Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan has ruled in favor of a defense argument that it would be too prejudicial for the jury to hear about the contempt order he issued over Donald Trump violating a gag order.
He also denied the prosecution's ability to cross-examine the former president about the gag order if he chooses to testify in his defense.
Prosecutors said earlier this week they wanted to ask Trump about the judge's ruling that Trump violated the gag order.
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said asking Trump about the gag order violations was "appropriate and allowable" Sandoval evidence.
Merchan however said he agrees with Trump's attorney Todd Blanche and won't let the prosecutors ask about the violations.

Quote:

---

"For a jury to hear that this court the same judge that's presiding over this case has found Mr. Trump to be in contempt, on this case, I think would just be so prejudicial."

---

Some context: A Sandoval hearing involves an examination of the defendant's criminal history. It is required under New York law when a defendant plans to testify in their own trial and is meant as an indicator of whether it would be a good idea for them to take the stand.

---

Quote:

---

Court is now adjourned, after the attorneys from each side discussed guidelines for topics that could be raised if Trump chooses to testify in his defense later in the trial.

"Have a good weekend," Judge Juan Merchan said, after ruling in favor of a request from Trump's legal team not to allow prosecutors to ask questions about violating the former president's gag order.

---

Brief summary of today's testimony (good/bad/indifferent re; team trump) for us non-jurists...anyone??????????????

TIA

gtaggie_08 said:

---

Seems the biggest part of the Hicks testimony on cross was that Cohen was not supposed to be working for the campaign in any way and that he kept going rogue and getting involved and screwing things up. Puts a big wet blanket on the "campaign finance/election interference" theory the DA case is building. Huge win for Trump if the jury buys that. Who wouldn't want to protect family from embarrassing news if they had the means?

---

Agree that was a very good point she made and as the communications director for the campaign, she would know how Cohen was interfering.

Which presents the question of whether Cohen himself was the source of some of those leaks to the media?

Many thanks for the plain spoken clarity!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All the questions about "what-if Trump testifies".... are we coming to the end of witnesses, or is this just normal?

Seems like the prosecution is getting ready for the end.

TexAg1987 said:

---

All the questions about "what-if Trump testifies".... are we coming to the end of witnesses, or is this just normal?

Seems like the prosecution is getting ready for the end.

---

Unlikely. I don't think the state has gotten through half of their witness list yet. Frankly I thought they would spend a day or two on Hope Hicks but three hours in total today before she was excused.

I'd expect prosecution will take another week or so.

I think this was the best day for the prosecution, although that isn't saying much. I think Hicks will likely be viewed as a win on both sides. She did make a big point that the campaign was very worried about after the Access Hollywood tape. I think the prosecution is going to try to make the argument that they were so worried about Trump being viewed as a womanizer, that he was willing to pay Daniels off. This is closest they've come to making that point, but there are still big leaps they are asking supposed impartial jurors to make. If you're a juror who is already pre-disposed to dislike Trump, then this argument probably resonates more with you.

On the flip side, though, when the story came out about Daniels a few days before the election, Hicks said Trump was very worried about what Melania would think. I think she also said something like after a day or so, they kind of decided the Stormy Daniels thing wasn't really making big news and that Trump should just ignore it. In the cross, she also said something to the effect of the Trump Team worried about other big stories (Trump's Tax Return), too, not just the ones involving women. I bet if there were more time in the day, Trumps lawyers would have had her talk about other events and how the Trump Team reacted (I'm sure there were plenty of Tweets they freaked out about), but I think they also didn't want to look like they were berating Hicks. If you're a juror who is trying to be impartial, or is pro-Trump, I think this side of Hicks testimony probably resonated with you more.

I also think Hicks is the first witness who hasn't come across as total slime. I wonder how the jury will react to her crying. I feel like it might be viewed negatively on the prosecution, since they forced her to be there.

If this were a boxing match, I think the defense won the round again (They've won every round so far), but for the first time in the whole case, I think the prosecution actually landed a punch, although it looks like it was a pretty weak one.

Quote:

---

[W]hen the story came out about Daniels a few days before the election, Hicks said Trump was very worried about what Melania would think.

---

Sounds like we've reached the point in this donkey show where someone takes the stand and testifies about what's going on within Trump's own mind, or no?

Gouveia reviews Daividson's cross in greater detail than the CNN blog does. About 45 minutes. Really makes Davidson look like a pure sleaze artist, on par with CPL Avenatti.

I will be very surprised at this point if anything but guilty is returned. It's just hard to imagine that law and justice is still available in the country after so much evidence to the contrary. Yes it might get reversed at the appellate level, but again it's clear that these people's identities are pretty well established. It won't be hard for people to exert pressure.

Just zero faith left in the system at this point.

Remember this is from CNN so there is some bias here.

Quote:

---

Donald Trump's former close confidante Hope Hicks continued to testify after the court returned from its lunch break on Friday.
Overall, she spoke for a little less than three hours and her testimony wrapped before the court adjourned for the day.
Here's everything you need to know about what she said:
On the Wall Street Journal story: After lunch, prosecutors resumed their questions around a November, 4, 2016, WSJ article, which reported that the National Enquirer had paid Karen McDougal for the story of her alleged affair with Trump, but had not published the story.

• "I believe I heard Mr. Trump speaking to Mr. Cohen shortly after the story was published," Hicks testified, adding there was "nothing memorable" about the call with his former attorney. She said Reince Priebus was in the car with her and Trump at the time of the call with Michael Cohen. They were traveling to a rally in Hershey, Pennsylvania, she said.
• Hicks read the denial she gave for the story, which said the claim of the affair was "totally untrue." She confirmed that Trump told her to say that. She also testified about monitoring press reaction to the story and discussing it with Cohen.
• Trump was concerned about his wife seeing this story and the possible impact of this story on his presidential campaign, Hicks said. "Everything we talked about in the context of this time period and this time frame was about whether or not there was an impact on the campaign."

2018 story about hush money to Stormy Daniels: Prosecutors showed the jury and the court the Wall Street Journal story from 2018 about the hush money payment.

• Hicks said she was not the White House official quoted in the story.
• She said Trump told her about the payment after Cohen told the New York Times that he had, in fact, made the payment without Trump's knowledge.
• The idea that Cohen made the $130,000 payment on his own "would be out of character for Michael," she testified.

Tearing up: Hicks started tearing up after the direct examination finished and as Trump's attorney Emil Bove took the podium. She was audibly sniffling and left the courtroom briefly.
Cross-examination: When she returned to the stand, she told Bove that she felt she had Trump's "trust and respect."

• She testified that Cohen tried to "insert himself" into the 2016 presidential campaign even as he "wasn't supposed to be on the campaign in any official capacity." The attorney "wasn't looped in on the day-to-day of campaign strategy," but he would go "rogue" and take actions that were unauthorized by Trump's team, frustrating the campaign, she added.
• In relation to WSJ's November 4, 2016, story, she also told the defense that Trump didn't want his family to be hurt or embarrassed by what was happening on the campaign trail.

---

They been after Trump full bore since 2015 and it's all gonna come down to a trial involving Stormy the daytime hooker.

aggiehawg said:

---

TexAg1987 said:

---

All the questions about "what-if Trump testifies".... are we coming to the end of witnesses, or is this just normal?

Seems like the prosecution is getting ready for the end.

---

Unlikely. I don't think the state has gotten through half of their witness list yet. Frankly I thought they would spend a day or two on Hope Hicks but three hours in total today before she was excused.

I'd expect prosecution will take another week or so.

---

At the very least, you've still got McDougal, Daniels, and Cohen. I think there likely still two weeks of prosecution testimony. Cohen will probably take a few days himself, especially with all the objections that will likely be raised from both sides.

I originally thought the state was calling Trump's CFO, who is currently in Riker's Island, plus another accountant or two from the Trump Organization. With the plodding nature of their direct exams, those could also be long days.

Still amazed that no federal case was able to get traction but the State of New York landing blow after blow.

A single US state tags Trump with a 30-year old sex assault case from the dressing room of a lingerie store, the most specious fraud case of all time, and now a record keeping case involving Stormy the daytime hooker.

After witnessing the past 9-years theres no way we don't live in a computer simulation.

Quote:

---

Still amazed that no federal case was able to get traction but the State of New York landing blow after blow.

---

Not for lack of trying, though. Smith just screwed himself over with the DC case and Florida documents case. Badly mishandled both. And Fani Willis' case is falling apart as we speak.

Reality Check said:

---

Quote:

---

• In relation to WSJ's November 4, 2016, story, she also told the defense that Trump didn't want his family to be hurt or embarrassed by what was happening on the campaign trail.

---

Which completely debunks the prosecution's essential to convict theory that this was all about influencing the election.

I consider myself a fairly well-educated guy; A masters and an additional 63 hours of post-grad study. I don't see how text messages showing a shady lawyer trying to sell a story about Trump to a tabloid proves Trump fraudulently labeled 34 transactions in 2017 about an alleged affair that hit the tabloids in 2011 helped him win an election in 2016..

Absolutely none of this makes sense.

But then again, I remind myself this isn't about any crime Trump committed -- it's a six- to eight-week exercise in the Democrats punishing Trump for winning an election and for daring to run again. He's not able to campaign. They're dragging him through the muck of affairs with porn stars that porn stars said 13 years ago never happened. He's being threatened with jail by a judge whose daughter is literally raising money off of this trial. He's allowing MSM anchors to orgasm on air about the possibility of Trump sitting in jail for contempt. And -- if all 12 jurors can be counted on to follow script -- he'll be a "convicted felon" for a year or so until an appeals court cleans up Merchan's mess.

And then it all makes perfect sense.

---

Surely these prosecutors know they have a weak case and are making a hash out of their own theory of the case in their presentation thus far, not that judge isn't doing all he can to help them. Having their entire case revolve around Cohen and by extension his credibility? After two weeks of all of their own witnesses trashing the hell out of him?

I would not be surprised if some desperation sets in and the prosecution oversteps even more than they already have. The jury may not be hearing the legal pundits trashing the whole case and the prosecution's performance thus far but I guarantee you those prosecutors are seeing and reading it. That is one of the main reasons they fought so hard to be able to throw everything and the kitchen sink at Trup if he does testify. Pinning their hopes on that cross examination lasting for days.

Now, if Trump does testify, his lawyers can have a very limited direct to try to limit the scope of cross. But that again comes back to the judge and what all he considers as credibility evidence (which could even include whether Trump is a boxers or a briefs kind of guy if Merchan decides it is.) So there still would be a high degree of risk.

Legally, I don't think Trump even needs to testify, the state's case is so bad.

Politically? He probably has to.

Trump isn't going to testify unless there is some bombshell witness. Even in NYC, I think it's going to be very hard to convince 12 people to convict with the evidence thus far. Statistically, there should be a could of Republicans on the jury. Even if 10 people don't care and want to convict no matter what, there is still likely to be one or two who are the opposite.

BTW:

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump paid his $9,000 fine on Thursday for violating the gag order in his hush money criminal trial, according to a court official.
The fine was paid in two cashier's checks one for $2,000 and one for $7,000 at the court clerk's office.
Judge Juan Merchan fined Trump $9,000 this week for violating his gag order nine times. He gave him until the end of the business Friday to pay it.
Merchan has yet to rule on the prosecution's allegations of four additional gag order violations by Trump, after hearing arguments Thursday morning.

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Trump isn't going to testify unless there is some bombshell witness. Even in NYC, I think it's going to be very hard to convince 12 people to convict with the evidence thus far. Statistically, there should be a could of Republicans on the jury. Even if 10 people don't care and want to convict no matter what, there is still likely to be one or two who are the opposite.

---

I hate to pin my hopes on the two lawyers on the jury because I have such a low regard for many of the current practitioners of my former profession BUT assuming either one of them attended a real law school that is not an Ivy, they should have major concerns about beyond a reasonable doubt standard with this case.

I always harp upon jury instructions being the Achilles Heel for even the best presented prosecution cases. Judge screws up those? Reversible error damn near every time.

Bottom line, this is a very simple case until the state throws all of the conspiracy evidence in that have never been pled nor included in the indictment.

I think most peiple including myself could care less about this case. Conviction or not, people are still going to vote for Trump. I cant see any of these cases making it through Supreme Court without being overturned. Millions of dollars spent on BS to keep power.

Either the prosecution is grossly incompetent in addition to being partisan hacks, or they are intentionally muddying their nothing case with many irrelevant and conflicting "witnesses" with boring testimony so that no one can follow their Rube Goldberg case. That way, when they get their rigged jury guilty verdict, it will be less obvious to the low information voters they are targeting that it's all BS.

This is intended to both punish and hurt Trump by keeping him off the campaign trail and try to influence some voters to make the steal through fraud more possible.

agAngeldad said:

---

I think most peiple including myself could care less about this case. Conviction or not, people are still going to vote for Trump. I cant see any of these cases making it through Supreme Court without being overturned. Millions of dollars spent on BS to keep power.

---

Maybe I am too generous in giving some benefit of the doubt to the prosecution and grand juries. Has to be something to hang their hat on, right? Even with a one sided presentation?

So I reserve judgment until I hear openings and the first few witnesses. Smart prosecutors open evidentairy portions of a trial with a witness that can set the narrative of the case. BUT those witnesses need to be solid, present well. Why? Because the trust between the attorneys and the jury has to be established with opening statements and those early witnesses.

Everyone who has done debates know the rules of primacy: open strong, middle doesn't matter, close strong. Bookend your strongest arguments. Good trial attorneys write their closing arguments first, then backtrack to select the winesses they need to present to touch on those at the very least. Order the witness list accordingly, keep the narrative going. Then tie it together back again in closing arguments. That lends credibility to the lawyers because the jury can follow that easily. Builds trust. The follow through.

That is not happening here.

Quote:

---

rigged jury guilty verdict

---

The fact that two lawyers ended up on the jury shocks the conscience.

AustinAg2K said:

---

Not related directly to the trial, but why do courts still use sketch artists? And why are they always so bad at drawing?

---

aggiehawg said:

---

agAngeldad said:

---

I think most peiple including myself could care less about this case. Conviction or not, people are still going to vote for Trump. I cant see any of these cases making it through Supreme Court without being overturned. Millions of dollars spent on BS to keep power.

---

Maybe I am too generous in giving some benefit of the doubt to the prosecution and grand juries. Has to be something to hang their hat on, right? Even with a one sided presentation?

So I reserve judgment until I hear openings and the first few witnesses. Smart prosecutors open evidentairy portions of a trial with a witness that can set the narrative of the case. BUT those witnesses need to be solid, present well. Why? Because the trust between the attorneys and the jury has to be established with opening statements and those early witnesses.

Everyone who has done debates know the rules of primacy: open strong, middle doesn't matter, close strong. Bookend your strongest arguments. Good trial attorneys write their closing arguments first, then backtrack to select the winesses they need to present to touch on those at the very least. Order the witness list accordingly, keep the narrative going. Then tie it together back again in closing arguments. That lends credibility to the lawyers because the jury can follow that easily. Builds trust. The follow through.

That is not happening here.

---

Exactly. Im not a lawyer but I can even tell what the heck is going on. It sounds more like the sham it is. (I do appreciate your narratives). However, i have set on several juries and some people are truly stiipd.

All of the media outlets have pretty much declared Trump convicted today because of Hope Hicks testimony.

CNN even dug up George Conway to give his usual take on Trump.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Still amazed that no federal case was able to get traction but the State of New York landing blow after blow.

A single US state tags Trump with a 30-year old sex assault case from the dressing room of a lingerie store, the most specious fraud case of all time, and now a record keeping case involving Stormy the daytime hooker.

After witnessing the past 9-years theres no way we don't live in a computer simulation.

---

I'm not sure that New York is really landing many blows.

It's more like they're shadow boxing in the hopes that low information voters who are not following the case will believe they're landing blows.

Every witness has undermined the prosecution's position that this was all some elaborate scheme. To the contrary, this is looking more and more like a manufactured "settlement" that Cohen cooked up worth Daniels and her attorney for all of them to get into Trump's pocket.

In other words, it appears Trump was more of a victim than he was a perp.

How fast can a new case go to trial if there is a lone holdout causing a mistrial?

Can they try again before the election or is this their only shot?

I have been convinced from the start that acquittal is not possible, but as this sham unfolds and is exposed as such, a hung jury seems to be an increasingly possible outcome.

Casual Cynic said:

---

They are prosecuting the victim in this case. Trump was the only person to whom any wrong was done.

---

I feel like Melanie has some claim to victim status given the sordid nature of the testimony being trumpeted across headlines day after day. She certainly didn't do anything wrong.

Regardless pretty weak case that only serves to make Trump look like a victim, as CC points out.