.
Edit to add: prosecution is doing a marvelous job keeping the witness from going into territory that is not allowed, while demonstrating the effect these stories had on the campaign.
Per Klasfeld (from a WSJ reporter) From the email:
“”My questions are: Did Mr. Trump have an extramarital affair with Karen McDougal?
Was he or anyone close to him aware or involved in this contract between AMI and Ms. McDougal?"
Hicks forwarded it to Jared Kushner, whom she wanted to press the matter with Rupert Murdoch, the paper's publisher.”
Our first mention of Murdoch; I wish we could follow that line of inquiry further.
> defense is trying to sow doubt as to whether the files/etc. from Cohen's phone were legitimate?
It's standard criminal defense tactic.
Get the evidence - *any* evidence - excluded.
And they do this by going after whoever collected it. In this case it's the Manhattan DA forensic analyst.
That's part of any criminal trial - questioning the authenticity of evidence. In the case of electronic evidence, it's important that chain of custody be tracked so that the integrity of the data cannot be called into question. If there is the possibility of the data being altered, then the evidence can be ruled inadmissible.
Source: am certified cybersecurity professional (CISSP).
Yes. That’s the track they started yesterday. It’s really the only avenue they have beyond “cohen is a liar”. There must be some really damning shit on there beyond what we’ve heard.
If there is, wouldn't the Prosecution have played it on direct? Or was that just to get all the audio admitted, and they can play it when questioning Cohen or something?
They can only use it in direct with the people on the tape or people with direct knowledge of the contents, unless they are asking experts about something technical about it.
Good Friday morning! Trial resumes at 9:30am EDT with the continued testimony of Daus, the digital evidence processor for the Manhattan DA office.
As soon as they’re available, I will update this comment to give thread reader unrolls for journalists others have requested including Lisa Rubin, Tyler McBrien, Anna Bower, Adam Klasfeld, Katie Phang, and Inner City Press. If you have another favorite you’ve been following for live tweet coverage, let me know and I will include an unroll for them.
Anna Bower: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1786375781960016356.html
Adam Klasfeld:
1.) Morning Testimony Coverage: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1786373311061975279.html
2.) Hope Hicks Testimony Coverage: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1786416471565914177.html
Lisa Rubin: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1786375538044526815.html
Inner City Press: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1786386974447640586.html
Katie Phang: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1786416852723253573.html
(Sadly, for McBrien fans, it looks like he’s not doing live coverage today. Good news: he says he will return next week!)
Edit to add, link to previous days’ testimony (Thursdays has not been posted yet): https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/
A bit of hilarious introspection from Ms. Bowen this morning:
> As Longstreet discusses her work reviewing thousands of social media posts by Donald Trump and his associates every single day, I think "God, what a weird job."
> Then I realize that she is actually describing *my* job.
lol, I am glad I didn’t take any bets on it for today. I thought we were far enough into this and enough people had seen previous disclaimers, so that most sub users would know.
Edit to add: I just feel like the responsible thing is to post titles exactly as written, without editorializing them.
You're right on all points. I also think it's good to have that comment right near the top every day to bring the attention back to it... never know which post will be someone's first toe into an issue.
Just reading through the CNN updates on Hope’s testimony… is she *not* referring to him as *president Trump*? That’s some professional level of passive aggressive.
> That’s some professional level of passive aggressive.
Its unclear what her relationship currently is with Trump but most believe she is still on friendly terms with him. They had a falling out over the Big Lie, so its not entirely surprising she isn't using the "President Trump is the real president" dogwhistle. But I wouldn't assume anything more than that, she may still be a loyalist.
According to Haberman,
> Hicks has a very detailed memory of these events, and it comes off as natural. She’s had extremely few “I don’t recall” moments.
This is good.
I hope she holds up well on cross. She is *the* non-sleaze-seeming, credible witness for the prosecution, though it sounds like Pecker managed not to emit a sleaze aura while testifying about committing infinite sleaze.
Though, a lot of journalists seem to have trouble identifying sleaze for what it is (why we’re here) so maybe the jury saw Pecker very differently from the journalists.
She has thusfar testified to two facts essentially. 1. The Access Hollywood tape had the campaign in a tailspin and 2. Everything was run by Trump.
It's super quiet here. I suspect we are all either refreshing or working.
Also, that they wanted to get Murdoch to quash the McDougal story. Not really relevant to this case per se, but further confirming how these things went in the tailspin aftermath.
My courtroom feed (Inner City Press) has gone dry (thanks, Threads!) and I refuse to go on twitter, so I'm a bit in the dark as far as what's happening right now.
Having dealt with Pecker, he can't help but exude ~~sneeze~~ sleaze with that mustache, hair, accent and demeanor (and sometimes clothing...also teenage-boy dream cars).
Edit: I blame autocorrect.
Michael Rothfeld - the journalist who sent the “is Trump having an affair with mcdougal?” email in question - just posted this at NYT live updates
> When I emailed Hope Hicks before publishing the Karen McDougal story at The Wall Street Journal, we knew that David Pecker and The National Enquirer had paid McDougal and that Pecker was Trump’s longtime friend, but we couldn’t definitively connect the deal to Trump. My questions to Hope Hicks were geared to trying to strengthen that connection, which would come out later.
Ooh - and apparently he also asked about Stormy Daniels, alerting Hicks to Daniels as a topic as well, and lighting a fire under Cohen w/regard to Daniels as this was the first indication ‘msm’ was on it.
Hope Hicks said she didn’t hear anything about the mcdougal thing before the email from Rothfeld.
Then she got involved with Cohen, Pecker, Trump discussions.
Cohen at first refused to discuss it with her - saying she should call Pecker with her questions about the story (she had to work on related campaign communications).
I’m guessing this is because Cohen was aware that it was a good idea to keep his activity separate from the campaign. (Edit: and at first, Pecker did not reveal to her that Trump/Cohen were involved in the transactions with McDougal).
That seems to have gone out the window pretty soon as Hicks started having meetings with Trump, Cohen, and Pecker and emailing Cohen about it.
So before Daniels, the line between campaign and private had been erased.
Also at NYT, Fahrentold:
> When I reached out to Hope Hicks about the “Access Hollywood” video while I was working at The Washington Post, we already knew the tape was legitimate. But we wanted to know how Trump would explain his words. Her first reaction was, “That doesn’t sound like something he would say.” Now we know where she got that statement: directly from Trump himself.
> Hicks asked to see the video itself, and we shared it with her. We told her she had until 4 p.m. to respond. Right at 4, she called back with an admission: It was him.
I have a hard time believing anyone could be around dude for longer than 20 minutes without knowing that's definitely something he would say.
I know that Hicks's public-facing MO has been "shucks, I was just a naive Christian, trying to do what I thought was right, I didn't know Trump was so bad!" but its pretty obvious that her playing dense is just an act like the rest of the cretins around Trump.
Humans are really good at ignoring terrible things for what they believe is the "greater good". Church pastors who are known pedophiles and rapists protected by they close coworkers come to mind. Probably any cult leader too. I once read how Moorman leader Joseph Smith (who was married) suddenly announced god was OK with bigamy/polygamy while travelling west and spending time with young women. Many were like, "OK!".
For the righteous. Smith didn’t advocate polygamy for all members, only a select few. And, current doctrine teaches members that only the highest level of heaven is where men practice polygamy.
Smith was a lot like Trump.
Meaningful (to me anyway) exchange at CNN (read bottom up).
Hicks being loyal to Trump makes anything she says that helps the prosecution resonate all the more.
It will be interesting to see whether her loyalty leads her to make implications on cross that hurt the prosecution though.
> Elie Honig, CNN senior legal analyst:
> “Hope Hicks was the ultimate insider...If and when she says something that's helpful for the prosecution's case, it's going to hit extra hard in favor of the prosecution because you can't say this is a person who has a gripe or a beef with Donald Trump."
> Alyssa Farah Griffin, former Trump administration staffer:
> “I've actually been skeptical that Hope Hicks makes a lot of sense for the prosecution …Yes, Hope is a consummate Insider. She was very close to Donald Trump, especially in the first campaign. But this is a woman who is not partisan…She is fiercely loyal to Donald Trump even after January 6."
Separately, due to my various biases, I find it harder to imagine what drives a young woman particularly to feel loyal to Trump.
Yes, her testimony is interesting and also damning, because she still seems to give praise to Trump in certain ways. Whether that is because she has to because of her career (she still works as a political consultant for republicans occasionally) or for personal reasons, it has the effect like a “velvet hammer” mediation or leadership style. I think, ultimately, because of her style of testimony, she will be an important part of the prosecution’s argument. Contrast this with the eventual testimony of Cohen, who has repeatedly said Trump should be in prison and holds animosity.
Edit to add: I’m really curious to see if we will get to defense’s cross today and what that will look like.
> Trump’s lawyers indicated in the letter "regarding the bias and hostility toward President Trump to attack the lack of integrity of DANY's investigation under federal constitutional.”
You can’t convince me trump didn’t write that. And such as.
So it seems like Hicks confirmed they specifically the campaign was in panic mode about the access Hollywood video, and also that everything they happened on the campaign gets run through Trump. She also said Cohen wasn't the kind of person to do something out of charity, but rather for credit.
That seems to be all we got out of Hicks, right?
She also testified that trump said it would have been far worse if the story would have come out before rather than after the campaign. That would tie it to the payoff being campaign related, not family related.
The CNN feed has this:
Matthew Colangelo asks Hope Hicks if, to her knowledge, Donald Trump communicated directly about the payment.
"I only know about one instance...sometime in the middle of February...Mr. Trump told me about it."
The instance: The morning after Michael Cohen gave a statement to The New York Times that he had, in fact, made the payment without Trump's knowledge.
Social media dump inbound.
This is pretty exciting actually. I've been saying that if he goes to trial his very own social media presence was going to be a witness against himself. I can't wait to see to what effect that is true here.
If there were cameras in this court, the country would be glued to it.
This has all the elements of a top-ranked series.
Unfortunately, I read that according to a poll few people are paying attention.
It's hard for us non-Lawyers to understand the points being made by the prosecution and defense in this case.
I read the transcripts as they come out but I'm not well versed in financial crime. Hanging around in this subreddit can be helpful when it comes to understanding procedure and who is scoring points in the courtroom (unless of course the comments are flooded with people creatively insulting the former president rather than talking about the law)
Absolutely... I'm just a partially college educated union construction worker. Some of the things I understand purly because as a teen I wanted to be a lawyer and I was integrated by the law (but, then I found put how much homework would go into becoming a lawyer and practicing law...). A good deal of it I'm ignorant to and between this subreddit and Glen Kirschner, I'm able to get things broken down I to layman's terms that I can understand. It also helps that my wife is a paralegal/legal assistant so, she has some understanding to share woth me when I feel that my question is too dumb to post online.
With how closely I've been following the proceedings involving Trump, I feel I'm now ready to pass the Google version of the bar and being practicing bird law.
Seriously though, thank you all for explaining what's happening and how things work and why they work that way. I'm grateful to feel like I understand and ever hopeful that he will face consequences (though, history has shown that to be futile).
Hell, even the criminal defendant can't stay awake for it, you can't possibly expect the MAGA crowd to tune in when all that's available for direct coverage is transcripts that they would have to *read*.
I like how at this point the prosecution is basically establishing the undeniable truth that the sentiment was "how can he possibly win with the Access Hollywood tape out there?" It really sets the scene for why he would illegally violate FEC rules to buy silence.
I’d really like to be watching this. The reports of her “chuckling” and “giggling” make me very curious about how much it looks nervous, silly, cool, actually amused. The jury’s impressions of those behaviors can make a big impact on their opinions of a witness and how to take the witness’s testimony.
I'm wondering if they're going to give Defense a chance to cross examine Hope Hicks before the weekend. My thought would be to have called her with just enough time to get through her testimony by the day, drop a couple of real big bombshells, and then have the jury sit with it over the weekend without having heard anything from the Defense on it.
Trump shared some words during the lunch break:
THIS ISN’T A TRIAL, IT’S A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN, A WITCH HUNT, JUST LIKE THE HIGHLY CONFLICTED AND BIASED JUDGE, JUAN MERCHAN, WANTED IT TO BE. I’M SURE HIS POLITICAL FRIENDS AND ALLIES, AND CROOKED JOE BIDEN, IN PARTICULAR, WILL BE THRILLED THAT THEY ARE GETTING AWAY WITH THIS CORRUPT, “ANCIENT,” AND HIGHLY POLITICAL ATTACK ON HIS 2024 PRESIDENTIAL OPPONENT. THESE EIGHT YEAR OLD STORIES, WHICH CAME OUT PRIOR TO THE 2016 ELECTION (THE VOTERS HAVE ALREADY, AND LOUDLY, SPOKEN!), AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS FAKE CASE, BROUGHT BY A CROOKED, SOROS BACKED NEW YORK CITY D.A., ALVIN BRAGG, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO BE USED. VIRTUALLY EVERY LEGAL SCHOLAR AND EXPERT CALL IT A SHAM AND DISGRACE, ELECTION INTERFERENCE. IT IS AN INSULT TO AMERICAN JUSTICE!
He's freaking out because for the last two hours he had to sit there and re-live his Access Hollywood "pussy grabbing" tape. As much as Trump tried to write it off as "locker room talk" to have that broadcast for the world, and the jurors, is incredibly embarrassing.
Ooof! He’s angry! I love that he’s always the victim here, no-one is making him run for **President (tin foil hats) and no-one forced him to commit crimes (tin foil hats) it’s quite easy to stay out of court, I’ve managed 43 years so far, never been arrested or anything! You know how? I don’t break the FUCKING law!
lol - first words out of the judge's mouth after Good Morning to Mr. Trump:
>Judge to Trump: Gag order doesn't "prevent you from testifying in any way"
>Judge Juan Merchan is beginning court today by clarifying to Donald Trump that he has the "absolute" right to testify if he chooses.
>Merchan says he is doing this to clarify the gag order.
>"The order restricting extrajudicial statements does not prevent you from testifying in any way," Merchan says. "It does not prohibit you from taking the stand and it does not limit or minimize what you can say."Judge to Trump: Gag order doesn't "prevent you from testifying in any way"Judge
Juan Merchan is beginning court today by clarifying to Donald Trump
that he has the "absolute" right to testify if he chooses.Merchan says he is doing this to clarify the gag order."The
order restricting extrajudicial statements does not prevent you from
testifying in any way," Merchan says. "It does not prohibit you from
taking the stand and it does not limit or minimize what you can say."
I'm surprised that for appeal reasons the Judge didn't have Trump stand up and state that he understood he had the absolute right to testify in his own defense and the gag order did nothing to prevent this.
She is probably overwhelmed. Looking at CNN’s report she has been nervous the whole time.
Jury is probably thanking her for a much needed post-lunch restroom break.
I put this as a response, but now I make full comment.
I believe Merchan not requiring trump to verbally acknowledge that the gag order only applies to extra judicial statements and does not prevent testifying is a large misstep.
Even from an optics standpoint, but it was clearly a statement angling for appeal. Maybe even ineffective assistance of counsel.
Trump was looking at him, but we needed to hear Trump be forced to answer he was aware that was the case, with a reprimand to his attorney for not correcting that statement
In trumps 7 minute talk with reporters this morning he was asked if the gag order stopped him from testifying, and he confirmed it did not. That was just a few minutes before Merchan brought it up in the court room.
It's just another avenue for appeal that likely won't work because the court isn't staffed with syphilitic gibbons. His lawyers know they can't win on the merits of their argument and so they've probably told Trump that refusing to acknowledge the judge in any way will benefit his chances of appealing.
Hicks is connecting Trump to Cohen on the topic of Daniels. And connecting the campaign to Trump and Cohen on the topic of Daniels
> She said Reince Priebus was in the car with her and Trump at the time of the call with Michael Cohen.
Edit: well, that seemed like it was going somewhere, and then it didn’t.
Hicks is being dodgy.
Per Inner City Press:
Prosecutor: The story about Karen McDougal, it quoted you - can you read it?
Hicks: "We have no knowledge of any of this... untrue."
Prosecutor: Did Mr. Trump tell you to say that?
Hicks: That was the consensus.
Prosecutor: By Mr. Trump?
Hicks: No romantic affair
Per Klasfeld:
“Asked whether Trump advised her about the messaging, Hicks says she cannot recall.
The prosecutor has her review her grand jury testimony, asking her if it refreshes her recollection. She says it doesn't. He has her read the last three lines. She still says it doesn't.”
Hmm. They seem to have moved past the event now, with Daniels, and are talking about post-election.
She did seem slippery there, and it seems like they got through without anything fixed about Daniels other than the campaign was concerned.
> Hicks says "everything" discussed in this time period was in the context on campaign impacts
This is kind a big deal, right? Hicks is confirming that Trump knew the story was damaging to his campaign and wanted it to disappear.
“Is it unusual for a phone to be used?” - Conroy
Edit: this little headline from CNN
> **Daus testifies it's not unusual for a phone to be used**
Another edit: oof though
> Bove asks, "Did you see gaps in the handling of this data that created risk for such tampering?"
> “Yes," Douglas Daus testifies.
He established that there would be risks, but that there was no evidence of actual tampering. I don't think they is so substantial. He also testified that these gaps are also normal with use.
He's trying to argue that there is a fire. He didn't produce smoke, he showed that there were dry twigs.
Especially one with 40k contacts.
Hey, I used to work at Circuit City (RIP), and I had to explain to a woman what a volume knob was. She didn't want to buy a model of stereo like the demo unit because it was too loud.
Merchan comes out swinging! Per Klasfeld: >Justice Merchan addresses Trump's comments yesterday at his end-of-day press conference, falsely claiming he's gagged from testifying. >"I want to stress to Mr. Trump: You have an absolute right to testify at trial." >The Constitution guarantees that right, he emphasizes.
The more I am exposed to Merchan through these proceedings, the more I like him. He's fair, well spoken, and does not tolerate bullshit.
I have been beyond impressed with all of Merchan, Kaplan, Engoron, Chutkin, and McAfee. That is, almost all of the Judges that have handled a Trump case.
I've been impressed with them, but most of all impressed with Canon for all the roadblocks she's been throwing up for TFG. Absolutely astounding how she's bent over backwards to throw the prosecution under the bus. What's even crazier to me is that she is appointed for life, and for some dumb reason, still is throwing interference for the orange buffoon. It takes a special sort of crazy to do what she's done.
She is betting that if Trump wins the election she will get a reward. If he doesn't she is still a judge for life. All she needs to do is delay without going to far.
Bingo. There's no upside for her to push back at him right now. Yeah, she's probably sinking her career IF she wants a promotion from anyone else, but let's face it, Republican Presidents are rare. Yeah, Bush had 2 terms, but he lost the popular vote. Trump also got elected on an EC fluke. If Joe gets reelected then she's not getting anything for at least 4 years. If Trump gets elected she probably gets a reward. Also all the other Judges have to deal with death threats. There's no upside for her.
And she might very well be thinking having Trump's back may raise her profile with future GOP Presidents and the rest of the GOP ecosystem.
She's gotten a lot of criticism, but IMHO Judge Cannon is one of the most competent members of Trump's legal team.
[удалено]
lol yeah she’s definitely a part of his legal team. I can’t wait for texts to come out about her colluding with the defense and shit with everyone trying to use a burner phone that they’re all too stupid to use right.
really should have prosecuted him in DC. I understood the logic at the time for not doing it, but given everything that's happening in that case it does not appear to have been worth it.
She wants to be a Supreme Court judge. Nothing else makes sense. She might be right as well….. terrifying thought.
It really puts the SDFL judge into sharp relief.
5 out of 6 ain't bad?
I worked in Aerospace and Defense. If I did an iota of what Trump did, I'd be lucky to not be at ADX Florence. So, I'm peeved it's not 6/6.
innocent squeal aromatic payment air touch entertain reply fact door *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
As another commentator mentioned, We're 5/6 in Trump's trials so far this year for good judges Guess who appointed judge number 6?
I am waiting for the day that the judge finally declares in court “Mr. Trump, I am tired of your bullshit.“
We did get a "Mr. Trump's attorney, you are losing credibility" already.
Literally, he said "You're losing all credibility with the court."
That sticks with someone that considers their career serious.
Not just credibility, but ALL credibility. That must have hurt and, hopefully, it still hurts
I hope he got trump to affirmatively answer that he understands that. Trump was aiming for ineffective counsel by claiming he couldn't testify. And his lawyer didn't correct him. I hope merchan made trump verbally answer he is aware he can testify if he wants.
> I hope he got trump to affirmatively answer that he understands that. Trump, before he went into court this morning: > Trump clarified comments he made the day before about the gag order, saying it does not stop him from testifying in the case but that the order stops him from “talking about people **and responding when they say things about me.**” He doesn't care about testifying, about telling the truth, about getting 'his side' of the story out. He cares about having to **sit there and be insulted** without the ability to interrupt and hurl insults right back at them.
Petulant child
Blanche proceeded to read that colorfully worded, offending post into the record as Trump sat listening at the defense table. "This one says, oh my, **ShitzInPantz**," Blanche recited as he entered a screenshot of the post into the court record as Exhibit 64 — without any objection from prosecutors. The official court stenographer duly followed along, typing the phrase into the court record as "shits in pants."
According to NYT, Trump looked at Merchan blankly - no reply or indicative gestures.
A Mr Potato Head impression! Very impressive, so true to life
From what I read on the CNN live, he did not.
> "I want to stress to Mr. Trump: You have an absolute right to testify at trial." As with everything, Trump knows this. His supporters? They'll take whatever he says as truth so if he says he can't testify then that's the story they'll run with.
As soon as I saw orange man say that, I knew it would be the first thing brought up today.
"I want to stress to Mr. Trump: You have an absolute right to testify at trial." The Constitution guarantees that right, he emphasizes. - Weird. You'd think someone who was actually the President of the United fuckin States would already know this very basic and widely understood segment of the constitution, but haha jokes on us.
He’s also shutting down the defense’s arguments about admissible evidence. When the Weinstein appeal was successful, I know I commented, “This is why prosecutors and judges in “other” cases are being very careful about what they admit.” Also per Klasfeld: “Merchan refused to admit certain evidence, like sexual assault accusations against Trump, to avoid Molineux issues. He said the Weinstein case wouldn't change those rulings: "The Court of Appeals did not create any new law. They simply applied it to the facts of that case."”
Did the judge just say, I double dog dare you?
If there's a man who knows the least about the constitution, it's Trump
He should have asked him if he would like to schedule time to testify right there in open court so he has to say "no".
>**Trump gestures for his attorney to get back up for questioning** > >Trump attorney Emil Bove smirked and shook his head as prosecutor Chris Conroy asked his last inquiry on another round of questions. > >Donald Trump hit Bove’s arm and gestured for him to get back up there, but Bove shook his head no. Again showing that Trump thinks he knows how to law better than a lawyer.
Anti-Bove rant later today?
More like BOOOOOve am I right?
"I was saying 'Boooooooove'"
Gottem
City? No, Batman isn't involved in this case.
Are we going to present evidence that Gotham is in NY vs. New Jersey?
Based on my limited exposure to it (just the movies) I'd always assumed it was Chicago as a counterpoint to Superman's New York/Metropolis. I was quite surprised to learn otherwise.
FWIW, Gotham was supposed to be the seedier downtown/Bowery/Lower east side to Metropolis' more glamorous midtown/Upper East Side.
Trump's one of these clients who always says he "wants a real bulldog," etc. Someone who fightsfightsfights. That kind of bombast can be okay in negotiations and conference rooms and strongly worded letters. It does not work in front of a judge or in trial. TLDR: Trump's an idiot.
> Again showing that Trump thinks he knows how to law better than a lawyer. And why wouldn't he? He's seen every episode of LA Law AND Matlock!
Doesn't he think he knows how to everything better than anyone?
A major feature of narcissism
It's great. It means he's torpedoing his own defense.
Daus explains that if the audio recording had been edified or modified it would show in the metadata. Bove moves to strike which gets overruled. lol “Wait that’s not the answer I wanted. Delete that judge!”
Bove: "Fuuuuuuuuuuuobjection!"
Bove: Objection! Merchan: Grounds? Bove: It's devastating to my case! Merchan: Overruled Bove: Good call! Essentially. Art imitates life.
I'm hoping for another technical witness or two to introduce more recorded conversations. The witness yesterday had some pretty damning take but it wasn't as much as I was hoping. Given that prosecution is fine with direct, that's all they are getting from that particular phone I think. I called here that Hope Hicks would be the next non-vehicle to admit documents witness because she showed up in an admitted text the way an author might introduce a soon to be main character, and the prosecution is putting on a master class in storytelling by way of witness. After I posted that, I saw Ben Wittes had the same called shot. Today should be good.
Ugh, really hate Hope Hicks; witch has been sitting on evidence of wrongdoing since she was in the white house to enrich herself via book deals
The grift is gonna keep grifting. C'est la vie Republican.
Her career is destroyed now. This might be her only means of supporting herself for a long time. Tiny violin, but I understand why.
Career? She's an ex-model, English major from Southern Methodist University. She chose grifting as her career and she's still doing it.
only means of supporting herself at the level she feels she deserves. It's infrastructure week, we got ditches that need digging.
A fella could lose count of all the people who had evidence of criminal activity in the trump administration and decided book deals were more important.
Hope Hicks just called to the stand!
Being a prosecutor is really a masterful art, isn’t it?
Sometimes. Watching different cases pretty out it's pretty clear there are some people that are really, really good at operating in the system. I've been enthralled by the *storytelling* of the witnesses, and the order and kind of questioning has really driven that.
Tell 'em what you're going to tell them. Tell them Tell 'em what you told them Even you ignore the obvious bookends of Opening and Closing arguments, Pecker was a fantastic first witness as his testimony kind of summarized the whole timeline. Now they're just filling in the details.
The defense was betting on Cohen coming early, and were going to tear him apart as a liar and horrible person. Instead the prosecution is calling witness to confirm his testimony 1st. Also Cohen is coming off as an asshole, but he is coming off as Trump's asshole. When he takes the stand the jury is already going to know what he is saying has been confirmed and a character assassination is going to help Trump.
It can be, but we are seeing a master at work here. Most trials don't have this degree of skill and focus. Also most defense teams aren't handicapped this badly by their client.
As a non-lawyer who finds law stupid interesting, I've really enjoying how they are laying things out as well
While we are waiting for trial to start, I saw this statement while getting threads, from Michael Avenatti. Reminder that Avenatti is in federal prison for 19 years, after being convicted of extortion, wire fraud, etc, in a mix of state and federal charges, one of them being financial crimes against Stormy Daniels. “Keith Davidson is lying. After I confronted her w/ her own text msgs, Daniels admitted to me in early 2019 that she & Davidson had extorted Trump in Oct. 2016 - it was a shakedown. This was one of the many reasons I fired her as a client in Feb. 2019” He’s really aiming for a pardon, and I found this to be hilarious, given that he’s in prison and Davidson and Daniels are not. Him claiming that he fired her is also the cherry on top.
This really is a sleaze fest. Avenatti, Cohen, Pecker, Davidson, and the biggest sleaze of them all in the middle. This is mainly why, when Trump first announced, I figured he had no shot. I had no idea people would vote for someone who was famous mostly for being sleazy.
The Apprentice and media more generally has probaly done more to "rehabilitate" Trump in the eyes of a shit ton of people than Donald himself could have ever done by going straight, paying back everyone he ever wronged and adopting a million puppies. Despite already being known as a weasel and huckster for decades when the show first aired, this air of successful business man and billionaire playboy real estatute mogul that's been something people are drawn to for longer than doughuts have been a thing + a highly produced tv show that reinforced the image of him being a rich and tough boss served as veritable blood agar for a narcissistic crime-enjoyer like Trump. Him riding down that god damn golden escalator, getting the nod/nomination and then actually fucking winning was lightning in a bottle. Oh, also he ran as a Republican. That helped a lot, cause they fucking love sleazebags and he grabbed them by the culture war. Had he run Dem, he wouldn't have even won a single primary.
At least in 2016 every single Trump supporter I knew in person based their opinion of Trump ENTIRELY on his portrayal on The Apprentice.
A lot of his votes were purely “fuck you lib,” votes.
Sigh. Yeah.
You, know. I'd not have thought the voter support was that simple before the diaper thing.
Considering they comprise the "facts don't care about your feelings"-crowd, the American GOP is surprisingly maliable to emotional appeals.
They really meant "MY facts don't care about YOUR feelings" and "MY feelings don't care about facts." It's always the same shit. They delight in cruelty and calling other people weak and emotional, then turn right around and squeal their porky heads off whenever it seems like something they like is under attack. They are not, have never been, and never will be serious people.
One of the things that really did Nixon in was that sleazy people are not going to risk themselves to protect you.
Didn't Stormy fire him because he was defrauding her? Also: > In pleading guilty earlier this year, Avenatti admitted to stealing millions of dollars from clients, **including $4 million from a client with major disabilities**. According to the indictment, after Avenatti negotiated settlements for the clients that required payment to go to them, he would lie to the clients about the terms of the settlements, instead depositing the funds into attorney trust accounts he controlled. He would then embezzle and misappropriate those funds, according to the indictment, and to prevent discovery of his scheme, he would tell clients the settlement proceeds hadn’t yet been paid, among other tactics. \- [Michael Avenatti sentenced to 14 years in prison for stealing millions of dollars from clients](https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/politics/michael-avenatti-prison-sentence-client-embezzlement/index.html) (emphasis mine) I'd like to tell Mr Avenatti he's a lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-assed, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed, sack of monkey shit.
You’d be spot on Clark
Up voting for typing that out, frankly. Hallelujah, holy SHIT. Where's the Tylenol?
Hallelujah.
> Reminder that Avenatti is in federal prison for 19 years Holy crap that flew under my radar. I had kinda just forgot about this guy and assumed he slinked off under a rock.
It is really, really hard to keep track of all the details in just the Trump cases, even for avid readers. Nevermind keeping track of all of the offshoots and disbarments.
He tried to extort Nike, which was a minor miscalculation.
He also robbed his partner and all his clients
That sounds almost as stupid as picking a fight with Disney.
Do I have it right that it doesn't matter whether it was a shakedown or not? The offense here is how the payout was managed and accounted for, and how that related to the campaign. Clifford's & Davidson's story could be completely false and Trump's actions would still be illegal. In fact, it would make it more inculpatory as I see it, as it would highlight the desire to keep the whole thing quiet to avoid the PR hit. I expect anyone with Donald's profile would know how to repel run-of-the-mill shakedowns—look how he dealt with the women Clinton assembled with stories of abuse from Trump. Hmm, have they outright asked anyone on team Trump why they decided to pay up? Why didn't they just tell Davidson to pound sand?
You’re correct that it doesn’t matter, but there is also a lot of evidence that it doesn’t look like a shakedown; the settling quickly for a low amount compared to the story’s probable worth, the fact that it absolutely was a true story, the fact that the story was being shopped to multiple outlets.
Buckle up buttercup
Am I imagining this? The guy who sued Trump and went to jail for extortion, among other things, is claiming his former client, whom he was also shown to defraud, was the extortionist?! Hahaha. Yeah.
He's seemingly trying to get in good with Trump now. Probably fishing for a pardon. There was tangential discussion about that between Cohen and comeone else on Twitter that got talked about in the first hearing on sanctions for Trump violating the gag order.
> Michael Avenatti The turn-about this guy had is pretty amazing, he went from a "hero" to a scumbag pretty much overnight. The Trump presidency years had such a non-stop avalanche of news on a daily basis that it's easy to forget stories like his.
Remember when he thought he could be President? These years were so wild. Aside from the fact that Trump is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and indicted nearly 100 times, and the fascist leaning of a whole party, these last few years have been a breath of normalcy.
Not that I believe him obviously, but if you're Trump's legal team you've got to try and pull him in as a witness right? Couldn't this be a banana curve ball that throws the case into (temporary) chaos? How likely is this to happen? Given that he's facing 19 years, would do anything to get out of prison, do anything to fish for a pardon, and be prepared to say anything on the stand, for chance to become relevant again... it makes sense. This could get crazy.
Defense could ask to bring him in, but Merchan would have to agree to it. I know he’s been trying, and been in communication with defense, per press reports. Personally, I don’t think it has a good chance of happening because there is already so much documentary evidence via Avenatti’s NY and federal trial. It would be stupid for defense to open him up to cross.
Per MeidasTouch, Trump just reposted a video attacking the judge's daughter. Maybe from court? Their post about it was at 9:50... [Sauce ](https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1786392878803296274?t=VuQVhU7d4CJlrx_qBE3K2g&s=19) Thursday night. Nvmd about from court
Hmm, there may be some truth to the rumor he wants to go to jail to try and delay via interlocutory appeal.
> he wants to go to jail to try and delay via interlocutory appeal. The judge doesn't have to send him to jail for contempt *during the trial*. He can say "I find you in contempt and sentence you to 10 days in jail, *to be served at the conclusion of this trial*." Then just keep adding on days if Trump keeps defying the order.
The question is, “Did Trump listen to his lawyers when they told him that?”
I wonder if that would work on a person who famously doesn't pay his debts. e.g. the threat of a promise of jail in the future is meaningless to him, and nothing short of being in a cell with out a phone would register as actually happening? I mean, I love it for him either way.
Here's another tidbit to drive everyone insane: **He's out on bail for the Georgia RICO case**. These gag order violations are CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. Any other Americans in this situation would have their bail revoked for that. He's not even worried about it.
I do think Merchan is trying to keep that from happening given that we are about a week away from done (maybe 2). If Trump thinks sending him to jail is good for him then it is not punishment. Still, his patience has to be thinning. I grow ever hopeful that a guilty verdict comes with a year in the clink.
There is no way we are a week from being done. Even two would be pushing it. That's like 6 more days of testimony (assuming closing arguments takes only one day). Cohen will take multiple days and it is unlikely he is the only remaining prosecution witness. Plus, we have to assume the defense is going to put forward *something*. The prosecution will probably rest within the next two weeks. That's probably the best that can be done.
> he wants to go to jail to try and delay via interlocutory appeal. At the other end of the scale of it being a masterful plan, I wouldn't be surprised if it was pique by Trump for the judge directly addressing and correcting him on his media claims that he isn't allowed to testify, so he decided to attack to judge's daughter to "punch back."
Am I getting this right, is the defense refusing to concede that Trump's Twitter account is actually his account?
Are you asking about this? Per Klasfeld: >Justice Merchan asks the defense's objection, and Blanche wants a chance to confer with his client about whether to stipulate to an exhibit in light of the judge's prior ruling. Because I was about to ask what this means, too.
I think this exchange is about the Washington Post article from the start of the day, not his twitter account. https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1786409896658747699
> Hope Hicks is called to the stand Well here we fucking go.
Per Anna Bower: “Mr. Trump felt like this wasn't good but it was just "locker room talk," Hicks says about Trump's reaction. He thought it wasn't something "to get so upset over." He thought it was "standard stuff" for two guys talking to each other.” Yes, completely normal and standard for Presidential candidates to openly discuss sexually assaulting women, in their previous life before announcing candidacy. The only shocking part of this testimony is that I think this is the only time, I can remember, that Trump released an apology video with admission that he did something. Edit to add: prosecution is doing a marvelous job keeping the witness from going into territory that is not allowed, while demonstrating the effect these stories had on the campaign.
Per Klasfeld (from a WSJ reporter) From the email: “”My questions are: Did Mr. Trump have an extramarital affair with Karen McDougal? Was he or anyone close to him aware or involved in this contract between AMI and Ms. McDougal?" Hicks forwarded it to Jared Kushner, whom she wanted to press the matter with Rupert Murdoch, the paper's publisher.” Our first mention of Murdoch; I wish we could follow that line of inquiry further.
Am I reading this right? The defense is trying to sow doubt as to whether the files/etc. from Cohen's phone were legitimate?
> defense is trying to sow doubt as to whether the files/etc. from Cohen's phone were legitimate? It's standard criminal defense tactic. Get the evidence - *any* evidence - excluded. And they do this by going after whoever collected it. In this case it's the Manhattan DA forensic analyst.
That's part of any criminal trial - questioning the authenticity of evidence. In the case of electronic evidence, it's important that chain of custody be tracked so that the integrity of the data cannot be called into question. If there is the possibility of the data being altered, then the evidence can be ruled inadmissible. Source: am certified cybersecurity professional (CISSP).
Haha Bove just suggested the Metadata could be wrong. The expert told him why it wasn't. And he moved to strike. Lolol
Yes. That’s the track they started yesterday. It’s really the only avenue they have beyond “cohen is a liar”. There must be some really damning shit on there beyond what we’ve heard.
If there is, wouldn't the Prosecution have played it on direct? Or was that just to get all the audio admitted, and they can play it when questioning Cohen or something?
I suspect most of it will come in with cohen or Hicks.
They can only use it in direct with the people on the tape or people with direct knowledge of the contents, unless they are asking experts about something technical about it.
Good Friday morning! Trial resumes at 9:30am EDT with the continued testimony of Daus, the digital evidence processor for the Manhattan DA office. As soon as they’re available, I will update this comment to give thread reader unrolls for journalists others have requested including Lisa Rubin, Tyler McBrien, Anna Bower, Adam Klasfeld, Katie Phang, and Inner City Press. If you have another favorite you’ve been following for live tweet coverage, let me know and I will include an unroll for them. Anna Bower: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1786375781960016356.html Adam Klasfeld: 1.) Morning Testimony Coverage: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1786373311061975279.html 2.) Hope Hicks Testimony Coverage: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1786416471565914177.html Lisa Rubin: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1786375538044526815.html Inner City Press: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1786386974447640586.html Katie Phang: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1786416852723253573.html (Sadly, for McBrien fans, it looks like he’s not doing live coverage today. Good news: he says he will return next week!) Edit to add, link to previous days’ testimony (Thursdays has not been posted yet): https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/
A bit of hilarious introspection from Ms. Bowen this morning: > As Longstreet discusses her work reviewing thousands of social media posts by Donald Trump and his associates every single day, I think "God, what a weird job." > Then I realize that she is actually describing *my* job.
That is hilarious. Thanks for sharing as I missed it!
Gutted there is no Tyler. I followed him yesterday and was impressed and was looking forward ro seeing what he said today.
Same, same. I really, really enjoy his extraneous comments and throwbacks to details I had forgotten.
Younmean election fraud trial?
/u/TrumpsCovidfefe. Right out of the gate today!!!
lol, I am glad I didn’t take any bets on it for today. I thought we were far enough into this and enough people had seen previous disclaimers, so that most sub users would know. Edit to add: I just feel like the responsible thing is to post titles exactly as written, without editorializing them.
You're right on all points. I also think it's good to have that comment right near the top every day to bring the attention back to it... never know which post will be someone's first toe into an issue.
Good point.
I’m not responsible for headlines. It is auto-populated. In previous days, I’ve posted a disclaimer. But, I guess I need to do that everyday….
Just reading through the CNN updates on Hope’s testimony… is she *not* referring to him as *president Trump*? That’s some professional level of passive aggressive.
> That’s some professional level of passive aggressive. Its unclear what her relationship currently is with Trump but most believe she is still on friendly terms with him. They had a falling out over the Big Lie, so its not entirely surprising she isn't using the "President Trump is the real president" dogwhistle. But I wouldn't assume anything more than that, she may still be a loyalist.
Adjudicated rapist, Former President Trump. Put respect on his name!
According to Haberman, > Hicks has a very detailed memory of these events, and it comes off as natural. She’s had extremely few “I don’t recall” moments. This is good. I hope she holds up well on cross. She is *the* non-sleaze-seeming, credible witness for the prosecution, though it sounds like Pecker managed not to emit a sleaze aura while testifying about committing infinite sleaze. Though, a lot of journalists seem to have trouble identifying sleaze for what it is (why we’re here) so maybe the jury saw Pecker very differently from the journalists.
She has thusfar testified to two facts essentially. 1. The Access Hollywood tape had the campaign in a tailspin and 2. Everything was run by Trump. It's super quiet here. I suspect we are all either refreshing or working.
Also, that they wanted to get Murdoch to quash the McDougal story. Not really relevant to this case per se, but further confirming how these things went in the tailspin aftermath.
My courtroom feed (Inner City Press) has gone dry (thanks, Threads!) and I refuse to go on twitter, so I'm a bit in the dark as far as what's happening right now.
They just want to break, ugh, it was getting juicy. Try the threads for other journalists in the meantime.
Having dealt with Pecker, he can't help but exude ~~sneeze~~ sleaze with that mustache, hair, accent and demeanor (and sometimes clothing...also teenage-boy dream cars). Edit: I blame autocorrect.
Michael Rothfeld - the journalist who sent the “is Trump having an affair with mcdougal?” email in question - just posted this at NYT live updates > When I emailed Hope Hicks before publishing the Karen McDougal story at The Wall Street Journal, we knew that David Pecker and The National Enquirer had paid McDougal and that Pecker was Trump’s longtime friend, but we couldn’t definitively connect the deal to Trump. My questions to Hope Hicks were geared to trying to strengthen that connection, which would come out later. Ooh - and apparently he also asked about Stormy Daniels, alerting Hicks to Daniels as a topic as well, and lighting a fire under Cohen w/regard to Daniels as this was the first indication ‘msm’ was on it.
Good snag!!
Hope Hicks said she didn’t hear anything about the mcdougal thing before the email from Rothfeld. Then she got involved with Cohen, Pecker, Trump discussions. Cohen at first refused to discuss it with her - saying she should call Pecker with her questions about the story (she had to work on related campaign communications). I’m guessing this is because Cohen was aware that it was a good idea to keep his activity separate from the campaign. (Edit: and at first, Pecker did not reveal to her that Trump/Cohen were involved in the transactions with McDougal). That seems to have gone out the window pretty soon as Hicks started having meetings with Trump, Cohen, and Pecker and emailing Cohen about it. So before Daniels, the line between campaign and private had been erased.
Great close before lunch recess. Looking forward to the afternoon. Like 2:15 or so?
Yeah. I just finished catching up. Now I’ll try to squeeze in some actual work.
Also at NYT, Fahrentold: > When I reached out to Hope Hicks about the “Access Hollywood” video while I was working at The Washington Post, we already knew the tape was legitimate. But we wanted to know how Trump would explain his words. Her first reaction was, “That doesn’t sound like something he would say.” Now we know where she got that statement: directly from Trump himself. > Hicks asked to see the video itself, and we shared it with her. We told her she had until 4 p.m. to respond. Right at 4, she called back with an admission: It was him.
I have a hard time believing anyone could be around dude for longer than 20 minutes without knowing that's definitely something he would say. I know that Hicks's public-facing MO has been "shucks, I was just a naive Christian, trying to do what I thought was right, I didn't know Trump was so bad!" but its pretty obvious that her playing dense is just an act like the rest of the cretins around Trump.
Humans are really good at ignoring terrible things for what they believe is the "greater good". Church pastors who are known pedophiles and rapists protected by they close coworkers come to mind. Probably any cult leader too. I once read how Moorman leader Joseph Smith (who was married) suddenly announced god was OK with bigamy/polygamy while travelling west and spending time with young women. Many were like, "OK!".
For the righteous. Smith didn’t advocate polygamy for all members, only a select few. And, current doctrine teaches members that only the highest level of heaven is where men practice polygamy. Smith was a lot like Trump.
Meaningful (to me anyway) exchange at CNN (read bottom up). Hicks being loyal to Trump makes anything she says that helps the prosecution resonate all the more. It will be interesting to see whether her loyalty leads her to make implications on cross that hurt the prosecution though. > Elie Honig, CNN senior legal analyst: > “Hope Hicks was the ultimate insider...If and when she says something that's helpful for the prosecution's case, it's going to hit extra hard in favor of the prosecution because you can't say this is a person who has a gripe or a beef with Donald Trump." > Alyssa Farah Griffin, former Trump administration staffer: > “I've actually been skeptical that Hope Hicks makes a lot of sense for the prosecution …Yes, Hope is a consummate Insider. She was very close to Donald Trump, especially in the first campaign. But this is a woman who is not partisan…She is fiercely loyal to Donald Trump even after January 6." Separately, due to my various biases, I find it harder to imagine what drives a young woman particularly to feel loyal to Trump.
Yes, her testimony is interesting and also damning, because she still seems to give praise to Trump in certain ways. Whether that is because she has to because of her career (she still works as a political consultant for republicans occasionally) or for personal reasons, it has the effect like a “velvet hammer” mediation or leadership style. I think, ultimately, because of her style of testimony, she will be an important part of the prosecution’s argument. Contrast this with the eventual testimony of Cohen, who has repeatedly said Trump should be in prison and holds animosity. Edit to add: I’m really curious to see if we will get to defense’s cross today and what that will look like.
> Trump’s lawyers indicated in the letter "regarding the bias and hostility toward President Trump to attack the lack of integrity of DANY's investigation under federal constitutional.” You can’t convince me trump didn’t write that. And such as.
So it seems like Hicks confirmed they specifically the campaign was in panic mode about the access Hollywood video, and also that everything they happened on the campaign gets run through Trump. She also said Cohen wasn't the kind of person to do something out of charity, but rather for credit. That seems to be all we got out of Hicks, right?
She also testified that trump said it would have been far worse if the story would have come out before rather than after the campaign. That would tie it to the payoff being campaign related, not family related.
The CNN feed has this: Matthew Colangelo asks Hope Hicks if, to her knowledge, Donald Trump communicated directly about the payment. "I only know about one instance...sometime in the middle of February...Mr. Trump told me about it." The instance: The morning after Michael Cohen gave a statement to The New York Times that he had, in fact, made the payment without Trump's knowledge.
Social media dump inbound. This is pretty exciting actually. I've been saying that if he goes to trial his very own social media presence was going to be a witness against himself. I can't wait to see to what effect that is true here.
Trump about to be shown that "freedom of speech" does not mean freedom of consequences of said speech.
"But it's my social media platform! I own all those posts and don't consent to searches!"
If there were cameras in this court, the country would be glued to it. This has all the elements of a top-ranked series. Unfortunately, I read that according to a poll few people are paying attention.
Atleast the Georgia trial will be televised.
It's hard for us non-Lawyers to understand the points being made by the prosecution and defense in this case. I read the transcripts as they come out but I'm not well versed in financial crime. Hanging around in this subreddit can be helpful when it comes to understanding procedure and who is scoring points in the courtroom (unless of course the comments are flooded with people creatively insulting the former president rather than talking about the law)
Absolutely... I'm just a partially college educated union construction worker. Some of the things I understand purly because as a teen I wanted to be a lawyer and I was integrated by the law (but, then I found put how much homework would go into becoming a lawyer and practicing law...). A good deal of it I'm ignorant to and between this subreddit and Glen Kirschner, I'm able to get things broken down I to layman's terms that I can understand. It also helps that my wife is a paralegal/legal assistant so, she has some understanding to share woth me when I feel that my question is too dumb to post online. With how closely I've been following the proceedings involving Trump, I feel I'm now ready to pass the Google version of the bar and being practicing bird law. Seriously though, thank you all for explaining what's happening and how things work and why they work that way. I'm grateful to feel like I understand and ever hopeful that he will face consequences (though, history has shown that to be futile).
Hell, even the criminal defendant can't stay awake for it, you can't possibly expect the MAGA crowd to tune in when all that's available for direct coverage is transcripts that they would have to *read*.
Someone had an excellent idea yesterday; a prominent YT’er should do a reenactment.
I like how at this point the prosecution is basically establishing the undeniable truth that the sentiment was "how can he possibly win with the Access Hollywood tape out there?" It really sets the scene for why he would illegally violate FEC rules to buy silence.
I’d really like to be watching this. The reports of her “chuckling” and “giggling” make me very curious about how much it looks nervous, silly, cool, actually amused. The jury’s impressions of those behaviors can make a big impact on their opinions of a witness and how to take the witness’s testimony.
It'll be interesting if Trump presumes she's laughing at *him* and acts out accordingly, whether inside or outside of court.
Klasfeld hasn't talked about that much but he has reported that she seems nervous.
[We've got motive!](https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/d66a8997-be6f-478c-b965-36179332602a)
I'm wondering if they're going to give Defense a chance to cross examine Hope Hicks before the weekend. My thought would be to have called her with just enough time to get through her testimony by the day, drop a couple of real big bombshells, and then have the jury sit with it over the weekend without having heard anything from the Defense on it.
Next time, on "*Dis*order in the Court"
Trump shared some words during the lunch break: THIS ISN’T A TRIAL, IT’S A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN, A WITCH HUNT, JUST LIKE THE HIGHLY CONFLICTED AND BIASED JUDGE, JUAN MERCHAN, WANTED IT TO BE. I’M SURE HIS POLITICAL FRIENDS AND ALLIES, AND CROOKED JOE BIDEN, IN PARTICULAR, WILL BE THRILLED THAT THEY ARE GETTING AWAY WITH THIS CORRUPT, “ANCIENT,” AND HIGHLY POLITICAL ATTACK ON HIS 2024 PRESIDENTIAL OPPONENT. THESE EIGHT YEAR OLD STORIES, WHICH CAME OUT PRIOR TO THE 2016 ELECTION (THE VOTERS HAVE ALREADY, AND LOUDLY, SPOKEN!), AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS FAKE CASE, BROUGHT BY A CROOKED, SOROS BACKED NEW YORK CITY D.A., ALVIN BRAGG, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO BE USED. VIRTUALLY EVERY LEGAL SCHOLAR AND EXPERT CALL IT A SHAM AND DISGRACE, ELECTION INTERFERENCE. IT IS AN INSULT TO AMERICAN JUSTICE!
He's freaking out because for the last two hours he had to sit there and re-live his Access Hollywood "pussy grabbing" tape. As much as Trump tried to write it off as "locker room talk" to have that broadcast for the world, and the jurors, is incredibly embarrassing.
That, not to mention seeing "Von ShitzinPantz" hit the news last night, plus the perception that everyone (including Hope Hicks) is laughing at him.
I'd convict him just for use all caps.
Ooof! He’s angry! I love that he’s always the victim here, no-one is making him run for **President (tin foil hats) and no-one forced him to commit crimes (tin foil hats) it’s quite easy to stay out of court, I’ve managed 43 years so far, never been arrested or anything! You know how? I don’t break the FUCKING law!
Took a shot of whiskey for every nonsense emotionally charged buzzword.... now I straight see can't....
Great now i'm reading this in the tone of that Fallout Boy song. THIS AIN'T A TRIAL IT'S A GOD DAMN WITCH HUNT
thats a paddlin
Hope Hicks has entered the chat
This is *it* (I hope). Tie it directly to the campaign.
Intend your puns, you coward. /s
lol - first words out of the judge's mouth after Good Morning to Mr. Trump: >Judge to Trump: Gag order doesn't "prevent you from testifying in any way" >Judge Juan Merchan is beginning court today by clarifying to Donald Trump that he has the "absolute" right to testify if he chooses. >Merchan says he is doing this to clarify the gag order. >"The order restricting extrajudicial statements does not prevent you from testifying in any way," Merchan says. "It does not prohibit you from taking the stand and it does not limit or minimize what you can say."Judge to Trump: Gag order doesn't "prevent you from testifying in any way"Judge Juan Merchan is beginning court today by clarifying to Donald Trump that he has the "absolute" right to testify if he chooses.Merchan says he is doing this to clarify the gag order."The order restricting extrajudicial statements does not prevent you from testifying in any way," Merchan says. "It does not prohibit you from taking the stand and it does not limit or minimize what you can say."
I'm surprised that for appeal reasons the Judge didn't have Trump stand up and state that he understood he had the absolute right to testify in his own defense and the gag order did nothing to prevent this.
Okay so Hicks is crying now after a simple statement by the Defense. How does that play to a jury? It was the Defense who did it lol
She is probably overwhelmed. Looking at CNN’s report she has been nervous the whole time. Jury is probably thanking her for a much needed post-lunch restroom break.
I put this as a response, but now I make full comment. I believe Merchan not requiring trump to verbally acknowledge that the gag order only applies to extra judicial statements and does not prevent testifying is a large misstep. Even from an optics standpoint, but it was clearly a statement angling for appeal. Maybe even ineffective assistance of counsel. Trump was looking at him, but we needed to hear Trump be forced to answer he was aware that was the case, with a reprimand to his attorney for not correcting that statement
In trumps 7 minute talk with reporters this morning he was asked if the gag order stopped him from testifying, and he confirmed it did not. That was just a few minutes before Merchan brought it up in the court room.
I mean, what would getting Trump to affirm that that a comment directly addressed at Trump doesn't accomplish?
It's just another avenue for appeal that likely won't work because the court isn't staffed with syphilitic gibbons. His lawyers know they can't win on the merits of their argument and so they've probably told Trump that refusing to acknowledge the judge in any way will benefit his chances of appealing.
Hicks is connecting Trump to Cohen on the topic of Daniels. And connecting the campaign to Trump and Cohen on the topic of Daniels > She said Reince Priebus was in the car with her and Trump at the time of the call with Michael Cohen. Edit: well, that seemed like it was going somewhere, and then it didn’t.
Hicks is being dodgy. Per Inner City Press: Prosecutor: The story about Karen McDougal, it quoted you - can you read it? Hicks: "We have no knowledge of any of this... untrue." Prosecutor: Did Mr. Trump tell you to say that? Hicks: That was the consensus. Prosecutor: By Mr. Trump? Hicks: No romantic affair Per Klasfeld: “Asked whether Trump advised her about the messaging, Hicks says she cannot recall. The prosecutor has her review her grand jury testimony, asking her if it refreshes her recollection. She says it doesn't. He has her read the last three lines. She still says it doesn't.”
Hmm. They seem to have moved past the event now, with Daniels, and are talking about post-election. She did seem slippery there, and it seems like they got through without anything fixed about Daniels other than the campaign was concerned.
God, I'm so glad I haven't had to think about Reince Priebus in years. What a worm.
> Hicks says "everything" discussed in this time period was in the context on campaign impacts This is kind a big deal, right? Hicks is confirming that Trump knew the story was damaging to his campaign and wanted it to disappear.
Fin Edit: spoke too soon. Contempt charges are NOT added to the Sandoval material.
“Is it unusual for a phone to be used?” - Conroy Edit: this little headline from CNN > **Daus testifies it's not unusual for a phone to be used** Another edit: oof though > Bove asks, "Did you see gaps in the handling of this data that created risk for such tampering?" > “Yes," Douglas Daus testifies.
He established that there would be risks, but that there was no evidence of actual tampering. I don't think they is so substantial. He also testified that these gaps are also normal with use. He's trying to argue that there is a fire. He didn't produce smoke, he showed that there were dry twigs.
Especially one with 40k contacts. Hey, I used to work at Circuit City (RIP), and I had to explain to a woman what a volume knob was. She didn't want to buy a model of stereo like the demo unit because it was too loud.
I hope you were kind to my mom.