Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[HenryJames 66044]

Trump found in contempt again for violating gag order. 

[GopherRock 1765]

So is he finally going to spend the night at Rikers at the end of the day?

[gernblansten 3196]

49 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Note:  I actually have to go do some solid work here in about half an hour, so...there will be a slight delay in the proceedings.

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.

[HenryJames 66044]

3 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

So is he finally going to spend the night at Rikers at the end of the day?

[DigglerontheHoof 21191]

So cruel, stupid senior citizens from Floriduh will be paying out more fines...cool, cool, cool. 

[texasdago 7572]

14 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Trump found in contempt again for violating gag order. 

Uh oh... they're going to revoke his early bird discount privileges at the Mar-a-Lago buffet.

[HenryJames 66044]

[Gatorubet 30218]

26 minutes ago, texasdago said:

Uh oh... they're going to revoke his early bird discount privileges at the Mar-a-Lago buffet.

If I recall, those are the last of the pre-direct warning gag order violations.  The prosecution turned in those prior to the rulings in the first batch of violations, where the court said next time jail.   Because of ex post facto reasons, the court did not give jail for these - as Trump had not received the “next time jail” talk yet, and so the fact they were turned in before the warning to Trump its just money. 

It is now set up for the next offense being jail.   Maybe an overnight stay? I guess it depends on the content and number.    in an event, the appellate record will be clean and show we had more than enough chances.

[Gatorubet 30218]

10 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Based on the clip above, Larry has a very high opinion of himself.

[jimmyjazz 45903]

The thing I keep coming back to is the immediacy of these violations.  Failing to comply with a gag order isn't "deep state" stuff, it's about honoring the orders of the judge.  Whether you believe Trump should be in court or not, it's difficult to argue that staying in line during the trial is somehow part of the setup.

Not that I think the average MAGAt would agree, but still . . .

Edited May 6 by jimmyjazz

[High Plains Drifter 11036]

55 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

So is he finally going to spend the night at Rikers at the end of the day?

 

hahahaha. You sweet summer child. 

 

 

[4th&Five 41525]

Tell him he’ll be photographed without his wig and makeup and he’ll shut the fuck up. 

[Js1 85313]

2 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Tell him he’ll be photographed without his wig and makeup and he’ll shut the fuck up. 

Or subject to a physical and mental examination by a doctor of the judge’s choosing. Not someone on Trump’s payroll 

[Gatorubet 30218]

“A note on today's gag order ruling

Lisa Rubin

In contrast to the first contempt ruling, in which Merchan found nine of 10 statements were indeed willful violations of the gag order, in today’s ruling, Merchan held that only one of the four alleged statements -- the one about the jury — is violative. 

But he refused to find that the two statements about Michael Cohen and the one about former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker were reflective of criminal contempt. 

In particular, Merchan wrote that he was not convinced that the statements about Cohen were not political speech as opposed to attempts to intimidate a witness. In other words, Todd Blanche’s presentation of Cohen’s April 2024 tweets seem to have persuaded Merchan that it was at least possible that Trump was, in fact, defending himself against Cohen’s near-constant attacks”

 

Merchan is making any gag order complaints appeal proof by this.  Trump will eventually get his fund raising moment. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21191]

Why even bother w/ gag orders?  They're meaningless when it comes to the orange dipshit. 

[The Dog 44020]

 

[TexasEd 8066]

13 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm sorry, we want to see Will Farrell's tits?  Haven't we already done that, and wasn't it rather disappointing?

 

[Hermanator 7039]

The United States criminal justice system held hostage by a country full of drooling idiots. 

He called it in 1992 with this great parody of these morons

 

[Gil Bang 25944]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

So where is Lawrence O’Donnell sitting?

I believe there's an MSNBC slot, and they are alternating between their people.  Maddow was in there previously.  

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

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.

Edited May 6 by Francisco 2.0

[tbone_ 14115]

The thing I keep coming back to is the immediacy of these violations.  Failing to comply with a gag order isn't "deep state" stuff, it's about honoring the orders of the judge.  Whether you believe Trump should be in court or not, it's difficult to argue that staying in line during the trial is somehow part of the setup.
Not that I think the average MAGAt would agree, but still . . .

Bro, the whole damn system is rigged against him. Everyone in the system is doing everything they can to take him down. No previous potus has ever had to deal with this kind of persecution. And for doing what? Just what needs to be done to save the country. It’s disgusting, really. But he’s fighting for us and staying strong. The gag orders are fucking joke, people just can’t deal with the truth.

[Pato del Muerto 52489]

Judge to defendant- I can’t really put you in jail for these repeated contempt acts because of who you are, so don’t you worry about that.  

[Goredho 17399]

Why can’t we have a true gag order?

 

[DixonHur 11296]

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Judge to defendant- I can’t really put you in jail for these repeated contempt acts because of who you are, so don’t you worry about that.  

This is, so infuriating...

Judge - Don't disobey me or I'll throw you in jail.

*Trump disregards the judge's order*

Judge - Ok, I'm serious this time, don't defy me or I'll throw you in jail.

*Trump defies*

Judge - This time I really, really, mean it...you're going to jail if you defy me again.

*Trump defies agains*

Rinse and repeat...

['stache 21805]

6 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Judge to defendant- I can’t really put you in jail for these repeated contempt acts because of who you are, so don’t you worry about that.  

You don't think there's a little bit of truth to that? This is truly unprecedented. The logistics of putting a former president in jail, even long term, much less temporarily, is astronomically difficult. He knows it to some extent which is part of why he keeps pushing it, and the judge knows that, and is in a horribly difficult position. I don't blame the legal system dealing with this nonsense as much as I do the 80 million voters who thought it was a good idea to make a man in his 70s with the emotional intelligence of a toddler president of the fucking United States. All this could have been avoided if these assholes among us had done the right thing and chosen a regular right wing idiot to run for president. It probably would have been way better for don himself who could have continued doing cheesy tv shows and go down as something other than one of the most reviled people in U.S. history.

Edited May 6 by 'stache

[Your Mom 4805]

As amusing as it would be to see, him spending a little time in jail would do wonders for his campaign. He’d rake in millions on day one.   It would fire up his base like nothing else has before, and they would see it as proof of his persecution.  He’s probably already got a bunch of pre-written tweets for someone else to post on his behalf just for the occasion.

  
 

[High Plains Drifter 11036]

4 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

As amusing as it would be to see, him spending a little time in jail would do wonders for his campaign. He’d rake in millions on day one.   It would fire up his base like nothing else has before, and they would see it as proof of his persecution.  He’s probably already got a bunch of pre-written tweets for someone else to post on his behalf just for the occasion.

  
 

 

Good points, all. Now, allow me to retort: 

A weekend in jail just might kill him. 

 

 

[Gatorubet 30218]

21 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

This is, so infuriating...

Judge - Don't disobey me or I'll throw you in jail.

*Trump disregards the judge's order*

Judge - Ok, I'm serious this time, don't defy me or I'll throw you in jail.

*Trump defies*

Judge - This time I really, really, mean it...you're going to jail if you defy me again.

*Trump defies agains*

Rinse and repeat...

You are now doing the Trump alternate facts thing. Please don’t do that.

[DixonHur 11296]

18 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The logistics of putting a former president in jail, even long term, much less temporarily, is astronomically difficult.

Meh, I think there are a few spots left in Guantanamo

[DixonHur 11296]

3 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

You are now doing the Trump alternate facts thing. Please don’t do that.

Um, these aren't alternate facts...these are just facts.  That judge isn't going to jail Trump, and both of them know it.

[RomaVicta 29905]

11 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

As amusing as it would be to see, him spending a little time in jail would do wonders for his campaign. He’d rake in millions on day one.   It would fire up his base like nothing else has before, and they would see it as proof of his persecution.  He’s probably already got a bunch of pre-written tweets for someone else to post on his behalf just for the occasion.

  
 

It would help with his hard core base. Maybe the shockingly stupid and disengaged undecideds will be moved away from him by a photo of that turd in a jail cell. Most of the dumbasses will intuit that this means he must be guilty of whatever they're charging him with (you can't expect them to know).

Further, it will quite possibly be the only time he is in an actual cell.

[wildcat09 29349]

16 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

As amusing as it would be to see, him spending a little time in jail would do wonders for his campaign. He’d rake in millions on day one.   It would fire up his base like nothing else has before, and they would see it as proof of his persecution.  He’s probably already got a bunch of pre-written tweets for someone else to post on his behalf just for the occasion.

  
 

Who gives a fuck what his base will think? They're his base. Him being jailed for repeated flagrant contempt may help him con some more legal fees out of his most hardcore supporters, but it won't help him with undecided voters and it would send a signal to everyone that he's not actually above the law.

[The Dog 44020]

21 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Um, these aren't alternate facts...these are just facts.  That judge isn't going to jail Trump, and both of them know it.

yeah that's why they've already discussed the logistics of doing so with the secret service. I'm sure they did that just for shits and giggles.

[locodos 5387]

21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 but it won't help him with undecided voters and it would send a signal to everyone that he's not actually above the law.

Those are just voters who are voting for Trump, they just don't want to say they are.  I think perhaps they are the worst kind of Trumpkin.

[Hermanator 7039]

Once a former president is indicted of a felony he should at that moment cease to be recognized a former president and have his secret service detail removed along with all perks of being a former president. 

[Surly Bevo 24908]

Yea. Throw him in jail. If that’s what actually wins him reelection it’s time to burn it all down anyway.

[Gatorubet 30218]

38 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Um, these aren't alternate facts...these are just facts.  That judge isn't going to jail Trump, and both of them know it.

The judge never explicitly warned Trump he would be jailed if he did it again until the hearing on the nine contempt charges. The judge then spent time saying what was appropriate and what was not, so there would be no mistake about what he expected.   This is all a precursor to the inevitable jail time, but was absolutely necessary to remove multiple avenues of appeal.  

I’ve already explained that there were contempt allegations brought before the judge told Trump what he could and could not do - and that he would be jailed if he did it again.  Today’s contempt allegations could not be considered in jailing him because they were all turned in before Trump was warned by the judge and told in detail what would not be allowed. 

Your post where the judge tells Trump three times do it again and you are  going to jail - and then doesn’t - is bullshit.  Just don’t make up stuff about the trial.  Others read this thread for actual news. 

I will bet a C-Note right now that Trump gets jailed before this thing is over. Feel free to accept. Loser donates to Surly. 

[DixonHur 11296]

15 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I will bet a C-Note right now that Trump gets jailed before this thing is over. Feel free to accept. Loser donates to Surly. 

I was more talking in general terms...not this judge in particular.  How many times have judges warned him not to violate a gag order?  Versus how many times has Trump violated gag orders in his various trials?

As far as a bet, I need to know what the bet is before I agree.

Jailed for contempt in this trial?  Or just in general? I just don't see him getting jailed for violating gag-orders because he would immediately appeal (possibly to SCOTUS eventually), so even if he were ordered to jail, I don't think they actually cuff him on the spot and put him in a cell...maybe he gets booked again but bonded out immediately.

[High Plains Drifter 11036]

19 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

The judge never explicitly warned Trump he would be jailed if he did it again until the hearing on the nine contempt charges. The judge then spent time saying what was appropriate and what was not, so there would be no mistake about what he expected.   This is all a precursor to the inevitable jail time, but was absolutely necessary to remove multiple avenues of appeal.  

I’ve already explained that there were contempt allegations brought before the judge told Trump what he could and could not do - and that he would be jailed if he did it again.  Today’s contempt allegations could not be considered in jailing him because they were all turned in before Trump was warned by the judge and told in detail what would not be allowed. 

Your post where the judge tells Trump three times do it again and you are  going to jail - and then doesn’t - is bullshit.  Just don’t make up stuff about the trial.  Others read this thread for actual news. 

I will bet a C-Note right now that Trump gets jailed before this thing is over. Feel free to accept. Loser donates to Surly. 

 

If by "this thing" you mean the current trial, and "gets jailed" as spending a single night in jail, I'll take that bet. 

Guilty, not guilty, hung jury, mistrial, whatever, I'm betting you 100$ (loser donates the money to surly) that dOTard does not end up in jail.

I guess if he dies on the shitter before the trial ends, the bet is a push. Imma gets nothing in that case. 

 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Judge to defendant- I can’t really put you in jail for these repeated contempt acts because of who you are, so don’t you worry about that.  

that's not actually what he said or how this played out. be better

[Pato del Muerto 52489]

1 hour ago, Hermanator said:

Once a former president is indicted of a felony he should at that moment cease to be recognized a former president and have his secret service detail removed along with all perks of being a former president. 

Kinda goes against the innocent until proven guilty thing we pretend exists in this country. 

['stache 21805]

54 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

The judge never explicitly warned Trump he would be jailed if he did it again until the hearing on the nine contempt charges. The judge then spent time saying what was appropriate and what was not, so there would be no mistake about what he expected.   This is all a precursor to the inevitable jail time, but was absolutely necessary to remove multiple avenues of appeal.  

I’ve already explained that there were contempt allegations brought before the judge told Trump what he could and could not do - and that he would be jailed if he did it again.  Today’s contempt allegations could not be considered in jailing him because they were all turned in before Trump was warned by the judge and told in detail what would not be allowed. 

Your post where the judge tells Trump three times do it again and you are  going to jail - and then doesn’t - is bullshit.  Just don’t make up stuff about the trial.  Others read this thread for actual news. 

I will bet a C-Note right now that Trump gets jailed before this thing is over. Feel free to accept. Loser donates to Surly. 

I don't think he'll get jailed. He consistently dances just around the outskirts violating the gag order, but not specifically issuing threats. I think he only gets jailed if he expressly calls for violence i.e. "The only way to end this sham trial is for a true patriot to take out Cohen/Judge Merchan/Juror No. __." I think that would get him jailed, but not much short of that. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13511]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I don't think he'll get jailed. He consistently dances just around the outskirts violating the gag order, but not specifically issuing threats. I think he only gets jailed if he expressly calls for violence i.e. "The only way to end this sham trial is for a true patriot to take out Cohen/Judge Merchan/Juror No. __." I think that would get him jailed, but not much short of that. 

If someone continually violates a judge's order and doesn't seem to care about fines, I don't see how you don't make them cool their heels in confinement for a certain point. Maybe you don't start with a weekend in Riker's but a couple of hours in a courtroom jail, or whatever option the judge has readily avaiable.

As far as today's testimony, it sounds like they have Weisselberg ordering the Cohen payments of their accounting/AP team. Presumably Trump must have ok'ed it, if not ordered it from Weisselberg. Has he testified yet, or is he refusing. Weisselberg creates a conundrum for the prosecution. He's continually lies under oath but in the defense of Trump. I assume that he will have to be given immunity to compel his testimony, if they're calling him at all.

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

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.

Edited May 6 by Francisco 2.0

[Red Five 40854]

I think it's funny that Trump caught so much shit for none of his family being at his trial, that now Eric, and only Eric, has to show up every day. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13511]

3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I think it's funny that Trump caught so much shit for none of his family being at his trial, that now Eric, and only Eric, has to show up every day. 

Good  point. Of course what in the world could Eric have to do otherwise. 

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I think it's funny that Trump caught so much shit for none of his family being at his trial, that now Eric, and only Eric, has to show up every day. 

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

[HenryJames 66044]

6 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

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.

Mob shit.

[Red Five 40854]

2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Good  point. Of course what in the world could Eric have to do otherwise. 

If convicted, Trump could go to prison for the rest of his life. I know they may at least partly want to just avoid the shitshow, but it's still amazing to see.

[safe sex 11711]

16 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I think it's funny that Trump caught so much shit for none of his family being at his trial, that now Eric, and only Eric, has to show up every day. 

Not even every day