Francisco 2.0

And so it begins:

He probably threatened Eric with his "job" if he didn't come.

New witness: Deborah Tarasoff Trump leaves as the court takes its afternoon break. He walks out without Todd Blanche, the lawyer who is normally with him at all times. We’ve arrived at the heart of the case, actually looking at the false documents and related exhibits for which Trump was charged. This is a good moment to remind people that we have no idea how the jury is interpreting any of this. There is lots of circumstantial evidence that decisions didn’t get made on spending without Trump, and that Michael Cohen made a payment to a porn star, and said later it was better the story didn’t come out before the election. But there has been no direct testimony tying Trump to how the payments were recorded yet. As a side note, Trump’s campaign is fundraising off the judge’s warning to him this morning about possible jail time if he does not stop violating his gag order, and attacking witnesses and others connected to the case. Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records, which includes invoices, ledger entries and checks. This morning, during the testimony of the former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney, we saw the invoices in question. Now, with Deborah Tarasoff, we are seeing the ledger entries and checks. This testimony has been granular yet essential to the prosecution’s case. It’s not clear how closely jurors are paying attention to this records recitation. Some are clearly looking at the screens in front of them. At least one looks drowsy. Some serious chain-of-custody testimony right now, concerning who sent and received checks, how they were sent, and how they were stapled to the front of invoices. Deborah Tarasoff says that Trump had to sign all the checks from his personal account, even after he became president and was living in Washington, D.C. She says they were sent by FedEx. She added that after Trump signed the checks, she would eventually get them back. Christopher Conroy, the prosecutor, is emphasizing Tarasoff’s point that only Trump could sign checks from his personal account. He is surprisingly halting as he questions her, moving slowly and thumbing through his binder at the lectern between questions. At the defense table, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, two of Trump's lawyers, are passing a note back and forth. In between them? Trump, sitting with his eyes closed. Slowly but surely, Deborah Tarasoff is being guided toward testifying about payments made to Michael Cohen in 2017. Those payments, as we saw before lunch, were reimbursements. The Trump Organization — and the defense lawyers — say they were for legal services rendered. But the prosecutors say that they were reimbursements for hush money, and that each individual record represents a felony. Deborah Tarasoff is walking the court through the very mundane way in which Trump would sign checks, down to the black Sharpie he would use. She is underscoring that, for all of Trump’s emphasis on the size of his company, Hope Hicks was correct when she testified that the company functioned like a family business. Things take place on a small and almost parochial level. Deborah Tarasoff is being asked to run through a who’s who of Trump Organization employees. Just a few years ago, these names would have been all but anonymous. But given the three times in three years the Trump Organization has been in the bright glare of one trial or another, these are essentially celebrities to the reporters covering this case: Jeffrey McConney!! Rhona Graff!! Allen Weisselberg!! Deborah Tarasoff says she still is employed by the Trump Organization, and the company is paying for her lawyers. Trump smiles a little when Tarasoff mentions he owns the Trump Organization. Her current title is "accounts payable supervisor." She is expected to be play a similar role, as a witness, to that of Jeffrey McConney, her former boss. She will likely testify about various exhibits, including potentially some of the false records. The jury has been seated, and the new witness, Deborah Tarasoff, is being brought to the stand. Tarasoff didn’t look at Eric Trump as she walked right by him on her way up. Deborah Tarasoff, who is testifying in Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial on Monday, is an accounting department employee at the Trump Organization who is believed to have played a significant role in the reimbursement of a hush-money payment at the center of the trial. She was asked in February 2017 by senior Trump Organization employees to send $35,000 checks to Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s longtime lawyer and fixer, according to the statement of facts filed by prosecutors as part of Mr. Trump’s indictment. Prosecutors say those checks were to repay Mr. Cohen for the $130,000 he gave a porn star, Stormy Daniels, in the final days of the 2016 campaign to keep her from going public with her claim that she had sex with Mr. Trump a decade earlier. Christopher Conroy, a prosecutor, just told the judge that the next witness would be Deborah Tarasoff, who ran the Trump Organization’s books for years. Justice Merchan runs a tight ship/courtroom. We’re back on time at 2:15. Todd Blanche, one of Trump's lawyers, complains to Justice Merchan that the defense only learned who the prosecution's next witness would be 30 minutes ago. The prosecutors' lack of trust toward the defense team is underscored here. Prosecutors suggested early on that they did not trust Trump with the knowledge of which witnesses were being called in advance — a professional courtesy in many trials — because of worries that he would attack them on social media. The lunch break is ending. Prosecutors are back, as is Trump, his lawyers, his son Eric, his advisers Alina Habba and Boris Epshteyn, and the Trump Organization's general counsel, Alan Garten.

You know shit's real when you are getting a watch for a watch:

Witness continued: Jeffery McConney And we are at break, with a new witness later. Matthew Colangelo, the prosecutor, questioned Jeffrey McConney again during a brief re-direct. He leaned into the arguments the defense was making, and only really asked McConney if he later learned that there were things going on to which he had not been privy to. This takes advantage of Emil Bove, Trump's lawyer, not having an alternative explanation for the documentary evidence. Bove argued that McConney didn’t know what he was talking about when it came to the transactions that Allen Weisselberg directed him to make. But not only was Colangelo fine with that — he thought it was helpful for the prosecution’s case. “You were told to do something and you did it?” Colangelo asked. “Yes,” McConney answered. McConney is done. Trump appeared to give him two fist pump gestures as he left the stand. Watching Emil Bove’s largely hard-to-follow cross examination of Jeffrey McConney, the challenge facing Trump’s lawyers again becomes clear. They’re basically doing a version of: “He didn’t do it, and even if he did it’s not a crime.” That worked effectively during, say, Trump’s first impeachment trial, which was a political trial. But this is a criminal case involving a lot of pretty clear evidence that Michael Cohen made a payoff to Stormy Daniels that he was reimbursed for after discussions involving top Trump financial officials. Since the client here — Trump — never wants his lawyers to cede any ground as to whether he did anything questionable, the defense lawyers are left with this jumble. As we listen to Emil Bove seek to emphasize that Jeffrey McConney was not personally sure what the repayments to Michael Cohen were for, I’m reminded that the defense lawyers, in their opening statement, did not offer a cohesive alternative theory of the case, but rather attacked various parts of the prosecution’s case. That can make it difficult to follow what Bove is trying to achieve with an individual witness, especially one like McConney who mostly testified about documentary evidence. Bove is implying that McConney doesn’t truly understand the documents he was asked to testify about — but even accepting McConney’s relative ignorance, it’s hard to know what the defense wants the jury to make of these damning documents. Bove appears to be trying to make the jury feel like none of this was secretive or nefarious. To that end, he just spent a bunch of time getting McConney to say how he routinely locked cabinets to protect Trump Organization employees’ sensitive financial details. In other words, he implies, the cabinet was not locked to protect the secret agreement with Michael Cohen. Emil Bove, who has been handling a lot of the cross-examination at this trial, is questioning Jeffrey McConney quite aggressively. It’s a bit of a mysterious approach. The prosecutor used McConney to bring up documents that were damaging to the defense's case, but his testimony itself was fairly innocuous. If I were a juror, I might be confused as to why Bove is taking such a tough tone with him, as the defense lawyers continue to try to distance their client from any false documents. Emil Bove, Trump's lawyer, is trying to establish that Jeffrey McConney had no way of knowing what work Michael Cohen did as Trump’s personal lawyer in 2017. But this line of questioning seems to simply underscore the direct connection between Trump and Cohen. If Cohen was a such a mess who they wanted to get rid of, why did Trump continue letting him serve as a personal lawyer? In his cross-examination, Trump’s lawyer Emil Bove is trying to establish some distance between Trump and the actions of his accounting department. Trump has opened his eyes for this section and is paying close attention. He smiled as Jeffrey McConney said he never discussed accounting software with Trump. McConney said he never gave Trump a tour of the company’s accounting software. But it’s important to remember the government’s lawyers need not prove that Trump personally falsified the records, only that he orchestrated their falsification. Emil Bove, one of Trump's lawyers, has begun his cross-examination of Jeffrey McConney. Michael Cohen, who has been slammed a few times in this trial, just got trolled again, as Bove asked McConney to confirm that Cohen was a lawyer. McConney scoffed and said “OK,” in a dismissive way. Matthew Colangelo, a prosecutor, ends his direct questioning by asking Jeffrey McConney a series of questions about a financial disclosure publicized in 2018 in which Trump reported to the government that he had repaid more than $100,000 to Mr. Cohen the previous year. This form is further documentary evidence of the hush-money reimbursement, and as our colleagues reported then, raised many questions when it was first made public. Now we see prosecutors using them at Trump’s criminal trial as further evidence of the transaction at issue in the case. We have now reviewed several general ledgers associated with Trump himself and his trust. 12 of the 34 counts against Trump are related to ledger entries that accounted for the reimbursements to Michael Cohen. It’s not clear, yet, that we’ve actually seen the entries in question — the ledgers we saw related to 2018, while the payments in question were made in 2017. Tax forms were generated to account for the money paid to Michael Cohen, the implication being false records were also filed with the I.R.S. We’re back in action, if “action” means a steady, often stultifying recitation of business records. As dull as it seems, it is critical to the prosecution’s case in trying to prove said business records were false and meant to cover a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, who could testify later this week.

Motion to rename thread title, because....today is going to be interesting. https://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/outlook/day1otlk.html A regional outbreak of severe weather with multiple strong, long-tracked tornadoes, as well as very large hail and severe thunderstorm gusts, is expected over parts of the south-central Plains from this afternoon through evening. OK, Southern KS, Red River region... Thunderstorms are expected to develop by mid/late afternoon along and ahead of the dryline, near the eastern TX Panhandle/western OK line or 100W longitude into southern KS, then strengthen quickly to severe levels as they move eastward. Given the already very favorable parameter space by late afternoon, and increasingly so into early/mid evening, the concern is high for at least a few cyclic, tornadic supercells producing multiple significant tornadoes along potentially long paths. The threat for such tornadoes, as well as very large/destructive hail, will be maintained well into the late evening, and may even increase as hodographs further enlarge beneath the LLJ. Some uncertainty lingers as to how many such supercells will track across the outlook area, but given the unusually favorable environment and increasing confidence, a "high risk" outlook is warranted for areas between roughly the I-40 corridor in OK and the US-54/500 corridor in southern KS.

New Witness: Jeffery McConney We’ve concluded looking at the series of 11 invoices that prosecutors say were falsified. With that testimony, we take our morning break. The last 10 minutes or so have consisted of a slow procession of invoices from Cohen and related emails between Jeffrey McConney, Deborah Tarasoff and Allen Weisselberg being shown on the video monitors in the courtroom. These, prosecutors say, are the false documents. They don’t look like much, and despite their centrality to the case, the room has taken on a relaxed atmosphere as we make our way through them. It’s worth noting that Michael Cohen was not working for the Trump Organization anymore as he was submitting these invoices. At some point in 2017, he set up shop at Squire Patton Boggs’s offices in Midtown. Cohen continued to describe himself as Trump’s personal lawyer that year, providing a connection to Trump directly. But he was not working for the company. As Jeffrey McConney continued to testify, Trump turned to one of his lawyers, Emil Bove, and whispered to him urgently, with Bove responding a bit more calmly and nodding. In a funny aside, Jeffrey McConney is asked where Trump physically was in 2017. He deadpans that Trump was in Washington, D.C. He then describes the fact that the checks would have to be sent to the White House for the president of the United States to sign. McConney makes clear that starting in March 2017, these checks reimbursing Michael Cohen began coming out of Trump’s personal bank account. In March 2017, Trump began a pressure campaign on his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to get him to reverse his recusal from the investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russians. For context on how the Trump Organization worked, Jeffrey McConney’s son Justin was the person who basically ran Trump’s Twitter feed before Trump learned how to do it himself, a moment that Justin described to Politico as like the moment the dinosaurs learned to open doors in “Jurassic Park.” Jeffrey McConney, who no longer works for the Trump Organization, says they’re still footing his legal bills. Jeffrey McConney testifies that he worked for the Trump Organization beginning in 1987. For context, that’s just a few years after Trump Tower opened, and the same year that Trump made a feint at running for president the first time with a trip to New Hampshire as his book “The Art of the Deal” was being published. He is now describing the intricate lacing of more than 500 entities that comprise the Trump Organization. Prosecutors call Jeffrey McConney to the stand. The jury is in its seats. McConney is a tall man with a white shoulder length hair and bangs that nearly fall over his eyes. He is sworn in and sits down at the witness stand. He will be questioned by the prosecutor Matthew Colangelo. Interesting to see that neither Joshua Steinglass nor Susan Hoffinger, the two prosecutors who led the last criminal trial at which McConney testified, are handling this. McConney was a difficult witness at that trial — not only did he decline to answer many questions, but he also had to be excused after falling ill, delaying the trial. We are beginning to see the roots of what prosecutors say are false about the documents at issue in this case. Jeffrey McConney told Deborah Tarasoff, who dealt with the details of payroll at the Trump Organization and who is also expected to testify, to record the payments to Michael Cohen as “legal expenses.” He also told her to say they were being made as part of a “retainer” agreement between Cohen and Trump, which prosecutors say did not exist. Prosecutors say that was a way to disguise the hush-money reimbursement to Cohen. To find Trump guilty, jurors will have to agree that these documents were indeed falsified. This is also why the prosecutors laid out their case they way they did — with the conspiracy around concealing negative information about Trump ahead of the election coming first. Matthew Colangelo, the prosecutor, asked McConney if he ever saw a retainer agreement. He responded: “I did not.” On screen is an email from Allen Weisselberg to Jeffrey McConney saying that it was okay to pay the money to Michael Cohen, “per agreement with Don and Eric.” Eric Trump is sitting in the courtroom as this takes place. Notably, McConney testifies that he didn’t send the invoice from Cohen to the legal department for review. He acknowledges he typically would do so with invoices. Jeffrey McConney is testifying about hugely important documentary evidence, only barely disguised by the financial documents and handwritten notes on screen. We just now learned that the payment came from Trump’s personal bank account. It appears we are about to see that the invoices Michael Cohen sent for the payment were prompted by Cohen’s conversation with Allen Weisselberg, in an arrangement, again, that Cohen will testify was confirmed with Trump. Earlier in McConney’s testimony, the prosecution team established an important context for this: That Trump himself paid extremely close attention to his finances and especially to any outgoing cash. McConney said he soon got in touch with Cohen about processing these payments. He emailed Cohen in early February 2017 with a reminder to send him invoices. The subject line was “$$.” Jurors are seeing a lot of notes scribbled by Jeffrey McConney. It looks more like how someone might track their personal taxes on the fly, not something coming out of a company. This evidence helps to counter one of the arguments that the defense made in its opening statement, asking the jury to consider why, if Michael Cohen made a payment of $130,000, he was paid so much more than he would have been owed. But Jeffrey McConney just walked us through the disparity in the amounts, which includes both a bonus for Cohen and tax considerations. This also underscores the prosecution’s argument that top officials in the Trump Organization were involved in making Cohen financially whole. And McConney just walked through how closely Trump, historically, has paid attention to his bottom line. We’re seeing a bank statement from Michael Cohen’s shell company, Essential Consultants, marked with a handwritten notation by Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s former chief financial officer. It outlines the reimbursement to Cohen, which included a bonus and monies to cover a tax burden. Weisselberg’s handwriting is a scrawl but Jeffrey McConney seems to be able to read it. We are seeing important evidence right now, of the instructions Weisselberg gave to McConney as related to paying Cohen, in part to reimburse the hush-money payment. This fulfills several important functions: Cohen is expected to testify that he spoke with Trump about being repaid, and that Trump asked Weisselberg to handle the specifics. So here, we see paper evidence of what prosecutors will say is the aftermath of that conversation, and the blueprints for the repayment. Jeffrey McConney, and the courtroom, are now being shown banking records that are going to lead to the heart of the case. Last week, we saw only a brief glimpse of the hush money payment actually changing hands, when Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniels’s 2016 lawyer, texted someone the words “funds received.” Now, we’re seeing more evidence of that all-important transaction, including a withdrawal of about $130,000 related to the company Michael Cohen set up to facilitate the payment. Jeffrey McConney is beginning to testify, albeit fairly euphemistically, about the reimbursement to Michael Cohen for the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels. McConney says that in 2017, his boss, Allen Weisselberg, told him that Cohen needed some money. Some of it was related to Cohen’s bonus, McConney testifies, and adds, “And then there was some other money he was owed.” Cohen was owed $130,000 for the hush-money payment. The prosecutor just asked Jeffrey McConney: “Are you familiar with” Michael Cohen? This is going to introduce key conversations between Allen Weisselberg, the former top financial official at the Trump Organization, and Cohen, a key witness for the prosection. McConney is being fairly mocking of Cohen. Asked about his role, McConney says, “He said he was a lawyer.” Jeffrey McConney is no stranger to the witness stand. I have seen him testify three times. In 2023, at Trump’s civil fraud trial, he teared up on the stand. “I just wanted to relax and stop being accused of misrepresenting assets for the company that I loved working for. I’m sorry,” he testified. McConney was also a defendant in that case. Jeffrey McConney just told a story that is emblematic of Trump’s management style. He says about a year into his employment, he walked into Trump’s office. The boss, who was on the phone, said to him: “Jeff, you’re fired.” Once Trump hung up, he elaborated. McConney wasn’t actually fired, but Trump warned him that it was a problem that his “cash balances went down last week” and urged him to “focus on my bills.” It was, McConney says, a “teaching moment.” And it’s helpful for prosecutors seeking to illustrate how closely Trump was focused on the outflow of cash. Trump smiled widely as McConney told this story. “You’re fired,” of course, was his catchphrase on “The Apprentice,” the reality show that vaulted him to a new level of fame, and, one could argue, his successful run for president. So far in this trial, Trump has seemed to enjoy listening to his former employees recount positive memories of working for him during their testimony. Trump is often leaning back and closing his eyes. The prosecution is currently asking the witness, in granular detail, about the inner workings of the Trump Organization’s accounting department. This includes defining the term “general ledger.” Friday featured Hope Hicks discussing the fevered final days of the 2016 presidential campaign, crying on the stand. Today, we are hearing about accounting software. While McConney was delving into one of the dryer details of his accounting job, I took a glance at Justice Merchan’s written ruling finding Trump in contempt. In the courtroom, the judge suggested he was giving the former president a last chance. But the written order leaves Trump a bit of wiggle room — Merchan writes that “if appropriate and warranted, future violations” of his orders will be punishable by jail. He could have drawn an even brighter red line by saying “any future violation.” Still, overall, this is a dire situation for the former president. For those of us who covered the Trump Organization’s trial in 2022, hearing Jeffrey McConney’s testimony is like experiencing deja vu. At that trial, too, McConney testified about his old boss, Allen Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, who is currently in jail. McConney and Weisselberg had been close, having lunch every day, as McConney just testified. In this trial filled with fascinating witnesses and compelling testimony, McConney’s appearance may mark a turn, as we begin to hear about the financial documents at the heart of the case. During that trial, the Trump Organization was convicted of tax fraud and other crimes. McConney lights up a little — looking at the jury, flashing a grin — when he mentions “Accounts Receivable,” describing it as when money is coming into an organization. The jury is now coming in after an intense start to the day, complete with an overt threat of jail for Trump if he continues to violate his gag order. The judge is now scolding the defense lawyers. He is frustrated because they wish to lodge objections related to the witness, Jeffrey McConney, but that they did not tell him yesterday, when they learned who the witness was, that they would have objections. Justice Merchan has objected to what he sees as efforts from the defense to delay the trial, often by taking action last minute. Defense lawyers suggest they’ve been told Jeffrey McConney, who was a top Trump Organization official at the time of the Stormy Daniels payout, will be the next witness. McConney, the former controller of the Trump Organization, is familiar to many of the reporters covering this trial. He testified at the trial of Trump’s company in 2022 and at Trump’s civil fraud trial last year, where he was among the defendants. Justice Merchan says that his job is to “protect the dignity of the justice system,” and calls Trump’s violations of his gag order “a direct attack on the rule of law.” And now he hands down his decision. We’ve already heard that he held Trump in violation a 10th time, in addition to the previous nine violations. Trump had no noticable reaction to Merchan warning him that jail could be in the offing if he continues to flaunt his gag order. He was hunched over the defense table as Merchan issued his warning. When the judge concluded, Trump shook his head. Justice Merchan is speaking directly to Trump, in an extraordinary moment. He tells him he’s finding him in contempt of the gag order a 10th time, but that the $1,000 per instance fines aren’t working and that he has to consider jail. “The last thing” he wants to do is put Trump in jail, the judge says, adding, “You are the former president of the United States and possibly the next president as well.” Justice Merchan tells Trump his ongoing violation of his gag order is a “direct attack on the rule of law. I cannot allow that to continue." He says he wants him to understand he will put him in jail if he has to. The judge says he will address the motion for contempt and begins to address Trump and his lawyers. He says that he will find Trump in criminal contempt for the 10th time — one for each of the violations of his gag order. Emil Bove, who has been aggressive in cross-examination, is sitting first-chair at the defense table this morning, while Todd Blanche, another Trump lawyer, is sitting chatting with the defendant. Trump has wanted his defense to fight more. The judge is on the bench and we are set to begin. As a reminder, Hope Hicks concluded her testimony on Friday, and court ended a bit early that day. We don’t know yet who is testifying today. Trump is in the courtroom, with his son Eric in tow again. Alina Habba, who represented Trump in his civil fraud trial last year, is sitting next to Eric Trump. Boris Epshteyn, Trump’s recently-indicted legal adviser, is sitting behind both, several seats away from Alan Garten, the Trump Organization's general counsel. The prosecutors have entered, carrying their boxes of documents. They wish a good morning to the court officers and begin to set up their table. Good morning from the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse, where Donald J. Trump is on trial on charges that he falsified business records while reimbursing a hush-money payment to a porn star. Today marks the start of the fourth week of the trial and the third week of testimony.

On cue:

He probably has had a rep on the phone already.

I'm guessing they are going to essentially concede this, appeal it and hope to get it overturned on appeal down the road, because even though it is a state case, assuming he wins this November, who will give a shit after that? Right?

As long as Hope is in the news; she's off the market fellas: https://pagesix.com/2024/05/03/gossip/hope-hicks-engaged-to-goldman-sachs-exec-jim-donovan/?_gl=1*dffzon*_ga*MjA5Njc1NDM3OC4xNzA2MjkxMTk2*_ga_0DZ7LHF5PZ*MTcxNDgyMTkyMS4zMjkuMS4xNzE0ODIyMDE5LjAuMC4w&_ga=2.155409144.2139244855.1714745308-2096754378.1706291196

Placeholder for Hope Hicks afternoon testimony Trump looks very unhappy as he departs the courtroom, and his lawyer Todd Blanche is not smiling. The lawyers are not quite done yet, even though the jury is. Prosecutors have asked whether they can question Trump, if he testifies, about his nine violations of his gag order. Todd Blanche, a defense lawyer, is asking the judge to bar any such question. Blanche slips and calls Trump “Mr. Trump,” before correcting himself and using Trump's preferred label: “President Trump.” But Merchan says he agrees with the defense, saying it would be too prejudicial for a jury to hear that the judge presiding over the trial at hand had found against the defendant. That’s a win for Blanche. Merchan’s ruling doubles as an acknowledgment of his own sway over the jury. As much as the defense lawyers — and Trump — complain about Merchan, he has been bending over backward to try to seem fair to Trump. Matthew Colangelo, the prosecutor, responds, saying that the findings from the judge that Trump violated his gag order are directly relevant to Trump’s credibility if he takes the stand. He contradicts Blanche's stance, saying that there is case law supporting his argument. Previously, we’ve seen Justice Merchan respond positively to the presentation of case law — older cases in which judges discuss the matters in question —and express frustration with the defense when they don’t cite any. Emil Bove’s last question to Hope Hicks was a pointed one, calling attention to the way that the actual charges of falsifying business records have not been discussed in two full weeks of testimony. “While you were focused on your job at the White House,” he asked, “you didn’t have anything to do with the business records of the Trump Organization 200 plus miles away in New York City, did you?” Hicks said she didn’t. That will conclude testimony for the week. The judge is excusing the jury now. Hope Hicks is excused and leaves the courtroom. Overall, I think the defense will be very happy with what it got from her — but so will the prosecution. Trump doesn’t look in Hicks’s direction as she leaves. She also doesn’t look toward him. Emil Bove is now asking Hope Hicks about Trump's concerned over how his wife would react to the “Access Hollywood” tape. “President Trump really values Mrs. Trump’s opinion, and she doesn't weigh in all the time, but when she does, it’s really meaningful to him,” Hicks says. “He really, really respects what she has to say. I think he was just concerned of what her perception of this would be.” Hicks’s comments are similar to what a number of former White House officials have said about Trump’s reactivity to his wife’s opinions, regardless of what else was swirling around. And again, this could aid the defense’s “family man” argument. Emil Bove, the defense lawyer, has begun to ask Hope Hicks about her work on Trump's presidential campaign. He continues to press the argument that the work she did for Trump, and the work done by David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer, was all the normal course of business for a presidential candidate. Emil Bove builds on this theme, getting Hope Hicks to agree that Michael Cohen “went rogue” and did things that were “unauthorized.” These answers are largely helpful to the defense’s efforts to build a case that Cohen could have arranged the hush money without Trump’s direct orders. Hicks further makes the defense lawyers’ point for them, saying of Cohen, “He liked to call himself a fixer, or Mr. Fix-it, and it was only because he first broke it.” Bove, who can be a real pitbull in cross-examinations, is being studiously gentle here with Hicks. Emil Bove is now asking Hicks about how Michael Cohen did not have an official role with Trump's 2016 campaign. “He would try to insert himself at certain moments,” she said, which will feed into the defense's argument that Cohen was freelancing. This line of questioning from the defense is clearly designed to create distance between Trump and Cohen and to minimize Cohen’s role. The comment echoes something David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer, said of Cohen, that he would try to “inject” himself into the campaign. Distancing Cohen from the campaign also supports the argument that the hush-money payment he made to Stormy Daniels was not a campaign-finance violation. Emil Bove, the defense lawyer, heads straight into it, asking Hope Hicks about her relationships with the Trump family and employees of the Trump Organization. These questions may seem innocuous, but they will also remind Hicks of her fondness for the family whose head she is now testifying against. For an already emotional witness, this questioning is really difficult. Meanwhile, the sketch artist in front of me has begun a drawing of Hicks crying, holding up a tissue to her eyes. Hope Hicks is back — still looking fairly upset. She walks to the witness stand and takes a seat. The jurors will be brought in shortly and cross-examination will resume. As we mentioned earlier today, this is going to be a tricky cross-examination for the defense lawyer, Emil Bove, especially with a vulnerable witness. And Hope Hicks just began to cry. Hicks suddenly broke down a little bit when she was asked about her time at the Trump Organization, and we’re taking a break. Trump, who has largely avoided looking at Hicks during her testimony, locks his eyes on her as she starts to cry. Bove has a tough job here. His client is furious with Hicks. And Bove will have to impeach her credibility or otherwise disrupt her testimony without coming off as too aggressive and alienating sympathetic jurors. The prosecutors are now leaving the room hastily, looking somewhat concerned. Hicks’s emotion seemingly came quickly, as Emil Bove, the defense lawyer, had just begun with a few basic questions. Before that, she had been remarkably composed in the face of an intense moment Hope Hicks is asked what she made Trump's suggestion to her that Michael Cohen had made a payment to Stormy Daniels “out of the kindness of his heart.” Hicks acknowledges that it did not fit in with the Cohen she knew, who she did not understand to be “an especially charitable person or selfless person.” The direct examination concludes with those very tough questions and Emil Bove, one of Trump's lawyers, stands up to cross-examine Hicks. It's a Friday afternoon and there’s less than an hour to go but the jury seems riveted. We’ve had a really remarkable day of testimony, most of it from Hope Hicks. For the record, we have had two fresh witnesses today, both of whom have cast aspersions on Michael Cohen. Hope Hicks just all but told the jury that Cohen had lied about the hush-money payment. Another sign that prosecutors are none too concerned about these lies. Cohen says that during this period of his life, he lied on Trump’s behalf. Hope Hicks is now describing the initial Wall Street Journal article about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. She says she cannot recall certain facts about this period, including a conversation with Michael Cohen. But she says if the prosecution has something to refresh her memory, she is willing to look at it. She has gotten considerably more nervous-looking again, clenching her jaw and stumbling a bit in her speech. As Hope Hicks starts talking about her time at the White House, after Trump was elected, Trump is sitting motionless at the defense table with his eyes closed. Hope Hicks says Trump was very concerned about the Wall Street Journal story about his alleged affairs and the hush-money payments. He was worried about his wife’s reaction and asked Hicks to make sure the newspapers weren’t delivered to their residence this morning. Trump also asked her how the story “was playing” — given this was only a few days before the election. Hicks just handed a real gift to the defense. As Matthew Colangelo, the prosecutor, asked about Trump’s reaction to the Wall Street Journal article, she responds: “He was concerned about how it would be viewed by his wife.” This is something the defense touched upon in its opening statement when it sought to portray Trump as a family man. It provides an alternative motive for covering up damaging information, a believable one that is unrelated to his electoral chances. Colangelo sought to get another, more helpful response, asking if Trump was concerned about the campaign. Hicks acknowledged that Trump was concerned about how the story was playing — but her answer about his family was far more specific, and definitive. We will not be surprised if we see that in the defense’s closing argument. We know this, but it’s still amazing to hear Hope Hicks say it aloud: During the period where she was texting with Michael Cohen about the Wall Street Journal story and the damage it could potentially cause, the presidential election was three days away. Listening to the testimony about the timing of all of this underscores the duality of Trump’s life at that moment. On the one hand, he was on the cusp of becoming the president of the United States. On the other, he was still wading in the muck of the tabloid New York City life he had lived for decades. The prosecution has now brought up text messages between Hope Hicks and Michael Cohen on Nov. 4, 2016, after the Wall Street Journal article about Trump’s alleged affairs with Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels was published. Cohen is repeatedly — and with great urgency — asking Hicks for a status update on the story. In these text messages, Cohen is closely monitoring how many other outlets are picking up on the WSJ story about the alleged hush-money payments. When Cohen mentions how little coverage the story was getting, Hope replies to Cohen, “Keep praying!! It’s working!” Hicks acknowledges the irony as she reads these messages, in which Cohen fretted about the story becoming more public than it already was. The story, of course, became a criminal case — the one you’re reading about right now. One text from Cohen to Hicks is particularly damaging to the defendant: Cohen says he’s got a denial from Stormy Daniels, whom he calls “Storm,” but is holding it in reserve. Hope Hicks is explaining how the Trump campaign responded to the story about Karen McDougal, who by this point had been paid money by the parent company of The National Enquirer to keep quiet. Hicks says that, internally, she was told — presumably by the candidate himself — that Trump had not had an affair with McDougal, but that she did not remember Trump “verbatim” saying that he had no knowledge of that hush-money deal. The jury is seeing something that prosecutors have sought to show them is a lie being shared with the media, and the public. We then see that Hicks denied “unequivocally” to the Wall Street Journal that Trump had a relationship with Stormy Daniels. Hicks says that’s what she was told, and that she testified to that effect in front of the grand jury that indicted the former president. Hope Hicks's testimony is a good reminder of something reporters frequently encounter. Some public relations people will flatly deny stories, and put their name to those denials, without having any idea whether the stories they are denying are true or false. Court is only expect to run for another hour and twenty minutes. They’re ending early today. It will be interesting to see if Hope Hicks is back on the stand on Monday. Hope Hicks, testifying again, says she denied that Trump had a relationship with Stormy Daniels to The Wall Street Journal. She is then asked if she witnessed conversations between Trump and Michael Cohen. “I believe I heard Mr. Trump speaking to Mr. Cohen shortly after the story was published,” she says. The more prosecutors can illustrate the Cohen-Trump relationship — which they really have started to home in on, starting yesterday with a recording of the two men speaking — the easier it may be to persuade jurors of Cohen’s story that he was doing Trump’s bidding as he sought to silence Daniels. We are back in the courtroom and Hope Hicks has returned to the stand. She left off starting to discuss Stormy Daniels, the porn star who would eventually receive a payment from Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.

New witness: Hope Hicks And they are on lunch break. What struck me about the "Access Hollywood" tape at the time — and still does — was that it seemed like there was genuine amazement in Trump’s voice when he said, “When you’re a star, they let you do it.” Like he was still surprised by his own power to escape consequences. How far that power actually extends has of course been a major theme of American politics since 2020, and a major theme of this trial as well. 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. Stormy Daniels was also going to be mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article, Hope Hicks testifies, and says that she spoke not only to Michael Cohen about Daniels’s claims, but to Trump, too. This fits in with the prosecution’s narrative — it would make sense that Cohen would become increasingly more frantic in seeking to quiet Daniels once they knew a reporter was on the trail of her story. And we’ll take our lunch break with that important piece of information. Trump was originally watching Hope Hicks on the stand, and then switched to watching the video feed of her testimony on a monitor. But as she started testifying about Karen McDougal, he has started to shut his eyes. (Note: the email author is now a reporter for the times, and he added this) 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. Prosecutors are seeking to make the same connection in the courtroom right now. Hope Hicks is discussing an email from our colleague Michael Rothfeld, then at The Wall Street Journal, asking about Trump's relationship with the Playboy model Karen McDougal. Hicks says she forwarded the email to Jared Kushner, who was overseeing much of the campaign operation. She hoped, she said, that Kushner’s good relationship with Rupert Murdoch — who owned the Wall Street Journal, then our colleague’s employer — could “buy a little extra time to deal with this.” Kushner responded that “he wasn’t going to be able to reach Rupert and we should just work on responding and dealing with it,” Hicks testifies. The first question asked in the email: “Did Mr. Trump have an extramarital affair with Karen McDougal?” Hope Hicks is now describing her knowledge of Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, two women with salacious stories about Trump who received hush-money payments during the 2016 campaign. She learned about McDougal, she said, from the reporter Michael Rothfeld — now a Times reporter — while on Trump’s plane. 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. All presidential candidates interact with the media. But Trump’s intense use of — and antagonism toward — the traditional news media has come up again and again in this newsworthy trial, leading to funny confluences between the present and the past. For example, Anderson Cooper was just mentioned on the witness stand; he’s also here, watching the first criminal trial of an American president unfold. To this point, Trump is obsessed with the mainstream media in a way very few national candidates in our lifetime have been. One former White House top aide told me they’d never seen someone sitting in the Oval Office still trying to get headlines the way he did. Matthew Colangelo, the prosecutor, is walking Hicks through Trump’s tweets reacting to his press coverage in October 2016, which illustrate his concern about the impact of the reports on his campaign. Hope Hicks brings up a conversation she had with Michael Cohen around the time the “Access Hollywood” tape was released. She asked him to “chase down a rumor,” she says, about another tape he had heard about that could be problematic for the campaign. This could be the beginning of hearing what Hicks has to say about the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, which was made by Cohen and where the charges against Trump stem from. Hope Hicks is now recounting how top Republicans pushed back after the tape was released — especially Paul Ryan, then the House speaker, and Mitt Romney, a Trump ally turned critic. But she’s dismissive, suggesting that they would speak “anytime there was anything remotely controversial.” The prosecutors asked Hicks to respond to a parade of prominent Republican lawmakers in 2016 condemning Trump for the "Access Hollywood" tape and distancing themselves from him. It’s impossible to imagine the same thing happening today. Nearly all Republicans who were willing to publicly criticize Trump back then have either retired or been defeated in primaries by pro-Trump challengers. The prosecution just played the video Trump recorded on Oct. 7, 2016, when he acknowledged that he’d said the words on the "Access Hollywood" tape and he apologized for them. But within months after being elected, Trump was telling people privately that he thought the tape might be a fake. If a similar tape came out today, there is almost no doubt that Trump would claim it was artificial intelligence and many voters would likely believe that. It’s impossible to imagine him releasing an apology like his 2016 one. Hope Hicks testified that the media response to the Access Hollywood tape was “intense” and that it “dominated coverage.” She recalled that a Category 4 hurricane was anticipated to make landfall at that time but she doesn’t think anyone remembers where or when the hurricane landed. “It was all Trump all the time for the next 36 hours,” she said. Trump is currently scribbling something on a legal pad in front of him, the longest time I’ve seen him set pen to paper during the trial. Hope Hicks has for several minutes now been recounting her reaction to the email from David Fahrenthold of The Washington Post, and the campaign's reaction. She has seemed more nervous, as she uses the phrase “locker room talk” for the first time, characterizing Trump’s description of his words as a standard conversation between two men. “It’s hard to describe,” she says, and repeats herself. “It’s hard to describe. It was definitely concerning.” Hicks says that when she shared the email from The Washington Post with Trump, one of his initial reactions was to say that his comments about assaulting women “didn’t sound like something he would say.” The big picture here is that the “Access Hollywood” tape is a kind of focal point for the prosecution’s narrative that served to bring together all of Trump’s worlds in the same time and place. It spooked his campaign. And in so doing, prosecutors say, it led to him to use people from the Trump Organization, like Michael Cohen, in an effort to quash Stormy Daniels's story much like he had used his contacts in the tabloid world to quash earlier scandals. Hope Hicks has just been shown the email that the reporter David Fahrenthold sent her on Oct. 7, 2016, seeking comment about the "Access Hollywood" tape. The email contained a transcript of what was said on it. “I was concerned. Very concerned. Yeah," Hicks says. "I was concerned about the contents of the email, I was concerned about the lack of time to respond, I was concerned that we had a transcript but not a tape. There was a lot at play.” She’s then shown a copy of her email forwarding the message to her colleagues. In it, she says: “Need to hear the tape to be sure,” and “Deny, deny, deny.” She describes it to Matthew Colangelo, the prosecutor, as a “reflex.” Jurors are also reading this Washington Post email, as prosecutors seek to tell an important part of their story. They’ve argued that the “Access Hollywood” tape sent the campaign into a frenzy. Hicks certainly seems to support that, describing her reaction by using the word “concerned” at least five separate times. Hicks now admits that her denial reflex didn’t really work here because the email contained a transcript of the tape, in which Trump spoke in vulgar terms about women. Hope Hicks is now being questioned about the “Access Hollywood” tape and her expression grows stern. She swallows hard and says that yes, she was familiar with it. Hicks is asked about an exhibit that shows her forwarding an email from the reporter David Fahrenthold, now our colleague, to “campaign leadership.” I believe we will see that this email went to, among other people, Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon, some of the top personnel on the campaign. David Fahrenthold was at The Washington Post when he broke the story of the existence of the "Access Hollywood" tape, in which Trump was recorded bragging about assaulting women. Hope Hicks is now recalling in detail how Trump praised David Pecker, who was then the publisher of The National Enquirer, after the tabloid ran a story saying one of his G.O.P. presidential rivals, Dr. Ben Carson, had left a sponge in a young girl’s brain. “Mr. Trump was congratulating him on the great reporting,” she recalls. “This is Pulitzer-worthy,” Hicks says she recalls him saying. Some smiles from jurors when Hope Hicks recalls that Trump told Pecker that The National Enquirer’s articles were “Pulitzer-worthy.” (These were poorly sourced hit pieces on Trump’s primary rivals, including Carson and Ted Cruz). Asked to describe another Enquirer article, a baseless attack on Cruz’s father, Hicks looks momentarily as if she is going to laugh: “His father may have been involved with Lee Harvey Oswald” — the man who shot John F. Kennedy — “or something like that.” It’s surreal hearing Hicks describe that particular period of the Republican primary in sworn testimony. It was a uniquely bizarre time, one in which Ted Cruz in particular was visibly disoriented by the twin attacks from The Enquirer and Trump. Matthew Colangelo keeps asking Hope Hicks to acknowledge that Trump oversaw every aspect of her job: “I reported to Mr. Trump” and “Mr. Trump was responsible” are two things she’s just said. Again, this is key for prosecutors, showing that Trump is a hands-on manager — and hoping to convince the jury he would have taken the same hands-on approach as Michael Cohen brought him news of negative stories to quash. In praising Trump, Hicks makes clear he set the tempo. She also is emphatic when asked if she checked with him before issuing statements about him. “Absolutely,” she says. The journalists in the courthouse today are a mix of longtime court reporters and political reporters. Many of them have had some interaction with Hope Hicks. Trump has remained attentive to Hicks’s testimony. His lead lawyer, Todd Blanche, has whispered to him several times, but Trump has only offered him brief responses. Matthew Colangelo, the prosecutor, has a gentle demeanor and may have been a good choice to question Hope Hicks, an admittedly nervous witness who jurors might feel some sympathy for. I’ll be very curious to see who questions her for the defense. Trump is unhappy with Hicks, but his lawyers will have to be careful not to antagonize her, or risk offending the jury. So far in her testimony, Hope Hicks has gone out of her way to praise Donald Trump and signal that she still feels fondly towards him. Earlier she said she “jumped at” the opportunity to work for the Trump Organization; she said Trump works very hard; she said he’s a skilled multitasker; and she said Trump is better at branding and communications than anyone. Hope Hicks is asked about Keith Schiller, who was Trump’s longtime bodyguard. Schiller is a former N.Y.P.D. detective who ultimately went to work at the White House. Matthew Colangelo, the prosecutor, begins to set Hope Hicks up to testify about having participated in key meetings. Hicks acknowledges that she was frequently involved in meetings, going in and out of Trump’s office. Hicks, as she explains how and why she came to be in so many meetings, calls Trump “a very good multitasker and a very hard worker.” Hicks continues to flatter her old boss, saying that the Trump Organization, his business, was big and successful, but run “like a small family business.” Because of that, she says, “Everybody that works there in some sense reports to Mr. Trump.” This is good evidence for prosecutors seeking to illustrate the way the former president runs his affairs; Hicks can praise him while harming him in the same breath. Hope Hicks refers to Trump as “Mr. Trump.” She says the last time she spoke to Trump was in the summer or fall of 2022. Notably, she says she’s paying for her own lawyer. Trump’s eyes are glued onto Hicks as she begins her testimony. This is the most alert I’ve seen him since the trial started. That was right around the time when text messages she exchanged with a colleague criticizing what was happening around the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob were made public. Hope Hicks has been sworn in. “My name is Hope Charlotte Hicks,” she says. Her voice is low and she is visibly uncomfortable. She is testifying under subpoena. Trump glanced in Hicks's direction as she walked to the witness stand but they did not make eye contact. Hope Hicks was Trump’s longtime aide, both in the 2016 campaign and in the White House. The people call Hope Hicks, Matthew Colangelo, one of the prosecutors, says.

New witness: Georgia Longstreet The people call Hope Hicks, Matthew Colangelo, one of the prosecutors, says. Todd Blanche is now cross-examining the witness, with a really tortured set of questions in which he implies that someone else is writing Trump’s social media posts, the ones Trump posts under his handle on a website that he routinely tells people is the true voice of America. That was a painful back-and-forth. He concluded his cross-examination shortly thereafter. Todd Blanche, a defense lawyer, is now cross-examining Georgia Longstreet, asking her about Michael Cohen and whether she tracked his social media as part of her job. She says she followed his tweets and his podcast, “Mea Culpa.” Asked if she listened to every episode of the podcast, Longstreet responds “absolutely not,” getting a big laugh in the courtroom. Even Trump let out a big grin at this. This evidence is reminiscent of the campaign rally videos prosecutors played for the jury a few days ago of Trump assailing women who made allegations against him. It appears designed to give the jurors insight into Trump’s state of mind in late 2016 as incidents piled up that exposed his vulnerability among female voters. The decision to enter evidence this way means the jury will see potentially damaging evidence at least twice, once now and again when future witnesses are asked about it. The tweet that was introduced quoting Trump as saying “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU” was posted one day after he was arraigned in Washington on federal charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. One day after the post went up, a Texas woman left a racist message on the voicemail of the federal judge hearing Trump’s case, threatening to kill her. (The woman was later arrested.) We’re now getting a series of tweets into evidence: Trump attacking Senator John McCain, Trump insisting he never inappropriately touched two women who claimed he had, and Trump complaining he’d lost large numbers of female supporters, all from 2016. While the defense lawyers agreed to let the Washington Post article in, they tried to fight the admission of these tweets. They were unsuccessful, and the witness, Georgia Longstreet, is now describing the posts from the stand, as Trump sits at the defense table scanning his old tweets. There’s now a Truth Social post from March 2023 in which Trump, in colorful terms, denies an affair with Stormy Daniels. Prosecutors are now playing a video statement Trump put out right after the "Access Hollywood tape" was made public by The Washington Post. He acknowledged in the video that he made the comments on the tape. The video statement was recorded after he had earlier refused to apologize, though his aides had encouraged him to. “I’ve said some foolish things, but there’s a big difference between the words and actions of other people,” Trump says in the video, before attacking his 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, and her husband, Former President Bill Clinton. It’s worth noting, as we reported in 2017, that shortly before he took office, Trump started telling some Republicans that he was having the "Access Hollywood" tape reviewed again and that it may not have been his voice on it, even though it was. As predicted, the defense agrees to let a particularly damning piece of evidence — a Washington Post article publicizing the “Access Hollywood” tape — in without a witness being questioned about it. The agreement, called a stipulation, was just read aloud to the jury and the judge had reason to explain the concept to the jury for the first time. Justice Merchan tells the jury that a stipulation is information that the parties have agreed to without the need to call a witness. The jurors have just been excused. Something interesting happened right before they left: the defense lawyers suggested they might want to agree to allow something into evidence, which they hadn’t previously done. As a reminder, the defense in this case barely consents to those types of agreements, which is why we are seeing all these custodial witnesses, whose purpose is to enter evidence through their testimony. But as we saw with the last witness, having someone enter exhibits on the stand draws more attention to them. As we’re about to talk about the “Access Hollywood” tape, it may be that the defense lawyers want Trump to give them permission to agree to allow some of this evidence in, so a spotlight doesn’t shine too brightly on it. “Can you briefly describe how Twitter works?” is a question to Georgia Longstreet, a paralegal with the Manhattan district attorney’s office, who monitors social media postings. Longstreet’s testimony, including a description of the Wayback Machine, which archives old online postings, is a good primer on social media basics, for those of us periodically boggled by such things.

This morning: continuing with witness Douglas Daus Georgia Longstreet, our next witness, is a paralegal at the Manhattan district attorney’s office. She will be questioned by Rebecca Mangold, a prosecutor. Redirect is over and Emil Bove, one of Trump's lawyers, returns to the lectern. He is seeking to clarify his arguments during cross-examination, saying he was asking about “unknowns” — “gaps in the handling of this data that created risks” for tampering. Christopher Conroy, the prosecutor, just asked Daus yet another question in a brief re-redirect. This is a lot of questioning for a custodial witness. Justice Merchan calls a sidebar once Conroy concludes, leaving Trump sitting alone at the defense table. The cross-examination ends and there will be a brief redirect from Christopher Conroy, one of the prosecutors. On re-direct, Conroy is using his time to ask questions that essentially mock what Emil Bove was asking. Without actually saying it, he is suggesting to the jury that Bove's line of questioning had little merit. Trump’s eyes seem to be shut, as they sometimes have been during testimony. He addressed this on Thursday afternoon in a post to his Truth Social account, denying that he has been sleeping, and saying: “I simply close my beautiful blue eyes, sometimes, listen intensely, and take it ALL in!!!” Several people in his world have confirmed privately that he has been sleeping. The jurors are usually bright-eyed in the morning session, but I’m starting to see signs of boredom as Emil Bove stretches out this cross-examination. One has his arms folded, another scratched his face. A third is staring blankly at the wall in front of her. Bove is still at it, trying to wrap quotidian information technology issues into the larger defense argument that Michael Cohen, a key witness for the prosecution, is not to be trusted. “We would have to take Michael Cohen’s word for whatever happened in October 2020 with respect to this phone, right?” he says. Daus, the witness, appears nonplussed. Emil Bove, the defense lawyer, is asking Douglas Daus, the tech witness, all kinds of jargony questions about disappearing message applications that were on Michael Cohen’s phone. It sounds like it has substance, but realistically this seems to be more about chewing up time and stretching out the length of trial than provoking meaningful testimony. Bove did something similar when Trump tried to delay the trial in the week before it started — mounting lengthy, serious-sounding arguments that had little chance of success in daily trips to an appeals court. It’s worth noting, though, that Bove’s cross-examination of Ketih Davidson, the former lawyer for Stormy Daniels, was seen by the Trump team as a bright spot. Daus’s testimony is chewing up time, as Maggie notes, but it is quite interesting. He’s explaining how law enforcement extracts information from a person’s phone. It’s straightforward to grab some things, say text messages. But some apps, such as Signal, have “self-destruct” functions that can delete messages in just seconds. Bove is now asking Daus to explain relatively simple concepts, such as asking: “What is a factory reset?” This could backfire with the jury, who could be questioning why so much court time is being spent with this witness, and if this is just “smoke and mirrors” to distract from other witnesses who have testified. Douglas Daus, a forensic analyst from the district attorney’s office is walking to the stand and the jurors will soon come in. Daus, yesterday, was used to introduce recordings from Michael Cohen’s phone, including one in which Cohen and Trump discussed a hush-money payment. Daus is back on the stand for more cross-examination. The jury is also in the room. Emil Bove, one of Trump’s lawyers, is doing the cross-examination. Yesterday, Bove almost seemed to draw out the questioning of this relatively staid witness, seeking to convince jurors that there was a gap in the chain of custody, and introducing doubt as to whether the phones had been tampered with. During the two weeks of testimony so far, Justice Merchan has been very consistent in caring about the jury’s time, often noting that — when lawyers are lawyer-ing on and on — that the jury is waiting, and suggesting that they should not have to. The lawyers are now fighting over the “Access Hollywood” tape and the exact contours of how it can be introduced. It’s an interesting example of the way that a courtroom is almost its own separate world. Its safe to assume that at least some of our highly educated jurors are vastly familiar with what Trump says on the tape and may have even heard or watched it. But Justice Merchan, who has allowed evidence related to the tape, will not let it be heard or watched in court, because he thinks it would be too prejudicial against Trump, the defendant. Those in Trump’s extended orbit have quite a negative impression of Merchan. But Merchan is very open here to the argument that this specific evidence is overly prejudicial against Trump. Todd Blanche, Trump's lawyer, is now arguing about how a Washington Post article should be discussed at trial today. In doing so, he says he expects a witness to testify today about how the “Access Hollywood” tape, on which Trump was caught describing assaults on women, affected his 2016 campaign. That appears to be a cloaked reference to Hope Hicks, who is expected to begin her testimony, potentially within hours. Blanche is describing a Truth Social post made by Trump as an “alleged” post, a reminder that the defense has refused to stipulate basic facts in the case repeatedly. Justice Merchan handled this deftly, taking the air out of a baseless argument that Trump appeared to float. Justice Merchan was wise to clean up confusion. But Trump appeared to try to clean up his error himself to reporters in the hallway this morning before entering court. “The gag order is not to testify. The gag order stops me from talking about people and responding when they say things about me,” he said. Justice Merchan is now addressing something that Trump said outside court yesterday, when he claimed that he could not testify because of the gag order. The comment left many people confused, and it wasn’t clear if Trump was simply making an excuse for not testifying, or if he misspoke. But Justice Merchan is informing him that the statement was incorrect. The gag order “does not prohibit you from taking the stand” or limit what he can say, the judge says. After Justice Merchan explained Trump’s freedom to speak as a witness, he concluded, “please let your attorney know” if you have any more questions. It’s an interesting note from the judge, given that Todd Blanche, the lead defense lawyer, nodded along when Trump made the comments in question outside the courtroom yesterday. When Merchan finished speaking, Trump mouthed the words “thank you.” The judge is on the bench and we are set to begin. Trump walks in, pursing his lips. He spots Anderson Cooper and says a brisk “hello” before arranging himself at the defense table. As Emil Bove, a defense lawyer for Trump who cross-examined a witness ferociously yesterday, walks by, Boris Epshteyn, a top legal adviser to Trump, pats him on the back. The prosecutors and defense lawyers have yet to arrive, with about a half hour to go. But we do have some news anchors, including Anderson Cooper and Lawrence O’Donnell. O'Donnell was here yesterday and Trump scowled at him at the end of the day. It’s relatively calm in here right now, but walkie-talkies are buzzing, which can be a sign that the former president is en route. Andrew Giuliani is back in court, as a correspondent for Real America's Voice, a relatively new far-right network. Good morning from the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse, where we have reached another Friday in the first criminal trial of an American president, Donald Trump. This morning, we’ll continue with a witness from the district attorney’s office, Douglas Daus, who yesterday introduced a recording in which Trump and his former fixer, Michael Cohen, spoke about how to reimburse the publisher of The National Enquirer, after the publisher helped them suppress a salacious story during the 2016 election.

New Witness: Douglas Daus Douglas Daus has been excused, but will be back to testify more tomorrow, for a bit at least. We’re done for the day. Trump left the courtroom, squinting strangely at Lawrence O’Donnell, the MSNBC host, as he did. Emil Bove, cross-examining the forensic expert Douglas Daus, is questioning him about the chain of custody of Michael Cohen’s phones. He is seeking to imply that perhaps the data on the phones — including the recording of Trump the jury just heard — might be compromised. The prosecution has finished, and Emil Bove, the defense lawyer, is now cross-examining this witness, Douglas Daus. The key part of this tape is the end, where Michael Cohen is telling Trump, “I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David.” Cohen says he talked to Allen Weisselberg, who was the Trump Organization's chief financial officer at the time. Cohen references “the financing,” and Trump interjects, “What financing?” The David, in question, was David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer and first witness at this trial. This call related to the hush-money deal made with Karen McDougal, not with Stormy Daniels. Still, it’s incredibly damning to Trump for jurors to hear how involved he was in this earlier hush-money payment, with all its similarities to the later one. On the recording, Cohen is talking to Trump, with what sounds like Hope Hicks in the background. Cohen is explaining they had just gotten served by The New York Times to unseal records from Trump’s first divorce. That divorce, from Ivana Trump, was incredibly contentious. The courtroom is now hearing a recording Michael Cohen secretly made of Trump talking. The jury continues to be introduced to Michael Cohen in stages. Earlier they heard his voice for the first time during the trial, and now a big photo of Cohen behind the press secretary's lectern in the White House briefing room is being displayed on video screens. The prosecutor is walking this witness, who extracted data from Michael Cohen's cellphones, through confirming that Cohen was texting with Hope Hicks, at the time Trump’s spokeswoman. A report from this witness, Douglas Daus, shows that one of Cohen’s phones had 39,745 contacts — a very large number, he noted. Over the past two weeks of trial, prosecutors have developed a pattern: Call a witness who can testify to the larger scheme — and who provides several days of sweeping and, at times, dramatic testimony — and then follow it up with dry, but crucial, testimony from a custodial witness. As a reminder, these custodial witnesses — who are tasked with entering records into evidence — are in part necessary because the defense did not stipulate that the records they are entering are true. In most trials, lawyers agree that certain exhibits should be understood to reflect the truth; Trump’s legal teams typically decline to do so, stretching out proceedings and adding heaps of testimony to his civil and now criminal trials. The testimony from this witness, Douglas Daus, is so far quite dry, about the mechanics of authenticating a device taken after a search warrant. It turns out this witness helped extract data from two cellphones belonging to Michael Cohen. A new witness, who works for the district attorney’s office, has just been sworn in. His name is Douglas Daus and he is a senior forensic analyst. This may help explain why the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, is in the courtroom for the first time in awhile: He may be here to support one of his employees. Bragg is an unusually un-hierarchical district attorney, and has been known to run late to meetings given his fondness for chatting with employees in his office: not just the other prosecutors, but witness aides, paralegals and forensic analysts, like Daus.

Afternoon session begins. Same witness (Davidson) as earlier Emil Bove, the defense lawyer, briefly questioned Keith Davidson again in what is known as a recross-examination. He ended it by emphasizing that Davidson had never been in a room with Trump until this week. In the recording we just heard, Michael Cohen said that Trump hates “the fact that we did it.” Keith Davidson clarifies that this in response to the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels. It's fascinating to hear this on redirect — it’s a key piece of evidence, that would seem to corroborate Trump’s knowledge of and involvement in the deal. For two days of testimony, the jurors have heard Davidson describe Cohen as a difficult man to deal with. But hearing Cohen’s hectoring, imploring voice right now, they really get a visceral sense of it, in a way that no testimony could quite capture. Prosecutors are now playing a portion of a conversation with Keith Davidson that Michael Cohen secretly taped. We couldn’t hear the others before. Cohen’s very recognizable voice has entered the courtroom, quite loudly. Jurors have been introduced to some of his qualities; now they hear his voice for the first time. Soon enough, most likely, they'll meet the man himself. “Nobody’s thinking about Michael,” Cohen says to Davidson, referring to himself. Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, is reading through a transcript of Keith Davidson's recorded discussion with Cohen. He is racing through it, apparently because of all the expletives used in the conversation. The court reporter asks Steinglass to slow down. Trump, over on Truth Social, used the lunch hour to post that he hasn’t been sleeping in court and is extra awake today. The prosecution is now questioning Keith Davidson for redirect which, to remind you, is when prosecutors get to again question their witness, and seek to help adjust jurors’ perceptions after cross-examination. Prosecutors have returned, this time with Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney. Emil Bove ends his cross-examination of Keith Davidson. Re-direct from prosecutors will start shortly. We are in an unusual situation again right now as Keith Davidson listens to a recording that is part of the defense's case. The recording has not been described to us, so while the defense lawyer Emil Bove, the prosecutor Joshua Steinglass and the judge’s law clerk follow along with their own headphones, the rest of the people in the courtroom, including the jurors, sit silently, waiting to hear about what exactly the headphone-wearing men are listening to. The technology in this courtroom is far from state of the art. In order to hear his own voice, Davidson has to hold a device pointed toward a receiver. The recording — made by Michael Cohen of a conversation he had with Davidson — has not been introduced as evidence in the case so the jury isn’t hearing it. The defense is using the recording to refresh Davidson’s recollection about the conversation so that Bove can question him about it. After this morning’s build-up, in which Emil Bove implied that Keith Davidson, who represented Stormy Daniels in 2016, was a serial extorter who shook down celebrities, Bove is now putting the finishing touch on his argument, stating clearly that Davidson was seeking to do the same to Trump. Emil Bove is making Keith Davidson listen to a recording that Michael Cohen surreptitiously made of him, on which Davidson apparently talked about people having “settler’s remorse,” a reference to Stormy Daniels. Outfitted with an old-school set of headphones, Davidson looks vaguely like a U.N. translator. Bove is now referencing Davidson's use the word “leverage” on the tape, suggesting that he was seeking to get leverage over Trump. Davidson denies that. He also says that Bove is “grossly mistaken about the dates” of when this conversation took place. Emil Bove is a former federal prosecutor and I’m curious whether he’s managed to convince any jurors that the actions of Keith Davidson and Michael Cohen are on trial, rather than those of his client, Donald Trump. Bove certainly seems comfortable in his role as he seeks to paint first Davidson and now Cohen as villains. And in doing so he is trying to leave the impression that Trump is the victim of whatever these two men had going on. Now Emil Bove is shifting gears, and starting to question Keith Davidson about Michael Cohen. Once again, the jurors are completely engaged. They’re looking back and forth between the defense lawyer and the witness. Bove is introducing something that was almost certain to come up — how Cohen would secretly tape people. Davidson acknowledges he believed Cohen was taping him at certain times. A loud noise as Bove’s large binder falls off the lectern. He grabs it and refocuses. “That drop was catastrophic for my binder,” Bove says, and hands it to his colleague Todd Blanche. There is laughter in the courtroom. The jurors have returned. One of them, a man, appeared to make eye contact with Emil Bove, the Trump lawyer cross-examining Keith Davidson, as he walked by. Now Bove is questioning Davidson about an item on a website called "The Dirty." Justice Merchan is on the bench. Susan Necheles, one of Trump's lawyers, begins by asking for a clarification on the gag order, giving a copy of some news articles to the judge. The articles are by what she calls “legal commentators” including Jonathan Turley, saying, “These articles are all articles which President Trump would like to post on Truth.” She says they involve some witnesses and aspects of the case, but Trump has “concerns” about posting because they reference witnesses. She asks about “ambiguity” in the gag order. Christopher Conroy, the prosecutor, says they need to go through the articles but that it’s “odd” that the defense is asking for an advance ruling. As Conroy asserts that he thinks the gag order is “very specific,” Trump vigorously shakes his head. Justice Merchan says he is not going to pre-judge Trump's postings. “I’m not going to give advance rulings,” he says. “There is no ambiguity, I believe, in the order.” He advises that if Trump is in doubt, he should "steer clear." Of all of Trump's lawyers, Justice Merchan is consistently roughest on Necheles, who defended the Trump Organization in a criminal tax case two years ago.

Cross Examination of Keith Davidson The court is now taking a lunch break. We’ll return at 2:15. Emil Bove’s cross-examination of Keith Davidson has been a rollercoaster ride so far. He has seemed extremely calm and comfortable when attacking Davidson’s credibility and likely delivered some memorable moments for the jury to consider while evaluating him. But when asking about Davidson about the minutia of the case, and diving into documentary evidence such as text messages and emails, his line of questioning got complex and could be difficult to follow. After a series of denials from Davidson, the jurors are excused. Bove says he has less than an hour of cross-examination remaining. Emil Bove just sought to suggest that Keith Davidson violated California’s ethics code for lawyers by compensating non-lawyers with legal fees. It was a bit in the weeds — but the jury includes lawyers, who might take an interest in that tidbit. Keith Davidson’s demeanor during the cross-examination is striking. Whereas David Pecker was almost carefree as he answered questions about the business of sleaze that he oversaw, Davidson appears something akin to ashamed as he is forced to answer questions about other celebrities who his clients purportedly had relations with, and from whom they sought money to stay quiet. Pecker’s demeanor, meanwhile, resembled Trump's over the years: he did not give in and showed no signs of shame. It feels like he is embarrassed about some of the deals he has allegedly cut on behalf of his clients. Emil Bove has looped back around to a line of questioning that came up earlier, insisting that Keith Davidson became familiar with extortion law after a brush with federal agents. The argument that regulators and investigators have often used about Trump is similar: that he has generally known where the line is. The prosecution is not always as visibile as the defense as they discuss the proceedings. But prosecutors are huddling during this cross-examination: two of them, Joshua Steinglass and Susan Hoffinger, have kept up a pretty steady conversation throughout It’s remarkable just how much of American life over a decade or so is coming up in this trial: It’s really a referendum, not only on the politics of 2016 but on the celebrity-obsessed digital media environment in which Trump rose to political prominence. Emil Bove is back asking about Hulk Hogan, and the media outlet Gawker having run a sex tape involving Hogan. Bove says that Keith Davidson used connections at a different website, The Dirty, to get stills from the video posted there. Gawker was eventually sued out of existence by Hogan, in a lawsuit financed by the billionaire Peter Thiel. Emil Bove just told Keith Davidson that he was “not here to play lawyer games” and something in Davidson, who had been acting like a punching bag until this point, seems to have changed. He’s now fighting back, telling Bove that he is “getting truthful answers, sir,” with a very sarcastic spin on the word “sir.” Very, very confrontational in here. The jurors are sitting straight up in their seats. Davidson called Bove out for his “lawyer games” comment. He said if Bove didn’t want to play such games then he should not use the word “extract” to describe the way Davidson and his clients would get monetary settlements from celebrities. Emil Bove asks Keith Davidson if it’s fair to say his memory “seems a little fuzzy around some of these issues?” Davidson says, by way of explanation, that he has had over 1500 clients in his career. This is getting very hostile quickly. Lots of “I don’t recalls” from Davidson during this cross-examination. Bove is making him appear not like a truthteller, but like someone who is unethical. And Bove is increasingly heading toward the suggestion that the money to Stormy Daniels may not have been paid to cover up an affair with Daniels, but because Trump was being shaken down. Two more celebrities have just been named — Tila Tequila, a reality television star, and the actor Charlie Sheen. Emil Bove is at the moment accusing Keith Davidson of essentially extorting Sheen. The jurors are glued to this, just as they were to Davidson’s testimony earlier today. David Pecker, when cross-examined by Emil Bove, also denied some of Bove’s implications, but he did so defiantly, seemingly making the defense lawyer hesitate. That’s not true right now: Bove is pressing his case and Keith Davidson’s denials, to my ears, are falling flat. As always, we can’t know what jurors are thinking, just our own impression of the testimony. Much of this cross-examination so far hasn’t even been about Trump, but it is an effort by his legal team to discredit Davidson and persuade the jury that his previous testimony shouldn’t be trusted. Emil Bove is successfully digging up unsavory episodes from Keith Davidson’s past to cast him as shady — for example, Bove says, a former of client of his leaked information that the Hollywood star Lindsay Lohan was in rehab. Emil Bove is now trying to paint Keith Davidson as a serial extorter, asking for money in various situations and being mindful not to cross the line into actual extortion. As Bove lodges this accusation, asking a version of the question “isn’t it true?” Davidson responds, simply, “no,” leading to a brief pause in the courtroom during this tense exhange. Emil Bove, the defense lawyer, is going in a sharp direction with Keith Davidson. He recalls him saying Michael Cohen could be “aggressive,” saying, “And you can be aggressive too, can’t you?” “I suppose,” Davidson all but mumbles. “What does the word ‘extortion’ mean to you?” Bove asks. It is clear where this is going. The point here is to make Keith Davidson look like a scuzzy almost-criminal who extorted the Trump campaign in 2016, and it is very clear that Davidson understands that and he is visibly unhappy about it. As the lawyers huddle for a sidebar with the judge, Keith Davidson stares straight ahead, blinking. The only thing moving are his eyes. He looks exhausted after this morning’s testimony. And he is not even chancing a glance over at the defense table, where the former president is seated. Emil Bove returns to the topic of how Michael Cohen wanted a job in Trump's White House and acted despondent, on a call with Keith Davidson, when he did not receive it. Davidson, asked about that call, says: “I thought he was going to kill himself.” Bove then squeezes into his questioning that Cohen had hoped for a high-ranking position, even as high as U.S. attorney general. Keith Davidson, a lawyer, has been cautious in his testimony so far. At one point during his direct examination by Joshua Steinglass, a prosecutor, Davidson stopped mid-comment, said “strike that,” and rephrased his answer. I anticipate Davidson will be on even higher alert during the cross-examination as he likely understands, and wants to avoid, the traps that Emil Bove is trying to set for him, as Bove seeks to challenge his previous testimony. Bove is taking a very laidback approach to this cross-examination. He is almost gentle with Davidson in his questioning. He appears to be trying to make the seamy, dirty world of gossip-brokering the jury has been hearing about for days seem a little more...normal. Emil Bove continues to try to create distance between the hush-money deals and Trump, his client. If the prosecution tried to place the deals in Trump’s lap, casting him as the silent boss overseeing Michael Cohen, the defense is rowing the boat away from Trump as fast as they can. I’m finding Bove’s initial questioning quite interesting. He’s almost retelling the prosecution’s story, but with subtle tweaks. Whereas the prosecutor made Keith Davidson seem almost passive as he dealt with Michael Cohen, Bove is enhancing Davidson’s role, and the role of Stormy Daniels’s manager in 2016, Gina Rodriguez. Trump’s lawyer Emil Bove is now starting the cross-examination of Keith Davidson, the former lawyer to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. As a reminder, a cross-examination is the other side’s opportunity to challenge the testimony that has already been given. Bove begins by establishing that Davidson has not met Trump, which may help outline the first stage of the cross-examination: that the former president had nothing to do with all this. Bove’s line of questioning plays into a frequent conceit of Trump’s. He often says critics don’t know him or have nothing to do with him as a way to nullify what they’re saying.

Keith Davidson back on the stand: Joshua Steinglass finishes questioning Keith Davidson. Cross examination will come after a short break for the jury. Keith Davidson is asked to explain an interaction with Michael Cohen as they drafted a statement to be sent to Chris Cuomo, then a journalist at CNN. We are starting to see — at this point in the narrative, February 2018 — the way that the story of Stormy Daniels was starting to draw broader attention from the news media. Keith Davidson testifies that Michael Cohen threatened a lawsuit against Stormy Daniels “many times.” He can be a "very aggressive guy," Davidson says. The prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, has asked witnesses several times to explain common internet abbreviations, including "lol." Keith Davidson was just compelled to tell the courtroom what “wtf” stands for. The prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, is really bearing down on Keith Davidson, grilling him on how Stormy Daniels’s denials could have been thought to be true. It’s a really important point to highlight for jurors — and to make as memorable as possible — again to take the wind out of the sails of any argument by the defense that Daniels denied her encounter with Trump. As Keith Davidson testifies about how handling both Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen made his life more and more complicated, he is describing the settings of conversations with remarkable vividness. Earlier, he spoke about a department store with “Alice in Wonderland”-themed decorations and now he is talking about the Marilyn Monroe suite at the Roosevelt Hotel, a “classic Hollywood place on Hollywood Boulevard.” At the back of the courtroom today: Andrew Giuliani. (note: lulz) Keith Davidson is being asked about texts with Michael Cohen referencing the State of the Union address that Trump was going to deliver. It underscores that some of this was happening as Trump was running the country. We’re hearing now that in mid-January 2018, Michael Cohen texted Keith Davidson that he had tentatively scheduled Stormy Daniels to appear on the television program “Hannity,” which she never did. Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, asked why Cohen was pushing for her to appear on the program. Davidson answered that Cohen believed Daniels would further deny the sexual encounter with Trump. Cohen also had a relationship with the host of that show, Sean Hannity, who was a supporter of Trump. At a 2018 hearing before Cohen’s guilty plea related to this payment and other matters, it was revealed that Hannity was a legal client of Cohen’s, who apparently gave him real-estate advice. Our readers may be wondering why the prosecution would provide a copy of Stormy Daniels’s initial denial of her relationship with Mr. Trump to the jury. The reason is likely the same that they are comfortable with witnesses insulting Michael Cohen: They want to familiarize and comfort the jury with these facts before the defense can use them, making it seem as if prosecutors hid important information. We’re now seeing the aftermath of an unsuccessful hush-money payment, as Michael Cohen pleads with and cajoles Keith Davidson to bar Stormy Daniels from doing any interviews in response to The Wall Street Journal’s reporting about the deal. Davidson says Cohen was in one of his “pants-on-fire” stages, using that term for a second time. He seems to mean it to suggest that Cohen was running around as if his pants were on fire, but it’s a pretty convenient phrase for a defense team seeking to paint Cohen as a liar. The statement from Stormy Daniels just shown in court seemed like an obvious non-denial denial when I was reporting on this story at the time for The Wall Street Journal. First of all, it came from Michael Cohen. How would he have had access to her? Second, she said she didn’t receive hush money from “Donald Trump” — we knew it was Michael Cohen who had paid. The jury, previously unengaged, has been following this testimony closely, many jurors sitting up straight, gazing at Keith Davidson as he testifies about the “many many phone calls” and “many many text messages” he received from Michael Cohen, with “little regard” for his schedule. Another fun moment as the prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, asks: “Did you intend for this statement to be cleverly misleading?” “I don’t understand the question,” Davidson responds, before going on to add that he would “never” use the term “hush money” for payment that was made. He prefers the term “consideration.” We are now looking at a January 2018 statement from Stormy Daniels, in which she denied reports of a relationship with Trump, a denial she would later rescind. Later, she would say that while she did not have an affair with Trump, she did have sex with him. Recently, Trump claimed in a social media post that this six-year-old statement was “JUST FOUND.” He was penalized $1,000 for that remark as a violation of the gag order. The prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, has Davidson read Daniels's initial denial to the jury. He then asks Davidson: “How would you characterize the truthfulness of this statement?” Members of the public chuckled in the overflow room. Trump’s eyes were closed at the start of Keith Davidson's testimony. But his lawyer Todd Blanche seemed acutely aware of how important it is to their case and glanced over at his client. Moments later, as Davidson continued describing Cohen’s words, including an expletive directed at Trump, Trump opened his eyes and nodded. Keith Davidson has been an engaging witness, particularly when he talks about Michael Cohen. He describes receiving a call from Cohen in December 2016 while in a “strangely decorated department store.” Cohen was despondent, he says, as he complained to Davidson that “I can’t believe I’m not going to Washington.” This is a very important point as prosecutors continue to anticipate and address the defense's attacks on Cohen, who they say is seeking revenge on Trump after a series of slights. The defense lawyers are almost certain to seize on this bit of testimony from Davidson saying Cohen told him he wanted a job in Washington. Cohen testified before Congress that he did not actually want one, although federal prosecutors who investigated him have said that he did. Keith Davidson is now being asked about a text he sent Dylan Howard, the editor of The National Enquirer, on election night as the election was about to get called for Trump. “What have we done?” Davidson texted. Howard responded: “Oh my god.” Today, Davidson describes his text as “gallows humor,” but explains that “there was an understanding” that their “activities may have in some way assisted the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.” As the results rolled in on election night, Dylan Howard was watching on television from home. When it became clear Trump would win, he called Michael Cohen, who invited him to the celebration at the New York Hilton in Times Square. He went with one of his reporters. The testimony has gotten quite dry, as Keith Davidson is being asked to review specific aspects of the agreement signed with Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen, signing “on behalf of” Trump. The jurors look a little bored, with at least one gazing off elsewhere in the courtroom. Keith Davidson starts off the day by reminding the jury and the rest of us how bad things had gotten between him and Michael Cohen. Dylan Howard, the editor of The National Enquirer, had to step in because Davidson believed Cohen was “not telling me the truth” about the delay in receiving a hush money payment for Daniels’s story. And now, on the screen, we see that Davidson, in the point he’s reached in the story, has received the hush-money payment. In a text message to Howard, he writes: “funds received.” Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniels's lawyer, is back on the stand for more questioning from prosecutors. When Davidson left off testifying on Tuesday, he left us on a cliffhanger: He is at the part in the story where he is about to receive $130,000 from Michael Cohen to keep Daniels quiet about her story of having had sex with Trump. In several hours of testimony on Tuesday, going into great detail about deals to pay off Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, both of whom claimed sexual encounters with Trump and both of whom were his clients in 2016. Trump denies both accounts. Justice Merchan says that we can summon the witness back to the stand, an indication that we may not get an immediate ruling here.

Hey, the trial resumes today: Keith Davidson will be the witness; but first, more on Trump's gag order violations: The hearing is over and we will take a five-minute break before the jurors are brought in. I’ll be very curious to see whether we get a ruling soon. Justice Merchan seemed far more definitive in his thinking today than in the hearing last week. Overall, I think it’s fair to say that this hearing is going better for Blanche than the last one. THe judge is nodding at some of his arguments about one alleged violation and already said that he was not concerned about another one. Even now, saying “you made your point” to Blanche, the judge softens the statement with a smile. There is one argument, though, for which Merchan signals he has little sympathy: Trump’s comments about the jury, saying they were mostly Democrats. Hard to see the defendant not being penalized for those comments given Merchan’s tone here now. Todd Blanche has moved on to Michael Cohen’s attacks on Trump, which have been manifold. Some of Cohen’s tweeted insults to his former boss are shown in the courtroom. This is potentially fertile territory for the defense; Justice Merchan had cautioned that witnesses — seemingly Cohen — should not use the gag order as an excuse to attack the defendant. Blanche is now talking about Tik-Tok videos that Cohen has done criticizing Trump recently. “This is not a man that needs protection from the gag order,” Blanche says. This is a serious concern for prosecutors. Their witness, who had said that he would be silent after having attacked Trump, has not fulfilled that pledge. And the judge has already written that he is somewhat sympathetic to the defense’s argument here. While the defense's arguments about Cohen may be gaining some traction with the judge, it's also worth noting that this is happening while the jury is not in the room. Justice Merchan extends a minor olive branch to Todd Blanche and says he’s not that concerned with the potential violation where Trump referred to David Pecker as “a nice guy.” He doesn’t fully explain his reasoning but certainly telegraphs that he won’t find this one in violation of his gag order. An animated Todd Blanche is suggesting that Trump simply has to respond to reporters who ask him about witnesses. Justice Merchan is not buying it. “It was your client who went down to that holding area and stood in front of the press and started to speak. It wasn’t the press that went to him. He went to the press. He didn’t need to go in that direction.” He adds, “Nobody forced your client” to go talk to reporters in the courthouse hallway when he attacked Cohen. After Justice Merchan points out that no one is forcing Trump to talk to the press, Todd Blanche’s response, “I agree with that,” draws a large laugh in the overflow room. It’s notable that Merchan continues to express concern, as he did in his first ruling holding Trump in contempt, about Trump’s rights to free speech, particularly as a political candidate. The judge says that a whole press area has been set aside for Trump in the hallway so that “your client, as candidate for the presidency, has the opportunity to speak about absolutely anything he wants.” Todd Blanche is still speaking quickly and his voice is high-pitched as he jousts with Justice Merchan. It’s a bit unusual to see a lawyer seem this agitated in what is a high-stakes argument, but essentially an academic one. Blanche is under a lot of pressure. It’s quite something hearing Todd Blanche complain about media coverage, when Trump personally loves how much attention he gets from the trial. Justice Merchan says he doesn’t understand Blanche’s argument comparing Trump’s inability to speak out freely with journalists' ability to report freely on him everyday. “They’re not defendants in this case," Justice Merchan says forcefully. "They’re not subject to the gag order.” Todd Blanche is speaking quickly as he defends Trump’s comments about David Pecker, whom Trump said had been “very nice.” Blanche says that Trump sidestepped the reporter's question about him and gave a “factual and neutral answer.” He says there was no willful violation of the order. “It’s not just about Mr. Pecker,” the judge responds, saying Trump's comments affect other witnesses as well. Blanche really has very little to work with during this hearing. It’s very hard to argue Trump hasn’t violated the gag order, especially after Tuesday’s ruling that he did previously. It’s fascinating to hear Todd Blanche return to arguments that, for the most part, did not work for him last week. He now mentions a comment from President Biden at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in which the president made an oblique reference to Stormy Daniels, saying that Trump had been experiencing “stormy weather.” But the judge asks, isn’t it possible to respond to Biden without actually mentioning Daniels, a potential witness? Trump appeared to get frustrated during this exchange and motioned with his hands. Todd Blanche starts off by saying that the purpose of the gag order is to “protect the integrity of these proceedings.” After a rough performance at the last hearing regarding the gag order, Blanche is reading much of his argument, which appears to be written in front of him, rather than speaking extemporaneously. He argues that none of the four statements at issue were disruptive to the trial, and continues to paint his client’s statements as responses to political attacks. So much of Blanche’s argument hinges on the notion that Trump — the former president, a wealthy man and a person who voluntarily entered the political realm — is being treated unfairly when he is criticized. The prosecutors say “we are not yet seeking jail,” and Christopher Conroy sits down. Next up, Todd Blanche, Trump's lawyer. Trump shook his head at the mention of “jail” during the hearing. Emil Bove, another lawyer for Trump, smiled slightly when prosecutors said they were not yet seeking jail, saying they wanted to minimize disruptions to the trial. Trump is notably not watching his lead counsel deliver these arguments. He is instead facing ahead and sitting motionless. Christopher Conroy, the prosecutor, now takes up the most difficult subject, an attack on Michael D. Cohen, Trump’s former fixer. The judge, in ruling against Trump after the first hearing, warned that witnesses could not use the gag order as a “sword,” attacking Trump while knowing that the former president would be fined for attacking them back. Conroy here acknowledges that, saying: “We understand the court's concern about Michael Cohen.” But he insists on this fourth and final violation being recognized, as he says Trump is trying to “disrupt” the process and that his statements are “corrosive to this proceeding.” The prosecutor, Christopher Conroy, is going over the four instances of Trump allegedly violating the gag order. He lingers on one instance, in which Trump answered a question from a reporter during a campaign stop last week, after ignoring other questions. The question was about testimony from a key witness, David Pecker. “He selectively responded to this question and not others,” Conroy says, noting that Trump said Pecker had been “nice” so far. The message to other witnesses, Conroy says, is “be nice,” or face attacks. “The defendant thinks the rules should be different for him,” Conroy adds. The line from Conroy about the “rules” being different for Trump, in Trump’s mind, is an echo of an argument that Roberta Kaplan, the lead lawyer for E. Jean Carroll, made in Trump's federal defamation trial in January. We begin with prosecutors reviewing the four alleged gag order violations. The prosecutor handling this hearing, Christopher Conroy, is the same one who succeeded at the last one, after which Trump was found to have violated the gag order nine of 10 times. The alleged violations today include attacks on Michael D. Cohen, Trump’s former fixer and, interestingly, a compliment made about another witness, David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer. Any speech directed toward witnesses, prosecutors say, even complimentary speech, is a violation. Moments into the prosecutors' argument, Trump slapped the arm of his lead lawyer, Todd Blanche, and gestured with his hands. They spoke briefly and then Trump sat back and immediately shut his eyes. The judge has taken the bench and we are set to begin. Trump and his lawyer Todd Blanche are whispering to each other. Despite Trump’s oft-mentioned germophobia, he and Blanche sit incredibly close to each other at times, and Blanche whispers very close to Trump’s face. Trump has walked into court, with adviser Boris Epshteyn in tow. No one from his family is with him today. He has shed the red and blue ties and is wearing a yellow one today. Our colleague Michael Gold, who is following Trump on the campaign trail, reports that the candidate attacked Justice Merchan at a rally in Wisconsin last night and said that the jury in this trial was drawn from a county — Manhattan — which is “a 95% or so Democrat area.” Trump added: “Other than that, things are wonderful.” Trump continued the same line of attack in the courthouse hallway. According to a pool report, he referred to Justice Merchan as conflicted and bragged about yesterday's rallies. Good morning from the courtroom where we expect to begin shortly with another hearing about Trump's gag order. Prosecutors will accuse Trump of repeatedly violating the order, which bars him from attacking witnesses and jurors, among others. He was fined $9,000 on Tuesday for earlier violations. The second crop of them — four in all — could raise the fine to $13,000. Trump has also been warned that he could be sent to jail if he continues to violate the order. But because that warning came after prosecutors had already alerted the judge to the four new potential violations, it seems unlikely that the judge would make that move today. There was little evidence of Trump supporters in front of the courthouse earlier this morning. On Tuesday, a crowd of a few dozen had assembled, waving giant Trump 2024 banners and wearing MAGA hats. Today, we saw just one supporter draped in a Trump flag. Good morning. It's very animated today in line outside the courthouse, between the general public and the reporters. Michael Wolff, the magazine writer, showed up with a man filming him in tow.