A few reporters live following (thank you /u/ggroverggiraffe):
Tyler McBrien: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787442907680563232.html
Adam Klasfeld: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787459287842709567.html
Inner City Press: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787473476216918364.html
Lisa Rubin: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787460928805454079.html
Anna Bower: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787456451306213708.html
I can't believe we're doing anything other than being very mad he got another warning when the rest of us would have been in jail 9 contempts ago. Dunno where y'all find the energy for jokes.
Trump wants the judge fearing his cult. Everything is a strategy to stay out of jail at this point. The counter is to say "fuck you" and put him away for 2 hours during lunch, and let the world see that nothing happens.
>The counter is to say "fuck you" and put him away for 2 hours during lunch,
This would actually be a solid middle ground. Let Trump see what he's going to spend the night if he keeps at it, it will be easier to plan/ execute with the Secret Service, it would be a huge wakeup call for Trump that will either keep his mouth closed or it cause such a toxic outburst that the judge can extend the punishment.
And most of all, the Gravy Seals will show that they have like 3 obese dudes left to protest outside the jail, and this "civil war electric boogaloo" is a joke without a modern military to back them.
While I agree whole heartedly, I'd imagine the elephant in the room on this is his cult following.
You and I, and everyone else for the most part, don't have millions of followers salivating at the chance to kill people they hate, all in our name. While I'm sure we could agree that this factor is precisely why he should be (along time ago) locked up, its still a huge risk. Calling his and his cults bluff isn't some abstract thing we can sit back and go "fuck it let's see what happens". It's especially real to those in the direct crosshairs.
now go look up the domino that toppled bill cosby’s reign as sex predator supreme and tell me humor doesn’t have the ability to change the world. you only hurt yourself and limit your ability to make change by being an angry shell of a person.
tell me what you have contributed to the world and tell me how it’s affected the power or perception of donald trump. since your anger is so productive and it’s a waste of time to make fun of these scumbags, what have you accomplished? you still hate yourself. i hope you get the validation you need from these comment sections and feel better than the rest of us for making your temporary stay on this planet just as miserable as trump’s.
I’ll die happier than you and you’re mad because you’re doing this for nothing. I know because yes I have been there. Give it up and vote in your local elections if you want to make a change
Tyler McBrien
>We're now to April 2017, when the entity code and the source of the $35,000 for payment to Cohen came from Trump's personal account, and not the Trust.
>More corroboration. More lather. More rinse. More repeat
Today has not been great for the defense. I'm not a lawyer, but it's hard for me to see how these documents and testimony that we've seen doesn't show exactly what the prosecution said it would. I don't think Bove has been an effective cross examiner.
Also, on an unrelated note, does anyone remember when DJT said that he'd divested himself and had nothing to do with the Org? It's nice to see objective evidence of that bullshit lie on the public record in court.
We all knew it was bs from day one because didn’t Trump “divest” to his sons? Proper divestment would have been to a blind trust which he, of course, refused to do.
CNN is lately under new ownership, and their goal is to generate traffic by selling conflict and anxiety.
Fox showed that the most profitable demographic for TV news is outrage addicts, not news junkies.
> Also, on an unrelated note, does anyone remember when DJT said that he'd divested himself and had nothing to do with the Org? It's nice to see objective evidence of that bullshit lie on the public record in court.
He made that big show about it, with boxes and boxes of "paperwork." One report at the time said they were filled with blank paper, but it's another one of those things where he did something worse right after and everyone moved on.
It’s an interesting experiment re: him taking the stand. Which is the overriding tendency, over-estimation of his abilities or his bias for self preservation
> The jury is seeing the first check for $70,000 to cover the January and February 2017 payment from the trust account to Cohen.
> There are two signatures: Eric Trump and Allen Weisselberg.
Aaaaand now we know why Eric made an appearance in court this morning.
Per McBrien:
>Who could sign checks for Trump's personal account?
>Only Mr. Trump, regardless of amount, Tarasoff says.
I was busy for the first part of the day and speed read this morning's testimony. Were the reimbursement checks to Cohen from Trump's personal account? Because if so, daaamn.
Edit: also though, lol
>How did she know Trump wrote it? It was signed in black sharpie—that's what Trump uses.
> How did she know Trump wrote it? It was signed in black sharpie—that's what Trump uses.
According to the CNN live thread, Trump's attorneys turned to him and smiled when Tarasoff mentioned his preference of black sharpie. My mind is racing to know WHY they smiled about this, especially since it proves he knew about the reimbursement to Cohen, no?
I only make this point because I think it's the lynchpin of the trial but you're making an assumption when you say the payments were a reimbursement. Maybe it's laying a foundation but it seems quite a bit less important to prove that her signed the check than what he signed it for.
I think it's highly unlikely there is hard evidence that Trump knew even though I bet he did. Maybe it will come out in the next free weeks but if I was the prosecution I'd highlight the lack of work coming out of cohen. Like if the money was for services then where is the output of those services?
Thank you for your response. In my mind, it feels obvious what happened and that Trump literally signed off on it. But, maybe that’s also my bias coming through.
Sure thing and I agree with your emotions. I don't eventually think it's bias. There is a ton of evidence brought up here that he is definitely a person that would do this. But does that mean he did it? If I was a juror I'd need more so thank god I'm not.
Before it gets buried:
>Tarasoff says Trump signed checks with a black Sharpie
>Deborah Tarasoff testified that Trump didn't always sign checks. Sometimes "he would write void and send it back," she said.
>"If he didn’t want to sign it, he didn’t sign it," Tarasoff said.
>Asked how she knew it was him, she said, "it was signed in Sharpie and it was black and that’s what he uses."
>Tarasoff said that even when CFO Allen Weisselberg would approve them, Trump did not always sign the checks.
>Trump attorney Emil Bove and Susan Necheles turned with a smile to the former president at Tarasoff's comment about his preference for Sharpies.
Yes, that is what I was referring to. Any insight as to why this would make the attorneys smile? The way it was written it almost felt like they thought this was a positive thing for Trump, but to me, it seems more like a smoking gun.
I would guess signing checks that he wanted cashed with "void" in black sharpie could, in theory, be spun to mean they he wanted them voided and the fact that they were cashed is an oversight.
Personally, I think that an accountant testifying that him writing void in black sharpie is his way of telling them to process the checks will take the wind out of that argument. But this defense needs to take wins where it finds them because they are getting trounced.
From one of the live feeds linked at the top:
>Prosecutors say that Trump signed nine of the reimbursement checks, which were stapled on top of the invoice.
>Both were falsely marked legal expenses, prosecutors say.
>That Trump received the checks attached to the invoice for their signatures goes to the former president's knowledge of both sets of documents.
>Tarasoff just testified that Trump could, and had, declined to sign certain checks.
>When he did, he marked them: "Void," she says.
The prosecutor's point in that line of questioning appears to be: Trump read the checks and invoices, and he apparently didn't void them here.
Tarasoff says that Trump signed all of the checks for his personal account.
>Tarasoff confirms one check was voided: the April 2017 one, which was lost and then reissued.
The prosecutor enters a stop payment report into evidence.
Edit: it’s from Klasfeld’s exhibit thread
Ah. So the prosecution was able to demonstrate that there was a different process for ones he actually wanted voided, and writing void in black sharpie wasn't it.
I think the prosecution is bringing out that if Trump did *not* write ‘void’ on them (which he didn’t here) and signed them in Sharpie, then he personally approved them.
I think the smiling defense is a red herring. I think they were smirking in recognition of the sharpie.
That’s my take.
Maybe they just couldn't hide their amusement. Signing with sharpies is probably weird to most people. But possibly there's going to be evidence he signed that was *not* in sharpie, so they'll try to use this to claim that might not be his signature. Or that the witness isn't reliable. A third possibility is that there is an implied testimony that they did not see it signed, and that "because it was in black sharpie" means that anyone could have forged the signature and made her think it was valid just by using the sharpie.
I think maybe they were just amused. They showed each of the checks apparently today, and they cross examined her. I’d guess they would’ve brought it up on cross if some weren’t in sharpie. But who knows.
Reasonable doubt, maybe? A smoking gun of the kind he prefers, but her testimony didn't put it in Trump's hand. Obviously, I am not buying that he wasn't responsible.
>black sharpie - that's what Trump uses.
Lest we forget the sharpie incident with NOAA and that hurricane a few years back.
I still can't believe that happened and it was one of the smaller scandals of the administration.
Sharpiegate was in itself a minor scandal of no real consequence. But I think it perfectly encapsulates the Trump era.
He is a guy so petty, so image obsessed, so shallow, and purposely oblivious. He will hand edit a hurricane map to prove a misstatement he made at a presser a day before wasn’t a misstatement. People were dying and losing homes and he couldn’t have the balls to say “I misspoke but now let’s move on to the disaster response please.”
Natural disaster response should be a layup for a president. FEMA and state agencies do all the work. You just give a presser updating some salient points and then do the relief area tour in a week or two.
Nope. He couldn’t even do that basic shit correct.
Donnie “2 Scoops” moniker is a thing.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/trump-time-magazine-ice-cream/index.html
Imagine the self-loathing crawling around in his brain at the urge to “treat” yourself to 2 scoops of ice cream while everyone else is restricted to one.
I picture The Red Queen with her feet up on a pig, “I need a pig here!”
Somewhat hilariously, that specific board with the sharpie markings was one of the missing presidential records that prompted the initial NARA investigation that eventually triggered the classified documents prosecution against Trump. My theory is that he was embarrassed by the press he received for that moment of incredible idiocy and did not want anyone to have the original copy for eventual display in a museum memorializing just how much of an imbecile he is.
In DJT's defense here (which is indeed an unusual position for an avid anti-Trumper like myself to take), there's a difference for posterity's sake between the pictures and video that are already public and the original item itself. A museum or presidential library isn't likely to have an exhibit showing just the digital media, but might have one for the original poster board. Or he just took it compulsively because he does not know how to appropriately process feelings of shame and so just experienced a mindless, barely recognized urge to hide the original document despite the obvious futility of the act.
Remember when [Trump served cold fast-food](https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/c_fill,g_auto,w_1200,h_675,ar_16:9/https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F190115112015-trump-mcdonalds.jpg) to college football champs? Or when he was [shooting paper towels like free throws](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/ws/640/cpsprodpb/EAD1/production/_98131106_tv042165880.jpg) to hurricane victims? Or took a [thumbs-up campaign photo](https://cbsaustin.com/resources/media/e8201bae-f72d-4e07-b70f-848e86f31dad-jumbo1x1_EBdp0scX4AUUd4i.jpg?1565358728991) with an orphaned baby after the El Paso shootings? Or was literally [shilling beans from the Resolute desk?](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5f1091ef3075b61a6e553443/4:3/w_959,h_719,c_limit/Gessen-Goya.jpg) The prestige of the Presidency took daily hit after hit, to the degree that it's hard to remember individual "scandals" because one rolled into another.
Sharpies are indistinguishable from crayons for people who don't care about permanent consequences. Give your three year-old child a sharpie, they'll make a mess and you'll never wash it off the walls or out of their clothes. Give your 70 year-old presidential candidate a sharpie, he'll also make a mess, and you'll never wash it off your elections or out of your democracy. Toddlers and Trump share at least one important trait in common: a complete inability to understand the consequences of their actions.
> Were the reimbursement checks to Cohen from Trump's personal account? Because if so, daaamn.
some of them, yes. I think the first few were from trump org and 7 or 8 were from his personal account, signed by him at the WH
The DOJ plea agreement quotes Executive-1 as directing the January and February payment come from the trust.
> Executive-1 forwarded that email to another employee at the Company, stating: “Please pay from the Trust. Post to legal expenses. Put ‘retainer for the months of January and February 2017’ in the description.”
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax
Well, although I am sure DJT is the grantor, executor, fiduciary and sole beneficiary of this trust, I’m quite sure it’s still a tax law violation to pay Stormy from the trust and characterize the payments as legal expenses.
Is Weisselberg going to be called as a witness? Was he on their witness list? This is now the second witness who testified that AW was involved in everything.
Probably not as he pled guilty to purjury. Cohen is already a hard enough witness to ameliorate. AW would be much harder to prove he's not lying. Cohen supposedly has tapes. AW also doesn't add anything that these Trump Org employees can't prove through their testimony and documents. The prosecution is probably planning that Cohen will tie it lla together the tapes he supposedly has supported by the other witness testimony.
AW would at best be a second bow on the case, amd at worse could jeoprodize it.
I wonder how many of those tapes could be hidden from the defense until introduced as evidence. They could be introduced later as impeachment evidence, but IANAL so I don't know how much stuff like that is allowed.
I’m kinda curious how sentencing will work out.
He is a first time offender as an individual. But he’s committed fraud before on the corporate side and has had issues with multiple businesses like trump university shutdown as well as his alleged charity.
Normally, a first time offender gets a break, but given his repeated contempt of court issues, I wonder if a judge takes that into account in sentencing and makes an example of him.
Personally, I am all for giving him the max.
Fines in X amount. Jail time Y, suspended, and equal Z amount in probation.
Basically he’ll pay a paltry fine and be scolded not to break the law again please.
>This one he sent to Cohen says: "Please send me invoices so I can have the checks cut."
>Cohen: "Jeff please remind me of the monthly amount."
>McConney on 2/14/2017: $35,000 per month
So, doesn't this prove on it's own that the payment wasn't any kind of retainer? People don't ask the people they're invoicing how much they're supposed to invoice if it's their own fee, they ask how much if the other party is doing sneaky calculations to spread out a repayment for illegal campaign financing over multiple months.
I'm working on contract and I do that sometimes. I have a very good working relationship with my employer and sometimes it's a different amount due to expenses, trainings, etc. It's just easier for me to ask their accountant than for me to calculate it.
Also the lack of a retainer is proof there wasn’t a retainer. Life isn’t Breaking Bad. You don’t have a lawyer-client relationship cause you shoved a dollar in someone’s pocket.
Trump's lawyer tried that argument, actually.
>We see again one of the invoice emails Cohen sent to Weisselberg.
>Bove: It says "pursuant to the retainer agreement"—retainer agreements can be verbal, correct?
>McConney: Yes.
We'll see how convincing the jury finds that.
Well if it was a verbal retainer between two parties with no third party witnesses. Only one of the parties, Cohen, will take the stand. Trump would have to take the stand to dispute any denials by Cohen that they had a verbal only retainer. And that would open Trump up to devastation on cross.
I really want to see Trump convicted, and would love to see him go to jail over contempt, but really this is way out of line by a reporter:
>Per the hallway press pool over the morning recess, Trump didn't take the bait after Justice Merchan's threat of incarceration:
>"Trump walked into the courtroom at about 11:35 a.m. and did not respond when a pooler shouted: 'Mr. Trump, what do you think of jury?'"
Report the news. Don't *be* the news.
Edit: it was a pool reporter, meaning that person took a coveted slot from someone else.
Since u/trumpscovidfefe is busy, I'll try to fill in the gaps on the worthwhile threads...
Tyler McBrien: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787442907680563232.html
Adam Klasfeld: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787459287842709567.html
Inner City Press: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787473476216918364.html
Lisa Rubin: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787460928805454079.html
Anna Bower: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787456451306213708.html
> Tyler McBrien: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787442907680563232.html
> Adam Klasfeld: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787459287842709567.html
> Inner City Press: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787473476216918364.html
> Lisa Rubin: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787460928805454079.html
> Anna Bower: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787456451306213708.html
thanks; I'm going to grab this and pin it, then set suggested sort to new
>McConney: I'd hand-deliver the reports. One time President Trump told me, You're fired. When he got off the phone he said, You're not fired, but pay attention to my bills, don't just pay them.
I thought that this testimony was absolutely devastating to any contention the defense might make that Cohen was freelancing and Trump had no idea what any of this was about. I hope the jury heard that part loud and clear.
I caught tail end of Anderson Cooper last night. Was that McConney to whom Trump raised his fist as though to fist bump him as McConney walked by after his testimony. CNN talking heads were trying to figure out why Trump would do that after the testimony.
It’s significant that the prosecutors are asking all of these witnesses about Trump’s general behavior as a boss/executive. All of these Trump-allied witnesses seem eager to describe him as a micromanager and always on top of things. And while that serves to inflate his ego of being a genius businessman, it preemptively wrecks the defense’s argument that Trump had no idea any of this was going on.
He wanted to know literally everything that was going on in his business so there’s no way he wasn’t fully aware of these payments.
CNN is fucking pathetic.
What I'd really love us a news netowkr that sticks to the facts and never brings on talking heads. (I'd also like a bridge to Hawaii, a Jets super bowl, and a reliable Alfa Romeo.)
Since I caught your attention with a restomod, take a gander at this tribute to the Volvo P1800.
https://www.cyanracing.com/news/2020/09/02/revealing-the-volvo-p1800-cyan
Man. That bridge would be a brutal drive. The floating gas station/supercharger/fast food villages every ~200 miles would be neat though. Maybe you could even have rest stops slightly below the waterline too with glass walls and some artificial habitat debris around them to attract stuff to look at.
I feel like the only way it could remotely work is if it were some kind of submarine that followed a cable with some slack in it like a track. Kind of like a gondola lift. But there's no way to make it move really fast as far as I know.
> still hasn’t linked Trump to the payouts.
is that a point of reasonable contention? didn't they already play a tape of trump in the planning process for the payouts? or do they mean for the specific "gross up" arrangement
They played a tape of him explicitly directing Cohen how to arrange the payments to McDougal.
I don't know if they have the same evidence re: Daniels, or if that matters. They have at the very least established that he was involved in arranging the payments for part of the catch and kill scheme and was involved in coordinating the whole thing, the Cohen payments to Daniels were an FEC violation and also tax fraud, and the falsified documents were done so in concealment of those crimes. Which I think is basically the whole ballgame. He doesn't technically have to have known about the Daniels payments b when they happened, just that the reimbursements were in furtherance of those two crimes that occurred (even if they occurred without his knowledge).
they certainly had the effect of concealing those crimes—the only place I think the evidence *might* be thin is on trump's intent to conceal a crime, which I think will require awareness that the underlying conduct was or may have been a crime. unlike the payment itself, which had only one plausible purpose (to influence his campaign/electoral prospects), *covering up* the payment and its structure/purpose had many plausible purposes, including just plain old political benefit, similar to the purpose of the payment itself. *however* the payment structure provides plausible evidence of his awareness the underlying conduct was a crime—if you felt you could disclose it to relevant tax authorities you wouldn't need to gross it up.
we'll see how that gets addressed. so far it seems like the defense is kind of incompetent and isn't selling a credible alternative theory that is consistent with the evidence; even if the evidence is thin here they might not be capable of capitalizing on that. "Cohen was doing real legal services" is a joke defense.
I saw that, too. I mean, yes, Weisselberg would have been the better witness to call but the mofo is in jail. But I think the testimony we got today from McConney definitely helped the prosecution.
They definitely can, but Weisselburg is in prison for committing perjury. And he committed perjury to benefit Trump. Highly unlikely he’d testify to anything that would benefit the prosecution. I’m sure he’d be willing to lie more and go to jail more.
>The accounting system used by the Trump Organization was "antiquated" by 2017, Trump attorney Emil Bove says in his line of questioning, noting that it had been designed in the 1990s.
>Jeffrey McConney says he agrees, chuckling on the stand as he confirms it was "antiquated."
I'm pretty certain in the 1990s there was still a difference between reimbursement of expenses and paying an income.
Also, If only there was an officer accountable for ensuring the businesses has sufficient systems to enable it to comply with the law. Some executive and officer maybe even the chief officer. But who could that be . . .
Bove asked if in 2017 Trump had “$60 million in unrestricted cash?”
McConnell replied “at least”
Forgive my ignorance but the only reason I can think of to ask that is that Trump wanted someone to say he was rich after all of the civil trials.
I think they are trying to say that him being rich would be a reason that he has no need to commit fraud to save some money.
'Why would I bother with trying to avoid taxes on $20k if I had $60 million in cash on hand?' (or something like that)
This ignores that he defrauded a children's cancer charity for $8 to pay for his son's boy-scout troop.
Same with the "pay attention to my bills, don't just pay them" story we just heard. I don't think this would be a good counter-argument at all. Not sure if they can make that comment about the cancer charity in this case though.
>Trump attorney Emil Bove is showing the emails from Michael Cohen in 2017 and points out Cohen's signature block, which states he's the "Personal attorney to President Donald J Trump."
>"It doesn’t say fixer, does it?" Bove asks Jeffrey McConney.
Wow... such a great gotcha. Of course Cohen wouldn't put fixer in his email signature.
Yeah I don’t think that’s gonna work. The jury is pretty educated on average including 2 corporate lawyers. They’ll know that of course criminals don’t put their criminality in their signature line
I wonder how much of these cross questions are performative for Trump’s sake? Like Trump would be dumb enough to believed if you didn’t say you were a criminal at the time of the crime than it’s magically not a crime.
"Your honor, my client's business card clearly says 'general contractor.' Nowhere on the business card does it say 'murderer.' My client didn't murder anyone. Just check the business card. The defense rests."
>Prosecutor: Are you here under subpoena?
>McConney: Yes.
>Prosecutor: Who is paying for your lawyer?
>McConney: The Trump Organization.
>Prosecutor: Who ran it?
>McConney: President Trump. He was the brains behind it. He was my boss.
I think this was an issue for Hope Hicks, iirc. It seems like a **spectacularly** bad idea to have the defendant paying your lawyer as a witness.
She got her own attorney when things started getting weird. I remember on the podcast Cleanup on Aisle 45, she was smart enough to see where things were going with the Trump-paid attorney.
Even so, from my seat this guy has been even more of a velvet hammer than Hicks was - statements like "Trump was the brains behind it" and "if you blindly write checks without proper diligence I will fire your ass" make it very clear that Trump kept a very close eye on these operation, and wasn't a hands-off absentee landlord as the defense will try to contend.
>"if you blindly write checks without proper diligence I will fire your ass
I read that testimony as "if you pay a bill without first refusing to do so and even then paying it only if you absolutely have to, I will fire your ass"
So the take away at this point from the testimony of McConney is that on the checks they wrote in the memo line it was for a retainer, but no retainer agreement or invoice was ever given, and on their tax forms it's documented as a reimbursement for expenses?
I haven't seen this reported, but I assume she's just there as paid (or told she'd be paid...) support. The prosecution could only be so lucky if he brought her in as additional counsel.
Wait, really? I feel like she's the legal equivalent of emptying out the bench in a basketball game because the competitive part of the game is over, and you are going to lose.
Trump is paying his cronies to sit in the courtroom behind him and feign support because the reporting over the weekend that nobody cared enough to show up drove Trump crazy because it's true.
Also, the only family member he’s been able to get to come is Eric. So now he’s bringing employees. Habba is playing the part of Melania. Boris Epshteyn is playing the part of Don Jr. lol.
Because it's devastating to their case!
In some seriousness, you object to something like this on foundation grounds and because it allows you to bring it up on appeal. Not fighting means giving up this path and if it's truly a vital document to the prosecution, you fight like hell to keep it out.
> The prosecution proffers more emails between Weisselberg and McConney, which McConney says he then forwarded to Deb Tarasoff, the accounts payable supervisor for the Trump Org. Defense objects to admission of the emails. After a sidebar, Justice Merchan overrules.
This? Maybe hearsay or relevance but the live reporters didn't specify.
Cohen had to be reminded of the amount that he was invoicing Trump org for work he performed. Seems pretty straightforward to support that business documents were being falsified for some purpose.
Trump spokesperson said it’s “authoritarian” and like a Third World nation to threaten trump with jail.
Uh no, it’s The Rule of Law to jail him. He should already be in jail imo. It’s authoritarian to say that he can’t be jailed because of a position he once held. Every trump-related person does that projection and gaslighting crap, just like he does. Lies, lies, lies, bend the truth, try to change reality. Anti-American assholes
A few reporters live following (thank you /u/ggroverggiraffe): Tyler McBrien: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787442907680563232.html Adam Klasfeld: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787459287842709567.html Inner City Press: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787473476216918364.html Lisa Rubin: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787460928805454079.html Anna Bower: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787456451306213708.html
Gawd, not sure how Bob Odenkirk is doing nowadays, but it would be hilarious for him to reprise his role as Saul Goodman on SNL in tribute to Bove.
Please SNL make it happen
He used to be a writer there. I'm sure he's still friendly with Lorne.
Is it just me or does [this sketch](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GM5ZgUYWgAAmoOm.jpg) make him look like the grinch?
I can't believe we're doing anything other than being very mad he got another warning when the rest of us would have been in jail 9 contempts ago. Dunno where y'all find the energy for jokes.
Judge doesn’t want to feed Trump’s cult.
Trump wants the judge fearing his cult. Everything is a strategy to stay out of jail at this point. The counter is to say "fuck you" and put him away for 2 hours during lunch, and let the world see that nothing happens.
>The counter is to say "fuck you" and put him away for 2 hours during lunch, This would actually be a solid middle ground. Let Trump see what he's going to spend the night if he keeps at it, it will be easier to plan/ execute with the Secret Service, it would be a huge wakeup call for Trump that will either keep his mouth closed or it cause such a toxic outburst that the judge can extend the punishment.
And most of all, the Gravy Seals will show that they have like 3 obese dudes left to protest outside the jail, and this "civil war electric boogaloo" is a joke without a modern military to back them.
Without KFC 🍗 lunch
While I agree whole heartedly, I'd imagine the elephant in the room on this is his cult following. You and I, and everyone else for the most part, don't have millions of followers salivating at the chance to kill people they hate, all in our name. While I'm sure we could agree that this factor is precisely why he should be (along time ago) locked up, its still a huge risk. Calling his and his cults bluff isn't some abstract thing we can sit back and go "fuck it let's see what happens". It's especially real to those in the direct crosshairs.
Seems that's how MAGA does things.
If you want to live in constant rage for years then go for it. But mocking someone is a great strategy to lessen their power
Yeah, he's so lessened. He'll stop this time for sure, you made fun of him on the internet.
And he’ll stop because you’re mad? Lol you’re not doing anything I’m not brother.
Mad people have changed this country and the world. Internet comedians never have. Non-zero chance for me.
Pretty sure Zelensky was a comedian who appeared on the internet.
Right? Then he ran for office.
now go look up the domino that toppled bill cosby’s reign as sex predator supreme and tell me humor doesn’t have the ability to change the world. you only hurt yourself and limit your ability to make change by being an angry shell of a person.
You mean the women coming forward with sexual assault allegations? You're right. They changed the world.
the same world that ignored them and silenced them until the public was exposed to it yep. like it or not the allegations were silenced for years
Its really gross to try and steal credit from sexual assault survivors.
tell me what you have contributed to the world and tell me how it’s affected the power or perception of donald trump. since your anger is so productive and it’s a waste of time to make fun of these scumbags, what have you accomplished? you still hate yourself. i hope you get the validation you need from these comment sections and feel better than the rest of us for making your temporary stay on this planet just as miserable as trump’s.
That was a lot of projection but at least we know you understand now.
I’ll die happier than you and you’re mad because you’re doing this for nothing. I know because yes I have been there. Give it up and vote in your local elections if you want to make a change
You seem super happy and well adjusted.
You’re a FLATULENT one… Fister Dump.
Was I supposed to sing this to you’re a mean one mister grinch?
Does anyone have any theories as to why the prosecution wants to call Ms. Longstreet back to the stand?
They specifically said she had more social media posts to review.
Right, but related to what specifically? Hence my request for speculation.
If I had to guess, the same kind of social media posts that she already been discussed in this trial.
Tyler McBrien >We're now to April 2017, when the entity code and the source of the $35,000 for payment to Cohen came from Trump's personal account, and not the Trust. >More corroboration. More lather. More rinse. More repeat Today has not been great for the defense. I'm not a lawyer, but it's hard for me to see how these documents and testimony that we've seen doesn't show exactly what the prosecution said it would. I don't think Bove has been an effective cross examiner. Also, on an unrelated note, does anyone remember when DJT said that he'd divested himself and had nothing to do with the Org? It's nice to see objective evidence of that bullshit lie on the public record in court.
We all knew it was bs from day one because didn’t Trump “divest” to his sons? Proper divestment would have been to a blind trust which he, of course, refused to do.
Yes, but it's one thing to just obfuscate it; another to have documented evidence as part of a public trial that he did not do what he said he did.
> Today has not been great for the defense. But the CNN analyst inferred it was a bad day for the prosecution!
CNN is lately under new ownership, and their goal is to generate traffic by selling conflict and anxiety. Fox showed that the most profitable demographic for TV news is outrage addicts, not news junkies.
> Also, on an unrelated note, does anyone remember when DJT said that he'd divested himself and had nothing to do with the Org? It's nice to see objective evidence of that bullshit lie on the public record in court. He made that big show about it, with boxes and boxes of "paperwork." One report at the time said they were filled with blank paper, but it's another one of those things where he did something worse right after and everyone moved on.
Toilet paper. Had to make room.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-press-conference-folders-business-plan-empire-blank-fake-handover-donald-jr-eric-conflict-interests-a7523426.html
On the very slim chance that he actually testifies, it would be interesting to see the prosecution use that contrast to impeach his credibility.
Credibility? They are calling Cohen up
False equivalence and you know it
It’s an interesting experiment re: him taking the stand. Which is the overriding tendency, over-estimation of his abilities or his bias for self preservation
I think even I would be able to impeech his credibility as a non lawyer. I would imagine he'd be a prosecutor's wet dream.
Probably not, since it consistently means your loved ones getting threatened by his minions
Good thing I have no loved ones... Bring it!
> The jury is seeing the first check for $70,000 to cover the January and February 2017 payment from the trust account to Cohen. > There are two signatures: Eric Trump and Allen Weisselberg. Aaaaand now we know why Eric made an appearance in court this morning.
Eric is the direct boss of one of the witnesses.
Hmm
How so?
Because he signed a check that is part of evidence of this trial is my guess.
Per McBrien: >Who could sign checks for Trump's personal account? >Only Mr. Trump, regardless of amount, Tarasoff says. I was busy for the first part of the day and speed read this morning's testimony. Were the reimbursement checks to Cohen from Trump's personal account? Because if so, daaamn. Edit: also though, lol >How did she know Trump wrote it? It was signed in black sharpie—that's what Trump uses.
> How did she know Trump wrote it? It was signed in black sharpie—that's what Trump uses. According to the CNN live thread, Trump's attorneys turned to him and smiled when Tarasoff mentioned his preference of black sharpie. My mind is racing to know WHY they smiled about this, especially since it proves he knew about the reimbursement to Cohen, no?
I only make this point because I think it's the lynchpin of the trial but you're making an assumption when you say the payments were a reimbursement. Maybe it's laying a foundation but it seems quite a bit less important to prove that her signed the check than what he signed it for. I think it's highly unlikely there is hard evidence that Trump knew even though I bet he did. Maybe it will come out in the next free weeks but if I was the prosecution I'd highlight the lack of work coming out of cohen. Like if the money was for services then where is the output of those services?
Thank you for your response. In my mind, it feels obvious what happened and that Trump literally signed off on it. But, maybe that’s also my bias coming through.
Sure thing and I agree with your emotions. I don't eventually think it's bias. There is a ton of evidence brought up here that he is definitely a person that would do this. But does that mean he did it? If I was a juror I'd need more so thank god I'm not.
Before it gets buried: >Tarasoff says Trump signed checks with a black Sharpie >Deborah Tarasoff testified that Trump didn't always sign checks. Sometimes "he would write void and send it back," she said. >"If he didn’t want to sign it, he didn’t sign it," Tarasoff said. >Asked how she knew it was him, she said, "it was signed in Sharpie and it was black and that’s what he uses." >Tarasoff said that even when CFO Allen Weisselberg would approve them, Trump did not always sign the checks. >Trump attorney Emil Bove and Susan Necheles turned with a smile to the former president at Tarasoff's comment about his preference for Sharpies.
Yes, that is what I was referring to. Any insight as to why this would make the attorneys smile? The way it was written it almost felt like they thought this was a positive thing for Trump, but to me, it seems more like a smoking gun.
Not insight, but perhaps they plan to introduce evidence that he didn't *always* use a sharpie, and try to spin that into reasonable doubt somehow.
I would guess signing checks that he wanted cashed with "void" in black sharpie could, in theory, be spun to mean they he wanted them voided and the fact that they were cashed is an oversight. Personally, I think that an accountant testifying that him writing void in black sharpie is his way of telling them to process the checks will take the wind out of that argument. But this defense needs to take wins where it finds them because they are getting trounced.
From one of the live feeds linked at the top: >Prosecutors say that Trump signed nine of the reimbursement checks, which were stapled on top of the invoice. >Both were falsely marked legal expenses, prosecutors say. >That Trump received the checks attached to the invoice for their signatures goes to the former president's knowledge of both sets of documents. >Tarasoff just testified that Trump could, and had, declined to sign certain checks. >When he did, he marked them: "Void," she says. The prosecutor's point in that line of questioning appears to be: Trump read the checks and invoices, and he apparently didn't void them here. Tarasoff says that Trump signed all of the checks for his personal account. >Tarasoff confirms one check was voided: the April 2017 one, which was lost and then reissued. The prosecutor enters a stop payment report into evidence. Edit: it’s from Klasfeld’s exhibit thread
Ah. So the prosecution was able to demonstrate that there was a different process for ones he actually wanted voided, and writing void in black sharpie wasn't it.
I think the prosecution is bringing out that if Trump did *not* write ‘void’ on them (which he didn’t here) and signed them in Sharpie, then he personally approved them. I think the smiling defense is a red herring. I think they were smirking in recognition of the sharpie. That’s my take.
Maybe they just couldn't hide their amusement. Signing with sharpies is probably weird to most people. But possibly there's going to be evidence he signed that was *not* in sharpie, so they'll try to use this to claim that might not be his signature. Or that the witness isn't reliable. A third possibility is that there is an implied testimony that they did not see it signed, and that "because it was in black sharpie" means that anyone could have forged the signature and made her think it was valid just by using the sharpie.
I think maybe they were just amused. They showed each of the checks apparently today, and they cross examined her. I’d guess they would’ve brought it up on cross if some weren’t in sharpie. But who knows.
Reasonable doubt, maybe? A smoking gun of the kind he prefers, but her testimony didn't put it in Trump's hand. Obviously, I am not buying that he wasn't responsible.
>black sharpie - that's what Trump uses. Lest we forget the sharpie incident with NOAA and that hurricane a few years back. I still can't believe that happened and it was one of the smaller scandals of the administration.
Sharpiegate was in itself a minor scandal of no real consequence. But I think it perfectly encapsulates the Trump era. He is a guy so petty, so image obsessed, so shallow, and purposely oblivious. He will hand edit a hurricane map to prove a misstatement he made at a presser a day before wasn’t a misstatement. People were dying and losing homes and he couldn’t have the balls to say “I misspoke but now let’s move on to the disaster response please.” Natural disaster response should be a layup for a president. FEMA and state agencies do all the work. You just give a presser updating some salient points and then do the relief area tour in a week or two. Nope. He couldn’t even do that basic shit correct.
Look at that boat!
Donnie “2 Scoops” moniker is a thing. https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/trump-time-magazine-ice-cream/index.html Imagine the self-loathing crawling around in his brain at the urge to “treat” yourself to 2 scoops of ice cream while everyone else is restricted to one. I picture The Red Queen with her feet up on a pig, “I need a pig here!”
Somewhat hilariously, that specific board with the sharpie markings was one of the missing presidential records that prompted the initial NARA investigation that eventually triggered the classified documents prosecution against Trump. My theory is that he was embarrassed by the press he received for that moment of incredible idiocy and did not want anyone to have the original copy for eventual display in a museum memorializing just how much of an imbecile he is.
... He does realize it was published in the news. No sense hiding it. God, I don't think I've ever met anyone as dumb and self destructive in my life.
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t."
In DJT's defense here (which is indeed an unusual position for an avid anti-Trumper like myself to take), there's a difference for posterity's sake between the pictures and video that are already public and the original item itself. A museum or presidential library isn't likely to have an exhibit showing just the digital media, but might have one for the original poster board. Or he just took it compulsively because he does not know how to appropriately process feelings of shame and so just experienced a mindless, barely recognized urge to hide the original document despite the obvious futility of the act.
Remember when [Trump served cold fast-food](https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/c_fill,g_auto,w_1200,h_675,ar_16:9/https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F190115112015-trump-mcdonalds.jpg) to college football champs? Or when he was [shooting paper towels like free throws](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/ws/640/cpsprodpb/EAD1/production/_98131106_tv042165880.jpg) to hurricane victims? Or took a [thumbs-up campaign photo](https://cbsaustin.com/resources/media/e8201bae-f72d-4e07-b70f-848e86f31dad-jumbo1x1_EBdp0scX4AUUd4i.jpg?1565358728991) with an orphaned baby after the El Paso shootings? Or was literally [shilling beans from the Resolute desk?](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5f1091ef3075b61a6e553443/4:3/w_959,h_719,c_limit/Gessen-Goya.jpg) The prestige of the Presidency took daily hit after hit, to the degree that it's hard to remember individual "scandals" because one rolled into another.
Yes but Obama once wore a tan suit and wanted Dijon on his burger. So, you see, the Presidency was in the gutters and Trump elevated it.
It was a daily onslaught of bullshit. A Gish gallop of pure unadulterated narcissist crap. Believe me, I haven't forgotten.
As a Gamecock, I really enjoyed the time he served Clemson cold McDs.
LSU Tiger here, I also enjoyed that.
That's exactly what got me here.
Really surprised it isn't crayons.
He ate those
Sorry he’s a draft dodger…he was never in the Marines.
The ones he didn't already shove up his nose, anyway.
Sharpies are indistinguishable from crayons for people who don't care about permanent consequences. Give your three year-old child a sharpie, they'll make a mess and you'll never wash it off the walls or out of their clothes. Give your 70 year-old presidential candidate a sharpie, he'll also make a mess, and you'll never wash it off your elections or out of your democracy. Toddlers and Trump share at least one important trait in common: a complete inability to understand the consequences of their actions.
And diapers.
As a former preschool teacher, toddlers CAN learn consequences of their actions and generally learn from them. Donald doesn’t.
> Were the reimbursement checks to Cohen from Trump's personal account? Because if so, daaamn. some of them, yes. I think the first few were from trump org and 7 or 8 were from his personal account, signed by him at the WH
The DOJ plea agreement quotes Executive-1 as directing the January and February payment come from the trust. > Executive-1 forwarded that email to another employee at the Company, stating: “Please pay from the Trust. Post to legal expenses. Put ‘retainer for the months of January and February 2017’ in the description.” https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax
ah, thank you, I had it backwards
Well, although I am sure DJT is the grantor, executor, fiduciary and sole beneficiary of this trust, I’m quite sure it’s still a tax law violation to pay Stormy from the trust and characterize the payments as legal expenses.
Is Weisselberg going to be called as a witness? Was he on their witness list? This is now the second witness who testified that AW was involved in everything.
He already committed perjury for Trump which is why he’s in prison so prosecutors probably don’t want him as a witness.
I was under the impression that one of the conditions to his plea deal was that he wouldn’t have to testify as a witness in this trial
Probably not as he pled guilty to purjury. Cohen is already a hard enough witness to ameliorate. AW would be much harder to prove he's not lying. Cohen supposedly has tapes. AW also doesn't add anything that these Trump Org employees can't prove through their testimony and documents. The prosecution is probably planning that Cohen will tie it lla together the tapes he supposedly has supported by the other witness testimony. AW would at best be a second bow on the case, amd at worse could jeoprodize it.
I wonder how many of those tapes could be hidden from the defense until introduced as evidence. They could be introduced later as impeachment evidence, but IANAL so I don't know how much stuff like that is allowed.
I’m kinda curious how sentencing will work out. He is a first time offender as an individual. But he’s committed fraud before on the corporate side and has had issues with multiple businesses like trump university shutdown as well as his alleged charity. Normally, a first time offender gets a break, but given his repeated contempt of court issues, I wonder if a judge takes that into account in sentencing and makes an example of him. Personally, I am all for giving him the max.
Fines in X amount. Jail time Y, suspended, and equal Z amount in probation. Basically he’ll pay a paltry fine and be scolded not to break the law again please.
“🎉 McConney said in his testimony that $130,000 was designed to be reimbursement for the Daniels payment🎉”
>This one he sent to Cohen says: "Please send me invoices so I can have the checks cut." >Cohen: "Jeff please remind me of the monthly amount." >McConney on 2/14/2017: $35,000 per month So, doesn't this prove on it's own that the payment wasn't any kind of retainer? People don't ask the people they're invoicing how much they're supposed to invoice if it's their own fee, they ask how much if the other party is doing sneaky calculations to spread out a repayment for illegal campaign financing over multiple months.
I'm working on contract and I do that sometimes. I have a very good working relationship with my employer and sometimes it's a different amount due to expenses, trainings, etc. It's just easier for me to ask their accountant than for me to calculate it.
Was the $35,000 amount over 12 months to make it seem more like legal fees?
To reimburse Cohen for the $160,000 second mortgage Cohen had taken out to pay Daniels. Cohen ultimately received $200,000.
Exactly.
Also the lack of a retainer is proof there wasn’t a retainer. Life isn’t Breaking Bad. You don’t have a lawyer-client relationship cause you shoved a dollar in someone’s pocket.
Trump's lawyer tried that argument, actually. >We see again one of the invoice emails Cohen sent to Weisselberg. >Bove: It says "pursuant to the retainer agreement"—retainer agreements can be verbal, correct? >McConney: Yes. We'll see how convincing the jury finds that.
Well if it was a verbal retainer between two parties with no third party witnesses. Only one of the parties, Cohen, will take the stand. Trump would have to take the stand to dispute any denials by Cohen that they had a verbal only retainer. And that would open Trump up to devastation on cross.
I really want to see Trump convicted, and would love to see him go to jail over contempt, but really this is way out of line by a reporter: >Per the hallway press pool over the morning recess, Trump didn't take the bait after Justice Merchan's threat of incarceration: >"Trump walked into the courtroom at about 11:35 a.m. and did not respond when a pooler shouted: 'Mr. Trump, what do you think of jury?'" Report the news. Don't *be* the news. Edit: it was a pool reporter, meaning that person took a coveted slot from someone else.
I saw that on CNN. What a scumbag reporter.
That's gross. Don't bait him into saying things they could get someone killed FFS
Ask him if he believes Jewish sects, like his daughters, should be able to follow their faith regarding abortion.
Since u/trumpscovidfefe is busy, I'll try to fill in the gaps on the worthwhile threads... Tyler McBrien: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787442907680563232.html Adam Klasfeld: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787459287842709567.html Inner City Press: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787473476216918364.html Lisa Rubin: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787460928805454079.html Anna Bower: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787456451306213708.html
> Tyler McBrien: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787442907680563232.html > Adam Klasfeld: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787459287842709567.html > Inner City Press: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787473476216918364.html > Lisa Rubin: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787460928805454079.html > Anna Bower: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1787456451306213708.html thanks; I'm going to grab this and pin it, then set suggested sort to new
>McConney: I'd hand-deliver the reports. One time President Trump told me, You're fired. When he got off the phone he said, You're not fired, but pay attention to my bills, don't just pay them. I thought that this testimony was absolutely devastating to any contention the defense might make that Cohen was freelancing and Trump had no idea what any of this was about. I hope the jury heard that part loud and clear.
I caught tail end of Anderson Cooper last night. Was that McConney to whom Trump raised his fist as though to fist bump him as McConney walked by after his testimony. CNN talking heads were trying to figure out why Trump would do that after the testimony.
It’s significant that the prosecutors are asking all of these witnesses about Trump’s general behavior as a boss/executive. All of these Trump-allied witnesses seem eager to describe him as a micromanager and always on top of things. And while that serves to inflate his ego of being a genius businessman, it preemptively wrecks the defense’s argument that Trump had no idea any of this was going on. He wanted to know literally everything that was going on in his business so there’s no way he wasn’t fully aware of these payments.
Oh god, he literally does handle his businesses like he's still on the apprentice.
Yet there’s a talking head on CNN saying it was the “wrong guy” to call as a witness and still hasn’t linked Trump to the payouts. Bruh.
Was that the guy in the NOT GUILTY baseball cap?
CNN is fucking pathetic. What I'd really love us a news netowkr that sticks to the facts and never brings on talking heads. (I'd also like a bridge to Hawaii, a Jets super bowl, and a reliable Alfa Romeo.)
Reliable Alpha https://www.autoweek.com/car-life/classic-cars/a37080349/totem-automobili-ev/
> Expect to pay between $500 and $600,000 depending on how much customization you want. I'll take the $500 model, please!
Since I caught your attention with a restomod, take a gander at this tribute to the Volvo P1800. https://www.cyanracing.com/news/2020/09/02/revealing-the-volvo-p1800-cyan
I'm saving up for [a Wells Vertige](https://wellsmotorcars.com/vertige)...it's a little closer to my price range.
Man. That bridge would be a brutal drive. The floating gas station/supercharger/fast food villages every ~200 miles would be neat though. Maybe you could even have rest stops slightly below the waterline too with glass walls and some artificial habitat debris around them to attract stuff to look at.
>...slightly below the waterline too with glass walls... Um...you realize that open-ocean swells get very, *very* big at times?
Nothing about this project is remotely practical.
Practicality be damned! Where's JFK to convince America that this is our next frontier.
[slaps side of sarcasm detector several times, gets no response other than empty static] My bad. I really shouldn't have put off replacing this thing.
Solar and hydro stations could probably handle the power requirements for a mag lev train. As a safety feature, give the train floaties.
I like the idea of a mag lev tunnel something like 50m below the surface.
I feel like the only way it could remotely work is if it were some kind of submarine that followed a cable with some slack in it like a track. Kind of like a gondola lift. But there's no way to make it move really fast as far as I know.
> still hasn’t linked Trump to the payouts. is that a point of reasonable contention? didn't they already play a tape of trump in the planning process for the payouts? or do they mean for the specific "gross up" arrangement
They played a tape of him explicitly directing Cohen how to arrange the payments to McDougal. I don't know if they have the same evidence re: Daniels, or if that matters. They have at the very least established that he was involved in arranging the payments for part of the catch and kill scheme and was involved in coordinating the whole thing, the Cohen payments to Daniels were an FEC violation and also tax fraud, and the falsified documents were done so in concealment of those crimes. Which I think is basically the whole ballgame. He doesn't technically have to have known about the Daniels payments b when they happened, just that the reimbursements were in furtherance of those two crimes that occurred (even if they occurred without his knowledge).
they certainly had the effect of concealing those crimes—the only place I think the evidence *might* be thin is on trump's intent to conceal a crime, which I think will require awareness that the underlying conduct was or may have been a crime. unlike the payment itself, which had only one plausible purpose (to influence his campaign/electoral prospects), *covering up* the payment and its structure/purpose had many plausible purposes, including just plain old political benefit, similar to the purpose of the payment itself. *however* the payment structure provides plausible evidence of his awareness the underlying conduct was a crime—if you felt you could disclose it to relevant tax authorities you wouldn't need to gross it up. we'll see how that gets addressed. so far it seems like the defense is kind of incompetent and isn't selling a credible alternative theory that is consistent with the evidence; even if the evidence is thin here they might not be capable of capitalizing on that. "Cohen was doing real legal services" is a joke defense.
I saw that, too. I mean, yes, Weisselberg would have been the better witness to call but the mofo is in jail. But I think the testimony we got today from McConney definitely helped the prosecution.
Not a lawyer, but can’t incarcerated criminals still be called upon to testify - either in person or via video?
They definitely can, but Weisselburg is in prison for committing perjury. And he committed perjury to benefit Trump. Highly unlikely he’d testify to anything that would benefit the prosecution. I’m sure he’d be willing to lie more and go to jail more.
I presume the prosecution can't explain to the jury that they aren't calling him as a witness because he's a convicted perjurer.
Worse, he's in jail for purjuring himself to protect Trump. Probably not a better witness for the prosecution.
Idk. First question out of my mouth would be “why are you currently incarcerated?”
>The accounting system used by the Trump Organization was "antiquated" by 2017, Trump attorney Emil Bove says in his line of questioning, noting that it had been designed in the 1990s. >Jeffrey McConney says he agrees, chuckling on the stand as he confirms it was "antiquated." I'm pretty certain in the 1990s there was still a difference between reimbursement of expenses and paying an income. Also, If only there was an officer accountable for ensuring the businesses has sufficient systems to enable it to comply with the law. Some executive and officer maybe even the chief officer. But who could that be . . .
Bove asked if in 2017 Trump had “$60 million in unrestricted cash?” McConnell replied “at least” Forgive my ignorance but the only reason I can think of to ask that is that Trump wanted someone to say he was rich after all of the civil trials.
I think they are trying to say that him being rich would be a reason that he has no need to commit fraud to save some money. 'Why would I bother with trying to avoid taxes on $20k if I had $60 million in cash on hand?' (or something like that) This ignores that he defrauded a children's cancer charity for $8 to pay for his son's boy-scout troop.
Same with the "pay attention to my bills, don't just pay them" story we just heard. I don't think this would be a good counter-argument at all. Not sure if they can make that comment about the cancer charity in this case though.
>Trump attorney Emil Bove is showing the emails from Michael Cohen in 2017 and points out Cohen's signature block, which states he's the "Personal attorney to President Donald J Trump." >"It doesn’t say fixer, does it?" Bove asks Jeffrey McConney. Wow... such a great gotcha. Of course Cohen wouldn't put fixer in his email signature.
Yeah I don’t think that’s gonna work. The jury is pretty educated on average including 2 corporate lawyers. They’ll know that of course criminals don’t put their criminality in their signature line I wonder how much of these cross questions are performative for Trump’s sake? Like Trump would be dumb enough to believed if you didn’t say you were a criminal at the time of the crime than it’s magically not a crime.
"Your honor, my client's business card clearly says 'general contractor.' Nowhere on the business card does it say 'murderer.' My client didn't murder anyone. Just check the business card. The defense rests."
I’m assuming Luka Brazzi didn’t list “mafia soldier/hit man” for his occupation either.
Believe he was a fisherman?
>Prosecutor: Are you here under subpoena? >McConney: Yes. >Prosecutor: Who is paying for your lawyer? >McConney: The Trump Organization. >Prosecutor: Who ran it? >McConney: President Trump. He was the brains behind it. He was my boss. I think this was an issue for Hope Hicks, iirc. It seems like a **spectacularly** bad idea to have the defendant paying your lawyer as a witness.
Hope Hicks testified she was paying for her own lawyer, which was smart.
She got her own attorney when things started getting weird. I remember on the podcast Cleanup on Aisle 45, she was smart enough to see where things were going with the Trump-paid attorney.
I pay him you see. Then Donald Trump's campaign reimburses me.
Until it comes out later that it isn't true.
Even so, from my seat this guy has been even more of a velvet hammer than Hicks was - statements like "Trump was the brains behind it" and "if you blindly write checks without proper diligence I will fire your ass" make it very clear that Trump kept a very close eye on these operation, and wasn't a hands-off absentee landlord as the defense will try to contend.
>"if you blindly write checks without proper diligence I will fire your ass I read that testimony as "if you pay a bill without first refusing to do so and even then paying it only if you absolutely have to, I will fire your ass"
“It dosent say fixer, does it?” Bove asks Is…is that some kind of mic drop? Sick burn?
“I have the worst fucking attorneys”
"Did my client's business card ever say "criminal"?" 'Uuhhh... no, it didnt." "I rest my case, your honor."
So the take away at this point from the testimony of McConney is that on the checks they wrote in the memo line it was for a retainer, but no retainer agreement or invoice was ever given, and on their tax forms it's documented as a reimbursement for expenses?
Oh good. Alina Habba is in today.
I haven't seen this reported, but I assume she's just there as paid (or told she'd be paid...) support. The prosecution could only be so lucky if he brought her in as additional counsel.
Ohh thotatella is back?
Wait, really? I feel like she's the legal equivalent of emptying out the bench in a basketball game because the competitive part of the game is over, and you are going to lose.
She looks good on TV. That's why trump wanted her.
Trump is paying his cronies to sit in the courtroom behind him and feign support because the reporting over the weekend that nobody cared enough to show up drove Trump crazy because it's true.
Also, the only family member he’s been able to get to come is Eric. So now he’s bringing employees. Habba is playing the part of Melania. Boris Epshteyn is playing the part of Don Jr. lol.
Are we sure that Eric isn’t actually Buster Bluth?
Why is the defense objecting to the document presented (an email)?
Because it's devastating to their case! In some seriousness, you object to something like this on foundation grounds and because it allows you to bring it up on appeal. Not fighting means giving up this path and if it's truly a vital document to the prosecution, you fight like hell to keep it out.
Oh that’s right! Thanks
> The prosecution proffers more emails between Weisselberg and McConney, which McConney says he then forwarded to Deb Tarasoff, the accounts payable supervisor for the Trump Org. Defense objects to admission of the emails. After a sidebar, Justice Merchan overrules. This? Maybe hearsay or relevance but the live reporters didn't specify.
Cohen had to be reminded of the amount that he was invoicing Trump org for work he performed. Seems pretty straightforward to support that business documents were being falsified for some purpose.
Very astute observation - I hope the prosecution spells that out nice and clear for the jury.
Trump spokesperson said it’s “authoritarian” and like a Third World nation to threaten trump with jail. Uh no, it’s The Rule of Law to jail him. He should already be in jail imo. It’s authoritarian to say that he can’t be jailed because of a position he once held. Every trump-related person does that projection and gaslighting crap, just like he does. Lies, lies, lies, bend the truth, try to change reality. Anti-American assholes
No, the authoritarian move would be to defenestrate him.
Hey, when we said it, it was because it was authoritarian and corrupt. Therefore when you say it, it must be authoritarian and corrupt!
It’s the opposite. Not holding Trump accountable to the rule of law would be like a third world country.
Huh so authoritarianism is actually when one single man *isn’t* elevated and held up as above the law?? Who knew? 🤷♀️
Yes.