Quote:

---

The two witnesses who took the stand on Monday in the hush money trial against Donald Trump are giving the jury an inside look at how the Trump Organization pays its bills and how small the organization is, CNN analysts say.
Jeffrey McConney, a former Trump Organization controller; and Deborah Tarasoff, an accounts payable supervisor, walked the jury through the accounting processes. Their testimonies painted the picture that it was an "intimate affair," CNN political director David Chalian said.

Quote:

---

"This is not being processed through some massive accounts payable department. We heard today from the two people basically responsible at the Trump Organization for getting bills paid," Chalian said.

---

Before Trump was president, Tarasoff testified that she "would cut the check, put it with the backup and bring it over to Rhona (Graff) who would bring it in to Mr. Trump to sign," referring to Trump's former longtime assistant.
The invoices and the checks were stapled together, she said, with the check on top of the invoice.
While there is no testimony directly linking Trump with the payments, the fact that the accounting operation was small suggests that "at a certain point it becomes hard to square that the head at the top of the organization is not aware of what these checks are and what they mean," said CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Chris Conroy is resuming questioning of witness Deborah Tarasoff.
"I think as we were walking through those exhibits, I missed one," Conroy said, bringing up the June 2017 invoice from Michael Cohen and implicitly acknowledging the tedious process of going through every piece of paperwork.
Caught up to September, the jury is again seeing Tarasoff's accounts payable stamp on Cohen's invoice.
Tasaroff is reading the same emails from this morning that Cohen sent to former Trump Org. CFO Allen Weisselberg with the 2017 invoices attached. She's then testifying to each of the vouchers associated with those invoices.
She's also testifying about each of the $35,000 checks with Trump's signature sent to Cohen.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors have wrapped up their questioning of Deborah Tarasoff. Trump attorney Todd Blanche is now starting his cross-examination for the defense.

---

Quote:

---

Deborah Tarasoff confirms to defense attorney Todd Blanche that the Trump Organization is a family-run business. She says she has worked with Trump's children Eric, Don Jr. and Ivanka Trump over the years.
Trump is fully turned 90 degrees in his chair while Tarasoff is testifying. His arm is over the back of the chair, and he's facing toward Tasaroff.

---

ETA:

Quote:

---

Trump attorney Todd Blanche just wrapped up his cross-examination of Deborah Tarasoff.

There won't be a redirect, and Tarasoff is off the stand

---

Quote:

---

"Jurors we're going to stop a little bit early today," Judge Juan Merchan tells the jury.

The jurors are now leaving.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The two witnesses who took the stand on Monday in the hush money trial against Donald Trump are giving the jury an inside look at how the Trump Organization pays its bills and how small the organization is, CNN analysts say.
Jeffrey McConney, a former Trump Organization controller; and Deborah Tarasoff, an accounts payable supervisor, walked the jury through the accounting processes. Their testimonies painted the picture that it was an "intimate affair," CNN political director David Chalian said.

Quote:

---

"This is not being processed through some massive accounts payable department. We heard today from the two people basically responsible at the Trump Organization for getting bills paid," Chalian said.

---

Before Trump was president, Tarasoff testified that she "would cut the check, put it with the backup and bring it over to Rhona (Graff) who would bring it in to Mr. Trump to sign," referring to Trump's former longtime assistant.
The invoices and the checks were stapled together, she said, with the check on top of the invoice.
While there is no testimony directly linking Trump with the payments, the fact that the accounting operation was small suggests that "at a certain point it becomes hard to square that the head at the top of the organization is not aware of what these checks are and what they mean," said CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Chris Conroy is resuming questioning of witness Deborah Tarasoff.
"I think as we were walking through those exhibits, I missed one," Conroy said, bringing up the June 2017 invoice from Michael Cohen and implicitly acknowledging the tedious process of going through every piece of paperwork.
Caught up to September, the jury is again seeing Tarasoff's accounts payable stamp on Cohen's invoice.
Tasaroff is reading the same emails from this morning that Cohen sent to former Trump Org. CFO Allen Weisselberg with the 2017 invoices attached. She's then testifying to each of the vouchers associated with those invoices.
She's also testifying about each of the $35,000 checks with Trump's signature sent to Cohen.

---

---

Did Deborah have any substance to add? if not, sounds like prosecution is wading people to the stand to burn time.

Quote:

---

Did Deborah have any substance to add?

---

Not really, in my view. She was mostly a foundational witness to get the checks themselves into evidence since she was the one who originated them based upon invoices given to her.

Which goes to show you actually how simple this trial could have been. Two witnesses, not even afull day of testimony to establish the 34 counts. So much of the rest of this trial has been kabuki theater.

Speaking of kabuki theater, it won't be ending anytime soon.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan asks the prosecution how they're doing on timing for making their case.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says they're doing "well," but estimates they still need about two weeks from tomorrow. He stresses that's a very rough estimate.
Trump tapped defense attorney Todd Blanche's arm as Steinglass made the estimation.

---

What a load of BS.

So we understand the part about future violations will be punished by incarceration. That's fairly clear.

My question is about the order as to what Trump can and can't say on his own website during the middle of a political campaign.

As we know political speech is the most protected form of speech.

So are we saying here that the integrity of this criminal trial outweighs Trump's right political speech during a political campaign in which he is the candidate?

And if so, what legal theory does that fall under?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Did Deborah have any substance to add?

---

Not really, in my view. She was mostly a foundational witness to get the checks themselves into evidence since she was the one who originated them based upon invoices given to her.

Which goes to show you actually how simple this trial could have been. Two witnesses, not even afull day of testimony to establish the 34 counts. So much of the rest of this trial has been kabuki theater.

---

As I understood it, none of the checks in question were from Trump Org, but the MarXists are freaking out about Trump doing Trump Org business as POTUS. He continued to doing personal business, but not Trump Org business, is how I understood this.

If the defense can make their case that Trump was out of the loop in 2017 because he was leader of the free world that only makes Cohen look more sleazy. As of now, the case is thin at best and I would say that if it were Biden or Obama and they had a family business.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

So we understand the part about future violations will be punished by incarceration. That's fairly clear.

My question is about the order as to what Trump can and can't say on his own website during the middle of a political campaign.

As we know political speech is the most protected form of speech.

So are we saying here that the integrity of this criminal trial outweighs Trump's right political speech during a political campaign in which he is the candidate?

And if so, what legal theory does that fall under?

---

Also noteworthy is how the court points out (twice) that its own orders here are 'lawful orders.'

Just how common is it for a trial judge to refer to their own order as a lawful order within the text of the order?

Who is the decider of whether the court's order is lawful?

You the judge, judge. Why the need to put a little extra english on it?

What was the offending statement this time?

TexAg1987 said:

---

What was the offending statement this time?

---

I missed the first part of today but my understanding from I read, he said something about Manhattan juries bing predominintly Democrats and that Manhattan is a very blue area.

Nothing directed at any particular juror just a general statement about the jury pool and jurors being selected from that pool.

This is Trump's 10th violation of the court's gag order.

Judge done painted himself into a corner now.

Wasn't too long ago that folks balked at the idea of Trump being incarcerated over violation of a court's gag order.

Now we here.

What say you people?

aggiehawg said:

---

TexAg1987 said:

---

What was the offending statement this time?

---

I missed the first part of today but my understanding from I read, he said something about Manhattan juries bing predominintly Democrats and that Manhattan is a very blue area.

Nothing directed at any particular juror just a general statement about the jury pool and jurors being selected from that pool.

---

Found it:

Quote:

---

The violation for which he was punished on Monday stemmed from an incident on April 22, when Mr. Trump made disparaging remarks about the jurors during a telephone interview with a far-right media outlet, Real America's Voice. The jury, he said, had been picked "so fast" and was "mostly all Democrat," adding, "It's a very unfair situation."

---

Judge Finds Trump in Contempt Again and Threatens Jail Time - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

If you are Trump, what do you have to lose here by going to jail on a gag order violation?

Trumps disregarded the judge thus far. On what basis does the judge think that Trump gonna all of a sudden come to Jesus on this?

Wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump violates the gag order again overnight and we talking about this tomorrow morning.

Putting Trump in jail on the baiss of a gag order violation is a trial balloon.

Same thing we saw with the Dobbs supreme court leaked opinion.

A trial balloon.

Much speculation about how the public will react?

Are we about to find out?

Y/N

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

If you are Trump, what do you have to lose here by going to jail on a gag order violation?

Trumps disregarded the judge thus far. On what basis does the judge think that Trump gonna all of a sudden come to Jesus on this?

Wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump violates the gag order again overnight and we talking about this tomorrow morning.

---

I don't agree with this. I believe the judge is overstepping. Nothing about that last comment should be enough to violate the gag order. The jury isn't supposed to be listening to any news about the trial anyway.

Thanks for the assist there.

This is the reverse of the last election. They are trying to keep Trump in the basement.

Agreed on that. We watching live action defication on the legal system and rule of law.

But looking at all this at 10,000 feet, or a time traveller that just showed up yesterday, all are desensitized about the absurdity of all this.

A few years ago what we've seen play out would have been inconceivable, Some sort of wild hypothetical made to demonstrate a point.

Now it's playing out in real time. We've had the curtain ripped back on all this and seen the frail old man behind the controls.

Shatters the fabric of reality this does.

Quote:

---

I don't agree with this. I believe the judge is overstepping. Nothing about that last comment should be enough to violate the gag order. The jury isn't supposed to be listening to any news about the trial anyway.

---

Merchan has turned over his courtroom to the prosecutors who whine everyday about something Trump has said as violating the gag order. Trump called David Pecker "nice" and the prosecutors went insane over it. Such ticky tack antics you'd expect from toddlers.

But I have to wonder IF and how far Merchan will allow Trump's lawyers to ask questions about Giglio matters with Cohen. His guilty plea and the entire deal he struck to avoid decades of jail time in exchange for his turning on Trump.

Remember, the jury has seen witness after witness who dislike Cohen already. And Cohen himself is a target rich environment for impeaching his credibility. The vast majority of the original charges against Cohen were for varous tax charges unrelated to Trump.

You can see where this is going they are going to bring in Cohen and they are going to put his unbelievable nonsense and if you paid attention today they focused a lot on Allen Weisselberg. Now think about this. They've got 76 year old Allen Weisselberg rotting in Rikers hoping to flip him to try and tie this all to Trump. They cannot tie this to Trump without Allen Weisselberg saying Trump ordered him to make all these payments. Even though these are legal payments that were made long after the election the only prayer they have is Allen Weisselberg flipping on Trump

TexAg1987 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TexAg1987 said:

---

What was the offending statement this time?

---

I missed the first part of today but my understanding from I read, he said something about Manhattan juries bing predominintly Democrats and that Manhattan is a very blue area.

Nothing directed at any particular juror just a general statement about the jury pool and jurors being selected from that pool.

---

Found it:

Quote:

---

The violation for which he was punished on Monday stemmed from an incident on April 22, when Mr. Trump made disparaging remarks about the jurors during a telephone interview with a far-right media outlet, Real America's Voice. The jury, he said, had been picked "so fast" and was "mostly all Democrat," adding, "It's a very unfair situation."

---

Judge Finds Trump in Contempt Again and Threatens Jail Time - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

---

If that comment from April 22nd is the 10th violation, how in the world do you take an event that occurred PRIOR to the 9 count gag order violation from April 30th and hold him in contempt again, but act like it's a new occurrence since the last punishment and escalate the next punishment phase? That makes no sense.

Prosecutors missed it the first time? Or even they didn't believe it was a violation...until now...when they are losing the case?

oldag00 said:

---

TexAg1987 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TexAg1987 said:

---

What was the offending statement this time?

---

I missed the first part of today but my understanding from I read, he said something about Manhattan juries bing predominintly Democrats and that Manhattan is a very blue area.

Nothing directed at any particular juror just a general statement about the jury pool and jurors being selected from that pool.

---

Found it:

Quote:

---

The violation for which he was punished on Monday stemmed from an incident on April 22, when Mr. Trump made disparaging remarks about the jurors during a telephone interview with a far-right media outlet, Real America's Voice. The jury, he said, had been picked "so fast" and was "mostly all Democrat," adding, "It's a very unfair situation."

---

Judge Finds Trump in Contempt Again and Threatens Jail Time - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

---

If that comment from April 22nd is the 10th violation, how in the world do you take an event that occurred PRIOR to the 9 count gag order violation from April 30th and hold him in contempt again, but act like it's a new occurrence since the last punishment and escalate the next punishment phase? That makes no sense.

---

Biggest question is what part of that statement is disparaging any jurors? What part of that statement is untrue?

Why would he flip

Clown Show!

jt2hunt said:

---

Why would he flip

---

To get out of Rikers Island earlier.

I'm not saying he would flip but the desperation of this kangaroo court is obvious. Here's a question for you, what on earth did they hope to gain by locking up a 76 year old man in Rikers with ZERO priors and for a bs crime?

The CNN losers wouldn't accept that writing the checks to cohen for the payoff isn't illegal.

Also, during some of the commentary they said the bookkeeper testified that the reason she classified it as a legal expense was because that was the only option in the drop down box that made sense to her.

I'm going to look for the transcript

I'm not a lawyer

Former prosecutor on CNN said that the defense put distance between Trump and what Biden's fake charges.

He said today was a good day and if they can't substantiate Biden's fake charges Trump should be acquitted