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

[dcbc 14254]

11 hours ago, The Dog said:

It's pretty standard to put a criminal defendant on the stand (outside the jury's presence) and admonish them on the privilege against self-incrimination and right not to testify (and that the prosecution can't bring that up in front of the jury), and if Blanche doesn't request to have Trump on the stand outside of the jury's presence to get his understanding of these rights on the record, the judge likely will.

Edited May 3 by dcbc

[Hookah Horns 2923]

3 hours ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

“The judge must inquire about the substance of confidential attorney client communications”  sounds like some great thinking. 

Not that confidential when it occurs on TV. 

[Hookah Horns 2923]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the orange shitgibbon moron did in fact say "testify" and that the gag order prevented him from doing so.

But I think we all know he actually meant "talk to the press."  

Which is why it can be so difficult, in a legal/judicial sense, to infer or conclude anything from what he actually says.

I think he meant testify. A reporter apparently asked him if he would testify (I can't understand the question because it sounds like shit). 

How could he mean "talk to the press"? He was talking to the press right then and constantly does so. 

[safe sex 11608]

1 hour ago, dcbc said:

It's pretty standard to put a criminal defendant on the stand (outside the jury's presence) and explain the privilege against self-incrimination and right not to testify (and that the prosecution can't bring that up in front of the jury) to them like the 5 years old, and if Blanche doesn't request to have Trump on the stand outside of the jury's presence to testify to his understanding of these rights for this limited purpose outside the jury's presence, the judge likely will.

Is the absence of the jury important to the process? Just curious.

[dcbc 14254]

Is the absence of the jury important to the process? Just curious.

Yes.  Because a prosecutor is not allowed to comment on a defendant's decision not to testify. So a short hearing where the defendant takes the stand for the limited purpose of acknowledging through a short Q&A admonishment, either with his attorney or the judge, that he understands his rights in this regard necessarily has to occur with no jury present.

[TwiceHorn 30850]

7 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

I think he meant testify. A reporter apparently asked him if he would testify (I can't understand the question because it sounds like shit). 

How could he mean "talk to the press"? He was talking to the press right then and constantly does so. 

Yeah I couldn't hear anything either.

But what I thought he meant was respond to questions from the press that might criticize witnesses.

[tx ind 6897]

10 hours ago, Born to Run said:

Good call, and a lot of libraries offer sharing/ reciprocal memberships. I was able to get Austin access for my son Via Lakeway. Allowed us to do Homework all over between soccer games and practice. Libraries get a bad rap, I use one about once a week to knock out work between meetings.
it's not all overdoses and grooming.

I mean come for grooming, but stay for the strong wifi, cold ac, and quiet.

Clean(ish) shitters too

[Francisco 2.0 32176]

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.

Edited May 3 by Francisco 2.0

[Dnaguy 11592]

14 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Andrew Giuliani is back in court, as a correspondent for Real America's Voice, a relatively new far-right network.

The rights decent into propaganda madness:

Fox News

Newsmaxx

One American News Network…..

Then One American News… 

But really just now called OAN.

 

Now we’ve just dropped any ‘news’ element here.

Real America’s Voice.

What’s the future entail? What’s the next grift of a network for the right.

Christian Nation Musings or CNM.

 

[BamaATL 16209]

9 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

The rights decent into propaganda madness:

Fox News

Newsmaxx

One American News Network…..

Then One American News… 

But really just now called OAN.

 

Now we’ve just dropped any ‘news’ element here.

Real America’s Voice.

What’s the future entail? What’s the next grift of a network for the right.

Christian Nation Musings or CNM.

 

If we are lucky we will get the Jonestown Kool-Aid Club network.  

[The Original Greaser Bob 2701]

Special People Network

 

[atomheartbevo 89015]

 

[South Austin 51633]

To be fair, he probably has a lot of rape allegations, but the government-controlled North Korean press can't report on it.

[C-Man 26697]

The rights decent into propaganda madness:
Fox News
Newsmaxx
One American News Network…..
Then One American News… 
But really just now called OAN.
 
Now we’ve just dropped any ‘news’ element here.
Real America’s Voice.
What’s the future entail? What’s the next grift of a network for the right.
Christian Nation Musings or CNM.
 

Bravda

[RomaVicta 29574]

Possibly so.

9 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

I think he meant testify. A reporter apparently asked him if he would testify (I can't understand the question because it sounds like shit). 

How could he mean "talk to the press"? He was talking to the press right then and constantly does so. 

Good point.

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah I couldn't hear anything either.

But what I thought he meant was respond to questions from the press that might criticize witnesses.

I'll just point out that y'all's comments are posted after a criticism of Trump's attorney nodding in the background. The attorney affirms what was actually said because he has nothing he can refer to. 

I don't think it matters what Trump meant. The attorney responds to what is said: My client can't testify because of the gag order.

Would any lawyer here nod as their client misstates to the law or a court order to the press? Y'all are smart guy from whom I've learned many things. Am I wrong here?

[Red Five 40357]

It’s pretty crazy that we had a president for four years who apparently doesn’t understand anything about anything.

[Mo Horn 8716]

1 minute ago, Red Five said:

It’s pretty crazy that we had a president for four years who apparently doesn’t understand anything about anything.

And with that knowledge, millions will still vote for him, and might get him elected again. 

[Dnaguy 11592]

18 minutes ago, South Austin said:

To be fair, he probably has a lot of rape allegations, but the government-controlled North Korean press can't report on it.

 

If you have no right to refuse and the society you live in has no free will, can you be raped at all?

[Thrawn 531]

I think the debate over what he meant has made people lose track of a simple fact. He is dumb as shit. So whatever is the dumbest explanation, is probably the correct one.

[Js1 83356]

4 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

 

If you have no right to refuse and the society you live in has no free will, can you be raped at all?

Rape?? They think he’s an actual deity. They probably let him - unlike Trump, who only claimed they let him 

[The Dog 43408]

Vonshitzinpants corrects himself and gets corrected.

[Francisco 2.0 32176]

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.

Edited May 3 by Francisco 2.0

[Francisco 2.0 32176]

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.

Edited May 3 by Francisco 2.0

[SquishMitten 10370]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

I'll just point out that y'all's comments are posted after a criticism of Trump's attorney nodding in the background. The attorney affirms what was actually said because he has nothing he can refer to. 

I don't think it matters what Trump meant. The attorney responds to what is said: My client can't testify because of the gag order.

Would any lawyer here nod as their client misstates to the law or a court order to the press? Y'all are smart guy from whom I've learned many things. Am I wrong here?

Agreed. We all expect Trump to spew bullshit and lies, so that wasn't surprising. I was far more bothered by his attorney nodding along with something that he absolutely knows to be a false statement of law. I'd be pretty surprised if Merchan doesn't say something to him about that, although it would likely be in a sidebar.

[Dnaguy 11592]

5 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

New witness:  Hope Hicks

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.

[Pato del Muerto 52094]

1 hour ago, Thrawn said:

I think the debate over what he meant has made people lose track of a simple fact. He is dumb as shit. So whatever is the dumbest explanation, is probably the correct one.

Slocum’s razor makes an appearance outside of its usual haunts.

[Mo Horn 8716]

42 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

The people call Hope Hicks

The anagram TTIWWP has never been more appropriate. 

[atomheartbevo 89015]

 

[Smax 3799]

and again.... he needs a night or two in jail period 

 

 

[RomaVicta 29574]

54 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Agreed. We all expect Trump to spew bullshit and lies, so that wasn't surprising. I was far more bothered by his attorney nodding along with something that he absolutely knows to be a false statement of law. I'd be pretty surprised if Merchan doesn't say something to him about that, although it would likely be in a sidebar.

It has also occured to me since posting that the lawyer lending weight to Trump's absurd lies about and claims of persecution stirs up the followers to believe the lies. They're not the type to pay close attention to the follow-up in the courtroom today. They wander around or clean their guns thinking their cult leader is not getting fair trials.

[RomaVicta 29574]

10 minutes ago, Smax said:

and again.... he needs a night or two in jail period 

 

 

Fucker should already be in jail due to the nature of his alleged crimes and the fact that most of them have been videotaped.

Jail Trump for this at the end of the day so that he has to stay in jail until Monday. Or just sentence him to two or three days. 

Or firing squad. Works either way.

[texasdago 7407]

Maybe he can hang out in the drunk tank for a couple of nights

 

[Biff Tannen 45151]

2 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Fucker should already be in jail due to the nature of his alleged crimes and the fact that most of them have been videotaped.

Jail Trump for this at the end of the day so that he has to stay in jail until Monday. Or just sentence him to two or three days. 

Or firing squad. Works either way.

[Red Five 40357]

Another $1000 oughtta do it this time. /Susan Collins

[TwiceHorn 30850]

2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Possibly so.

Good point.

I'll just point out that y'all's comments are posted after a criticism of Trump's attorney nodding in the background. The attorney affirms what was actually said because he has nothing he can refer to. 

I don't think it matters what Trump meant. The attorney responds to what is said: My client can't testify because of the gag order.

Would any lawyer here nod as their client misstates to the law or a court order to the press? Y'all are smart guy from whom I've learned many things. Am I wrong here?

I dunno.  Again, it's a word salad problem.  Trump spews word salad non-stop.

A lawyer would not nod at the idea that his client cannot testify at trial because of a gag order because that's ridiculous.  Todd Blanche's judgment is questionable by his choice of client and some of the motions he has filed, but he is not a ridiculous lawyer.

 

 

[Pato del Muerto 52094]

Probably has been told bluntly to never interrupt or correct Trump in public. Possibly ever. And is smart enough to know not to give wtf looks or gestures in the background. 

Edited May 3 by Pato del Muerto

[Biff Tannen 45151]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Todd Blanche's judgment is questionable by his choice of client and some of the motions he has filed, but he is not a ridiculous lawyer.

[RomaVicta 29574]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I dunno.  Again, it's a word salad problem.  Trump spews word salad non-stop.

A lawyer would not nod at the idea that his client cannot testify at trial because of a gag order because that's ridiculous.  Todd Blanche's judgment is questionable by his choice of client and some of the motions he has filed, but he is not a ridiculous lawyer.

 

 

My friend, one doesn't have to be ridiculous or stupid to make an error.

If Blanche is too smart to know to do that, then why does he do it? Stirring the pot? Brain-dead after a day at trial? So accustomed to nodding at everything Trump says just to pacify him he wasn't really listening?

It was a strange gesture that caught my eye and a number of others who also are not lawyers. 

[Horn Dog 9473]

21 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Fucker should already be in jail due to the nature of his alleged crimes and the fact that most of them have been videotaped.

Jail Trump for this at the end of the day so that he has to stay in jail until Monday. Or just sentence him to two or three days. 

Or firing squad. Works either way.

Put him in the M13 block and instruct them to give him a real gag order

[DigglerontheHoof 20562]

I’m so fucking sick of our justice system making itself powerless against this orange shit-stain.

[RomaVicta 29574]

Just now, Horn Dog said:

Put him in the M13 block and instruct them to give him a real gag order

I'm truly appalled at the horrors of the American Prison System and don't make jokes.

Spoiler

I'm giving you the Go code.

 

[Gatorubet 29665]

22 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I’m so fucking sick of our justice system making itself powerless against this orange shit-stain.

This is a really fresh take. We have not seen this issue brought up before.

Here is a suggestion: why not start a thread in CR and call it “justice system powerless against orange shit stain”.  As we go through Trump‘s various trials, every time the justice system displeases you, you and your unhappy brethren can post in that thread, and not continually interject that same opinion/observation throughout this thread.     

It is not an invalid topic, to be sure, and given the frequency and passion expressed in similar comments by several posters, it would seem that that topic legitimately deserves its own thread. 

[Francisco 2.0 32176]

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.

Edited May 3 by Francisco 2.0

[Fudge Nuggets 18977]

57 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I dunno.  Again, it's a word salad problem.  Trump spews word salad non-stop.

A lawyer would not nod at the idea that his client cannot testify at trial because of a gag order because that's ridiculous.  Todd Blanche's judgment is questionable by his choice of client and some of the motions he has filed, but he is not a ridiculous lawyer.

 

 

Counterpoint, all lawyers are ridiculous to some degree 

[jimmyjazz 45192]

18 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

This is a really fresh take. We have not seen this issue brought up before.

Here is a suggestion: why not start a thread in CR and call it “justice system powerless against orange shit stain”.  As we go through Trump‘s various trials, every time the justice system displeases you, you and your unhappy brethren can post in that thread, and not continually interject that same opinion/observation throughout this thread.     

It is not an invalid topic, to be sure, and given the frequency and passion expressed in similar comments by several posters, it would seem that that topic legitimately deserves its own thread. 

You OK, dude?

[DigglerontheHoof 20562]

32 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

This is a really fresh take. We have not seen this issue brought up before.

Here is a suggestion: why not start a thread in CR and call it “justice system powerless against orange shit stain”.  As we go through Trump‘s various trials, every time the justice system displeases you, you and your unhappy brethren can post in that thread, and not continually interject that same opinion/observation throughout this thread.     

It is not an invalid topic, to be sure, and given the frequency and passion expressed in similar comments by several posters, it would seem that that topic legitimately deserves its own thread. 

This seems as good a thread as any to bring it up...repeatedly if the frustration level fits.  My frustration level with this shit-stain hit defcon1 years ago.   I'm not going to apologize for pointing out the special boy's special treatment for the umpteenth time. 

[Captainant 26914]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I dunno.  Again, it's a word salad problem.  Trump spews word salad non-stop.

TIL word salad is a viable defense for multiple criminal indictments! Wow what a neat new loophole discovered by trumpco! It never seemed to work before, but it sure baffles the brightest legal minds now. 

Literally any other defendant would be spending at least one night in county for this many willfil and repeated violations of court orders. Never fucking mind the threats against the judge's family. The kid gloves trump gets as standard are just ridiculous and show the American justice system to be the multi-tiered farce that it is. 

[dcbc 14254]

30 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Counterpoint, all lawyers are ridiculous to some degree 

The most ridiculous thing I ever did was take your mom to a nice seafood dinner and never call her again.

 

 

Just kidding.  I called her again.

Edited May 3 by dcbc

[Dnaguy 11592]

1 hour ago, Smax said:

and again.... he needs a night or two in jail period 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

Another $1000 oughtta do it this time. /Susan Collins

[SimonBolivar 10677]

38 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Counterpoint, all lawyers are ridiculous to some degree 

Objection!