Stormy Weather: TFG Convicted on 34 Counts of Election Fraud

[ti-amie]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

ADA Steinglass begins redirect, beginning with his conversation with Michael Cohen in April 2018.

The prosecutor reveals crucial context: Michael Avenatti was trying to drive a wedge between Stormy Daniels and her former counsel.

On cross, Trump's attorney quoted Davidson saying "We know we were full of (expletive)" and "we lose all (expletive) leverage" if Trump loses.

But Steinglass notes Davidson had put these sentiments in Avenatti's mouth, as his talking points at discrediting him.

The "leverage" line becomes even more clear during recross by Bove:

In fuller context, Davidson is telling Cohen what he says Daniels told him, so as to emphasize that he never pressured her to settle.

Davidson's testimony ends.

[ti-amie]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

Next witness: Douglas Daus, a forensic analyst at the Manhattan DA's office

We're back to custodial witnesses for verification.

Typically, the parties streamline this process by stipulating to the authenticity of the evidence — that is, when the defense consents to it, which hasn't been happening in this trial.

So, the tedious process begins.



The jury hears a Trump-Cohen tape, in which Cohen tells him this bombshell line:

"I need to open up a company for the transfer about our friend David."

Context: Cohen create the shell company Essential Consultants LLC to pay Stormy Daniels, as defendant "David Dennison"

There's a lot more on that tape, from both Cohen and Trump, but that's the biggest line.

Much more when we get the transcript and the audio.

On cross, Trump's lawyer Emil Bove appears to be attacking the chain of custody of the evidence, asking a series of questions about the importance of it being unbroken.

So far, Bove has been describing general principles of forensic extraction. The lawyer elicits from the witness that the mode of extraction used here wasn't sophisticated.

Trial wraps for the day.

Justice Merchan notes that proceedings will end on Friday at 3:45 p.m. ET — slightly earlier than usual — in order to accommodate a juror's appointment.

[ti-amie]

Molly Crane-Newman
@molcranenewman

At Michael Avenatti’s SDNY trial, Stormy Daniels said her tryst with Trump was not romantic, testifying, “I don’t consider getting cornered coming out of a bathroom to be an affair” https://nydailynews.com/2022/01/28/mich ... nyc-trial/

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)
@AWeissmann_
Weissmann Notes from 100 Centre St:
- Davidson on cross says the election was used as leverage to get the Daniels settlement agreement- not sure how that defense line of questions helps the defense that the actions were NOT to effect the election? It seems more calculated to say Trump was "extorted" by Daniels-- that also is not a legal defense.

[ti-amie]

Let's see if Judge Merchan does what this commentator says should be done.

Ron Filipkowski
@RonFilipkowski

Since Todd Blanche nodded his head yes when Trump claimed that his right to testify has been taken away because of the gag order, Merchan must start the day tomorrow inquiring of Trump’s understanding AND whether Blanche misadvised him on his 5th Amendment rights.

Todd Blanche nodding his head to Trump’s statement that he can’t testify because of the gag order is a very serious ethical violation in the middle of a criminal trial. Merchan must absolutely grill Blanche and get to the bottom of why he lied to his client about his rights.

A conviction can be overturned on appeal if a defendant can show that he didn’t understand his right to testify at a criminal trial. It is common for a judge to now question the defendant directly about his understanding of his right to testify which Merchan should do now.

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports


Thursday's witness, Douglas Daus, is back on the stand.

"All rise."

The jury enters.

Trump's attorney Emil Bove continues with an uncommonly thorough cross-examination for this type of witness.

Bove has been seeking to poke holes in the chain of custody and type of extraction used on the phone to acquire the evidence.

(...)

Bove turns the witness's attention to the metadata of Michael Cohen's conversation with Trump.

Trump's lawyer seems to suggest that the recording was "modified," and the forensic analyst disputes the premise at length.

Bove moves to strike.
Overruled.

Bove tries to cast more doubt at the recording's authenticity, getting the witness to agree that there isn't metadata on incoming calls.

Q: You would have to take Michael Cohen's word for it, right?
A: It would seem so.

He repeats this line of question later. Same answer.

With that last answer, Assistant District Attorney Christopher Conroy begins redirect.

The witness agrees with the prosecutor's characterization that he worked with a "full forensic extraction of the device," the "gold standard."

Lengthy sidebar after the prosecutor asks whether the witness saw evidence of manipulation.

Bove objects. The parties meet privately.
Overruled.

Asked whether he saw "any evidence of tampering of manipulation" in the data, the witness replies: "I did not."

Recross by Bove:

He says that his questions were more about variables that are unanswered in the data.

The witness agrees.

The witness agrees with the defense attorney's description that there are "gaps" in the data creating "unknowns."

He did not affirmatively see any evidence of tampering.

Single question from the prosecutor:

If he made a call on his phone seven years ago, would the witness expect to see a log of it.

"I would not," he says.

With that, Daus's testimony ends.

The defense's extensive cross-ex adds up to a concession of certain "unknowns" — that prosecutors established are typical of such circumstances.

[ti-amie]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
Next witness: Georgia Longstreet, a paralegal at the Manhattan DA's office

Longstreet has been called to review social media posts in connection with the case. Expect lengthy disquisition on the authentication of tweets, posts, 'grams, and Truths.

For the curious, the witness uses SnagIt for screen captures.

First proposed exhibit: A post retrieved via the Wayback Machine.

Blanche objects.
Morning recess.

The jury leaves.

Justice Merchan asks the defense's objection, and Blanche wants a chance to confer with his client about whether to stipulate to an exhibit in light of the judge's prior ruling.

If Trump agrees, it would be the first stipulation of the trial.

Trump and his lawyers confer over the break.

Explainer:

In most criminal trials, the parties typically agree to avoid unnecessary tedium by agreeing to the authenticity of certain evidence that cannot be disputed through stipulations.

But this isn't a typical trial. We haven't had one yet.

The stakes of the controversy at issue:

Is a certain archived version of a Washington Post article about the 'Access Hollywood" tape authentic?

Blanche:

"We continue to have our hearsay objection."

"Assuming that is overruled," the defense agrees to the stipulation.

With the jury still out of the room, Todd Blanche rattles off various hearsay objections to the archived Washington Post article.

In a small win for the defense, the prosecution withdraws it.

Next up: A batch of old Trump tweets.

Justice Merchan says he's satisfied with the reliability of the old-school Twitter posts.

Next up: A Trump "Truth."

The Trump post in question:

"IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!"

The prosecution says this goes to Trump's pressure campaign on the witnesses.

The Twitter posts and "Truth" are coming in as admissions, the judge rules.

The prosecutor clarifies her withdrawal of the WaPo article: That's "subject to the stipulation" of its authenticity, presumably if it later becomes admissible.

"All rise."

The jury enters.

[ti-amie]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

The prosecutor reads her stipulation about the archived WaPo article into the record.

Trump video tweet, dated Oct. 8, 2016, is played for the jury:

The then-candidate's apology for his "Access Hollywood" comments, where Trump said he "said things that I regret."

"I said it. I was wrong, and I apologize."

Next tweet:

Trump going after John McCain for distancing himself from Trump after the Access Hollywood tapes.

Another Trump tweet shown to the jury:

"Polls close, but can you believe I lost large numbers of women voters based on made up events that NEVER HAPPENED."

Others like it are shown to the jury, before moving on to a Truth Social post of Trump referring to this criminal proceeding as the "'Horseface' case."

Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche has some questions for the witness on cross-ex.

Asked if she reviewed Michael Cohen's social media accounts, she answers in the affirmative.

"Twitter. I don't know if you could call podcasts 'social media,' but that. That would be it."

Asked if she listened to all of Michael Cohen's "Mea Culpa" podcasts, the witness answers: "Absolutely not," to laughter in the courtroom.

Blanche chuckles after too.

Blanche asks whether the witness has an "independent knowledge" from working at Twitter or working at Truth Social on how they date and time-stamp posts.

Longstreet concedes that she doesn't, but she adds that the recent Truth Social posts unfolded in real time.

She has worked in the DA's office for roughly two years, and she says this isn't her only case.

No further questions.
The witness exits.

[ti-amie]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
Trump trial news:

"The People call Hope Hicks."

Court officer: "Witness entering."

Hope Hicks takes the stand, raises her right hand and is sworn in.

"I do," she says, softly, before sitting.


Justice Merchan: "Good morning, Ms. Hicks."

(To prosecutor)

"You may inquire."

As Hicks rattles off her biography faintly, prosecutor Matthew Colangelo asks her to move closer to the microphone.

She says she's "nervous."

Q: So you began working at the Trump Organization about four years after you finished college?
A: That's right.

Hicks says she is represented by counsel and paying for her lawyer.

Q: Do you have any current professional relationship with Mr. Trump?
A: I don't.

The mic picks up Hicks more strongly now, as the questioning still focuses on the preliminaries of her prior work with Trump.

At first, the amplification appears to startle her because of her nervousness, but then, she sinks into her testimony.

Hicks:

"Everyone who works there in some sense reports to Mr. Trump."

Even as a big and successful company, it operates like a small family business, she says.

She's asked about Trump Org exec assistant Rhona Graff and ex-CFO Allen Weisselberg

Q: Are you familiar with someone named Michael Cohen?
A: (softly) Yes.

Questioning pivots to Hicks' media work for the Trump campaign.

Q: Did you speak to Mr. Trump in your role as the press secretary?
A: Every day.

Now, Hope Hicks dents the notion that Trump was out of the loop of anything in terms of public communication:

"He knew what he wanted to say and how we wanted to say it. We were always following his lead."

Q: Did you send text messages for the campaign?
A: Yes.

Q: And receive text messages too?
A: Yes.

Q: Do you know someone named David Pecker?
A: Yes.

Q: How do you know Mr. Pecker?

Hicks says she was first introduced to the AMI chief at a previous job. She was then reintroduced to him as a "friend of Mr. Trump."

Hicks doesn't remember how she learned that Trump and David Pecker were friends, but at some point, she says she realized that.

She says she was present for Trump's phone calls with Pecker.

Hope Hicks:

"One of [the Trump-Pecker calls] was shortly after the National Enquirer published a piece about Ben Carson."

Pecker was on speaker phone and Trump "congratulated" him about "the great reporting" — that Trump called "Pulitzer worthy."



(Note: She didn't reference any headline in particular, but these are the ones that came in during Pecker's testimony earlier at the trial.)

Prosecutor Colangelo shows Hope Hicks an email that she received from
@Fahrenthold
.
Hicks forwarded the email to other campaign leadership.

The prosecutor admits it into evidence.

In the email, Fahrenthold alerted Trump's campaign about the "Access Hollywood" tape, with a lengthy, relevant portion of the transcript.

Q: What was your first reaction when you first received this email?
A: I was concerned. Very concerned. (Pause) Yeah.

She forwarded it with the subject line, "FW: URGENT WashPost query," just like that to Jason Miller, David Bossie, Kellyanne Conway, and Steve Bannon.

The body of the email, skipping over random computer code, advised this response to the "Access Hollywood" story:

"FLAGGING.
1) [...] Need to hear the tape to be sure.
2) [...] Deny, deny, deny."

Hicks:

I shared the email with Mr. Trump, verbally.

I may have misheard a quote by Hope Hicks and will check with the transcript to confirm.

Hicks said that she sensed the Access Hollywood tape was going to be a "massive story," that would hold the news cycle for next several days, "at least."

Hicks watches Trump's video response to the Access Hollywood tape, which was posted on Twitter on Oct. 8, 2016 — and was shown to the jury earlier today.

She says she was present when it was taped.

The prosecutor notes that the video contrasted what Trump played down as his words as opposed to other people's actions.

Hicks agrees with that characterization.

Showing how coverage of the tape "dominated" the news cycle, Hicks noted they were anticipating a Category 4 hurricane making landfall on the East Coast at the time.

Q: The "Access Hollywood" tape pushed the hurricane off the news?
A: Yes.

Prosecutor Colangelo asks a line of questions about the GOP's response to the tape, and the defense responds with a string of objections.

The parties debate the matter further at sidebar: Sustained.

Questioning turns to the 2016 debate:

Hicks traveled with Trump there, and she was present for the debate, where the "Access Hollywood" tape came up as "one of the first questions."

Hicks says Trump reiterated that this was "locker room talk, just talk."

"Words, not actions," she says.

After the debate, the New York Times about Trump's behavior — but the prosecutor cuts her off before she says more.



Video:

Trump denies allegations by women — the nature of which is not before the jury.

This is the line prosecutors must walk:

They must show Trump's campaign in tailspin after the "Access Hollywood" tape, sparking motive to cover up a spectrum of alleged sexual misconduct.

Only some alleged behavior, though, they can speak by name.

Hicks reviews a series of Trump's damage-control tweets about the allegations and their affect on female voters.

Hicks recalls learning about Stormy Daniels during one of Trump's celebrity golf tournaments.

Daniels was there with one of the other participants, Hicks says.

Exhibit:

An email of WSJ's Michael Rothfield asking for comment about Karen McDougal.

Rothfield explained at length what he found.

(Corrected to show it was an WSJ scoop.)

From the email:

"My questions are: Did Mr. Trump have an extramarital affair with Karen McDougal?

Was he or anyone close to him aware or involved in this contract between AMI and Ms. McDougal?"

Hicks forwarded it to Jared Kushner, whom she wanted to press the matter with Rupert Murdoch, the paper's publisher.

Hicks said that she floated her response to the WSJ by Michael Cohen — and then by Trump.

Exhibit:

Michael Cohen's email to Hope Hicks on Nov. 4, 2016, with a draft response to the WSJ inquiry vis a vis McDougal.

Cohen:

"These accusations are completely untrue and just the latest despicable attempt by the liberal media and the Clinton Machine to distract the public from the FBI's ongoing criminal investigation into Secretary Clinton and her closest associates."

Hicks then learned: "The story was also going to mention Stephanie Clifford / Stormy Daniels."

Lunch recess.

[ti-amie]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

We're back.

Court officer: "Witness entering."

Hicks returns to the stand.

Merchan: "Good afternoon Ms. Hicks. Remember you're still under oath."

"All rise."

The jury is entering.

Assistant DA Colangelo resumes his questioning, continuing the topic of the WSJ inquiry.

Q: Around this time, on Nov. 4, did you witness any phone conversations between Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen?
A: Um. (pause) I believe I saw Mr. Trump speaking to Mr. Cohen shortly after the story was published.

Hicks is shown the WSJ's story.

In it, Hicks is quoted saying, "We have no knowledge of any of this" — and calling Karen McDougal's claim of an affair with Trump "totally untrue."

Asked whether Trump advised her about the messaging, Hicks says she cannot recall.

The prosecutor has her review her grand jury testimony, asking her if it refreshes her recollection. She says it doesn't. He has her read the last three lines. She still says it doesn't.

Hicks told the WSJ that Daniels' claim of a relationship with Trump was "absolutely, unequivocally" untrue.

She says she texted Michael Cohen about the story.





Text between Madeleine Westerhout and Hicks on March 20, 2018:

"Hey- the president wants to know if you called David pecker again."

That was the day Karen McDougal sued AMI to be released from the NDA.

The WSJ story has this anonymous quote:

"These are old, recycled reports, which were published and strongly denied prior to the election," a White House official said.

Hicks says it wasn't her. She says she believes it was Hogan Gidley, then-deputy PressSec, but she's not sure.

Hicks recounts a conversation with Trump where the then-president said "that Michael had paid (sigh) this woman to protect him from a false allegation."

Trump told her Cohen did so "from the kindness of his own heart and that he didn't tell anyone that it happened," she says.

She didn't buy it.

Hicks says that'd be "out of character for Michael."

"I didn't know Michael to be an especially charitable person or selfless person. [He's the] kind of person that seeks credit."

That line apparently got Hope Hicks emotional, leading to this moment at the start of her cross-examination.

No sooner does Trump lawyer Emil Bove's cross begin than Hope Hicks starts to tear up and cry.

Afternoon recess.

[ti-amie]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

Hicks apparently started getting emotional toward the end of direct, after recounting her disbelief of Trump's story about Cohen.

Her emotion crescendoed and interrupted her testimony before Bove had finished asking his first question—an unobtrusive query about her career.

We're back.

Bove (empathetically): "If you need a minute, just let me know."

Hicks agrees with Bove's comment that Michael Cohen was speaking as a surrogate, not a member of the campaign.

She also agrees that the campaign sometimes thought Cohen "went rogue."

"He liked to call himself a fixer, or Mr. Fix-It, but it was only because he first broke it!"

Q: President Trump gives a lot of feedback, right?
A: He does.

She provides some examples.

Bove's gentle questioning sticks to the defense opening statement's theme: That there's nothing wrong with a campaign engaging with the media before an election.

"I wouldn't have a job if that was not a regular practice," Hicks says.

The contrast between Bove's feather-light and leather-gloved cross-examination of Hope Hicks — and his aggressive grilling of Keith Davidson, or even a custodial forensic witness — is remarkable.

Bove turns to her conversations with Trump.

Q: You were working that day in your official capacity, right?
A: Yes.

Q: And he was there trying to be President of the United States, right?
A: Yes.

Bove's last question:

Q: You didn't have anything to do with the business records of the Trump Organization [...] miles away in New York City?
A: No.

"I have nothing further, your honor," the lawyer says.

No redirect. Hicks leaves.

Justice Merchan to the jurors:

"We're going to call it a week."

[ti-amie]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
57m
After they leave, one more topic at hand: Sandoval.

Prosecutors want the ability to confront Trump about his gag order violations **in this case** on cross-examination if he testifies in this trial.

Todd Blanche argues against, hoping to avoid a "whole sideshow."

Blanche notes that the judge already allowed prosecutors to confront Trump on his gag order violations in the civil fraud case, which he says can serve the same purpose.

Prosecutor Colangelo says precedent is on their side.

Judge: "I agree with Mr. Blanche."

He DENIES the prosecution's application here, finding that telling the jury that the judge in this case found him in contempt would be too prejudicial.

Trump has his eyes straight toward the exit as he leaves the court today.

[ti-amie]

I haven't commented on any of this stuff but breaking down and crying?! C'mon man.