Lolwut? The Trump organization was not an SEC registrant and 130K was certainly not material in any respect. I've been the Chief accounting/Finance officer at numerous public Companies. This wasn't the settlement of a lawsuit.aezmvp said:
We're talking about a ledger item that says legal fees. Paid to a lawyer to satisfy a contract. Legal expenses including payouts are literally a line item on the SEC reports that some companies that I've worked at file. It's a well known and accepted business practice. What planet are we even on?
*** Official Trump Hush Money Trial Thread ***
605,303 Views |
6827 Replies |
Last: 16 hrs ago by BMX Bandit
Prosecution has to be hating this testimony.Im Gipper said:Quote:
Defense attorney Susan Necheles is asking Stormy Daniels about her testimony on Tuesday when Daniels said Trump's actions made her feel like she had to have sex with him.
"My own insecurities made me feel that way," Daniels says.Quote:
She went on, "He did not put his hands on me. He did not give me any sort of drugs or alcohol and he did not hold a weapon or hold me or threaten me."
I don't think anyone is arguing that NDAs are illegal. In fact, there is a completely legitimate way they're supposed to be recorded. I swear I saw somewhere how they're supposed to be entered, but for the life of me, I can't find it now..oldag00 said:How should it have been recorded to correct the accounting mistake?TXAggie2011 said:Gyles Marrett said:
Fee - "a payment made to a professional person or to a professional or public body in exchange for advice or services"
Expense - "the cost required for something; the money spent on something"
Trying to make the argument that a fee is not an expense is just flat out wrong...shows the extreme reach this case is trying to make.
I said it was at least an accounting mistake. I have expressed over and over my doubt the state will prove criminal intent, despite folks repeatedly putting words in my mouth.
I'm not sure why the payment would be proper "legal expenses" or "legal fees" for the corporation. Routing personal expenses through a company to cover those personal, non-business expenses…you can't write those off.
Still, this doesn't come down to "fee" or "expense." It's about reporting campaign related money vs. treating as something not.
NDAs are not illegal. Individuals and companies, especially single owner companies, enter NDAs with regularity.
lol, blackmail has been redefined.
I completely agree. I'm trying to understand from posters who see no problems with bringing these charges what the correct accounting would have been.
My suspicion is that it's something as germane as arguing about whether the accounting line says "expenses" or "fees".
My suspicion is that it's something as germane as arguing about whether the accounting line says "expenses" or "fees".
Quote:
Donald Trump did not look at Stormy Daniels walking by. He was talking to one of his attorneys, Todd Blanche.
I'm Gipper
Thanks for the updates!
And, for those of you so hellbent on litigating the difference between a fee and an expense, can you please end the slapfight? No one is changing opinions.
And, for those of you so hellbent on litigating the difference between a fee and an expense, can you please end the slapfight? No one is changing opinions.
I love Texas Aggie sports, but I love Texas A&M more.
Just getting caught up here. Thanks to Gipper and others for filling in with the quotes from CNN.
I am surprised that Merchan hasn't shut Necheles down more in her questioning. He's allowing her to be forceful and aggressive on this cross.
I'm sure the prosecution is rethinking ever calling her in the first place. And this cross is a preview of what is in store for Cohen because he will make the same mistakes Stormy did, keep yacking adding things instead of tight answers to the question. If the state did coach her extensively as I believe they did, bad strategic error in encouraging her to run with it after being asked an open ended question on their direct examination of her. Those embellishing details will trip the witness up nearly every damn time.
I am surprised that Merchan hasn't shut Necheles down more in her questioning. He's allowing her to be forceful and aggressive on this cross.
I'm sure the prosecution is rethinking ever calling her in the first place. And this cross is a preview of what is in store for Cohen because he will make the same mistakes Stormy did, keep yacking adding things instead of tight answers to the question. If the state did coach her extensively as I believe they did, bad strategic error in encouraging her to run with it after being asked an open ended question on their direct examination of her. Those embellishing details will trip the witness up nearly every damn time.
LOL agreed...my only point which kept being overlooked was due to prior testimony it's meaningless as she only had one option how to record it.Marvin said:
Thanks for the updates!
And, for those of you so hellbent on litigating the difference between a fee and an expense, can you please end the slapfight? No one is changing opinions.
Its not as easy as it looks! You want to take over? Please! LOL
I'm Gipper
Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles is returning to the "Make America Horny Again" strip club tour, reminding Stormy Daniels that she testified she hates the name, which is a play on Trump's campaign slogan "Make America Great Again."
Necheles asks whether Daniels ever posted about it on social media.
"Sometimes they made me retweet them," Daniels says.
The jury is seeing two posts about the tour from Daniels' instagram in 2018.
Earlier today, Daniels testified that she never posted about the tour.
"That's not my personal Instagram, that's my business Instagram," Daniels said of the post.
Quote:
Defense attorney Susan Necheles is now asking about the celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe where Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump met.
"People were recognizing who he was?" Necheles asks.
"Yes, but they recognized me where I went that day, too," Daniels says with a shrug
I'm Gipper
Some people just love being in the limelight and can't STFU when it would be appropriate if not advantageous for them to do so. Love it.aggiehawg said:
Just getting caught up here. Thanks to Gipper and others for filling in with the quotes from CNN.
I am surprised that Merchan hasn't shut Necheles down more in her questioning. He's allowing her to be forceful and aggressive on this cross.
I'm sure the prosecution is rethinking ever calling her in the first place. And this cross is a preview of what is in store for Cohen because he will make the same mistakes Stormy did, keep yacking adding things instead of tight answers to the question. If the state did coach her extensively as I believe they did, bad strategic error in encouraging her to run with it after being asked an open ended question on their direct examination of her. Those embellishing details will trip the witness up nearly every damn time.
The proper way to account for the payments would be any way which makes it reasonably understandable they weren't actually the businesses' legal expenses but payments for an unrelated personal matter.oldag00 said:
I completely agree. I'm trying to understand from posters who see no problems with bringing these charges what the correct accounting would have been.
My suspicion is that it's something as germane as arguing about whether the accounting line says "expenses" or "fees".
That wouldn't absolve them of any (theoretical) underlying issues such as campaign finance violations or wrongfully trying to write that off for tax purposes, but at least the accounting ledgers and statements would be accurate.
Its not about "expenses" vs "fees" or something so pedantic. I think that's been said already this morning.
We may be nearing the end of cross. On Tuesday prosecution said they would definitely have a redirect but I would advise them against trying to rehabilitate her.Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles is asking Stormy Daniels: "You last spoke with President Trump in 2007?"
"Yes," Daniels says.
"And that's a long time ago, right?" Necheles asks.
"Yes, ma'am," Daniels responds.
You filled in quite well. Really appreciate the work!Im Gipper said:
Its not as easy as it looks! You want to take over? Please! LOLQuote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles is returning to the "Make America Horny Again" strip club tour, reminding Stormy Daniels that she testified she hates the name, which is a play on Trump's campaign slogan "Make America Great Again."
Necheles asks whether Daniels ever posted about it on social media.
"Sometimes they made me retweet them," Daniels says.
The jury is seeing two posts about the tour from Daniels' instagram in 2018.
Earlier today, Daniels testified that she never posted about the tour.
"That's not my personal Instagram, that's my business Instagram," Daniels said of the post.Quote:
Defense attorney Susan Necheles is now asking about the celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe where Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump met.
"People were recognizing who he was?" Necheles asks.
"Yes, but they recognized me where I went that day, too," Daniels says with a shrug
Which again, wasn't possible per prior testimony...TXAggie2011 said:The proper way to account for the payments would be any way which makes it reasonably understandable they weren't actually the businesses' legal expenses but payments for an unrelated personal matter.oldag00 said:
I completely agree. I'm trying to understand from posters who see no problems with bringing these charges what the correct accounting would have been.
My suspicion is that it's something as germane as arguing about whether the accounting line says "expenses" or "fees".
That wouldn't absolve them of any (theoretical) underlying issues such as campaign finance violations or wrongfully trying to write that off for tax purposes, but at least the accounting ledgers and statements would be accurate.
Its not about "expenses" vs "fees" or something so pedantic. I think that's been said already this morning.
Ouch! That will come back to haunt the state.Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles asks Stormy Daniels if she knows what Donald Trump is charged with.Necheles asks Daniels if she knows anything about Trump's business records.Quote:
"I don't really understand. ... I'm just here to answer the question asked to me," she says.
"There's a lot of indictments," she says with a shrug.
"I know nothing about his business records, no, why would I?" Daniels responds.
Called it.Quote:
The defense's cross-examination is now over. Attorneys are at the bench before re-direct.
This should be brief if they know what is good for their case.Quote:
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger is beginning the redirect.
"Almost good afternoon, Ms. Daniels. How are you?" she begins.
From the 2011 interview:Im Gipper said:
I got behind! Sorry! Duty called!Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles asks whether she made "a big deal" about not getting dinner when going to Donald Trump's hotel room.
"I went to dinner and didn't get dinner," Daniels says.
Necheles is reading a few different interview accounts from over the the years, including Daniels telling Jimmy Kimmel she was "very food-motivated," so she stayed in the hotel room because she was holding out for dinner.
Necheles then asks whether Daniels said the opposite in her 2011 InTouch interview.
"I never said we ate," Daniels says. Necheles is now bringing up the article for Daniels to review.
Daniels defends herself: "My story's the same."
"I've maintained that I didn't see any food," Daniels. "It was dinner but we never got food."
"All of these interviews I would have talked about the food," Daniels adds.Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles is now pressing Stormy Daniels about her 2018 interview with Anderson Cooper.
During the interview, Cooper asks Daniels if they went out for dinner. She says no. He asks if they had dinner in the room. She says yes. Daniels says it was dinner time but they didn't eat dinner."Your words don't mean what they say, do they?" Necheles asks. Judge Juan Merchan then sustained an objection.Quote:
"We did not have any food. I did not eat any food. I maintain that in every interview. That has not changed," Daniels says.
"When you said to Anderson Cooper you didn't really mean you had dinner, you meant something else?" Necheles asks.
"We had dinner time in the room," Daniels said.
Quote:
We ended up having dinner in the room. I cannot remember what we ordered.
When you lie, it gets harder to remember the story every time you tell it...Quote:
IT: So this is all conversation while you're eating?
Stormy: Yeah, like before, during, and after.
But when you're essentially a sole proprietor business selling the Trump brand everything about you personally is reasonably a business matter.TXAggie2011 said:The proper way to account for the payments would be any way which makes it reasonably understandable they weren't actually the businesses' legal expenses but payments for an unrelated personal matter.oldag00 said:
I completely agree. I'm trying to understand from posters who see no problems with bringing these charges what the correct accounting would have been.
My suspicion is that it's something as germane as arguing about whether the accounting line says "expenses" or "fees".
That wouldn't absolve them of any (theoretical) underlying issues such as campaign finance violations or wrongfully trying to write that off for tax purposes, but at least the accounting ledgers and statements would be accurate.
Its not about "expenses" vs "fees" or something so pedantic. I think that's been said already this morning.
Critical error there.Ag with kids said:From the 2011 interview:Im Gipper said:
I got behind! Sorry! Duty called!Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles asks whether she made "a big deal" about not getting dinner when going to Donald Trump's hotel room.
"I went to dinner and didn't get dinner," Daniels says.
Necheles is reading a few different interview accounts from over the the years, including Daniels telling Jimmy Kimmel she was "very food-motivated," so she stayed in the hotel room because she was holding out for dinner.
Necheles then asks whether Daniels said the opposite in her 2011 InTouch interview.
"I never said we ate," Daniels says. Necheles is now bringing up the article for Daniels to review.
Daniels defends herself: "My story's the same."
"I've maintained that I didn't see any food," Daniels. "It was dinner but we never got food."
"All of these interviews I would have talked about the food," Daniels adds.Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles is now pressing Stormy Daniels about her 2018 interview with Anderson Cooper.
During the interview, Cooper asks Daniels if they went out for dinner. She says no. He asks if they had dinner in the room. She says yes. Daniels says it was dinner time but they didn't eat dinner."Your words don't mean what they say, do they?" Necheles asks. Judge Juan Merchan then sustained an objection.Quote:
"We did not have any food. I did not eat any food. I maintain that in every interview. That has not changed," Daniels says.
"When you said to Anderson Cooper you didn't really mean you had dinner, you meant something else?" Necheles asks.
"We had dinner time in the room," Daniels said.Quote:
We ended up having dinner in the room. I cannot remember what we ordered.When you lie, it gets harder to remember the story every time you tell it...Quote:
IT: So this is all conversation while you're eating?
Stormy: Yeah, like before, during, and after.
Whoa, did they point out those differences in stories quoted during cross? I didn't see it in the summary but I supposed that's what was meant when it says she was presented with her prior interview. Pretty slam dunk that she's a liar.Ag with kids said:From the 2011 interview:Im Gipper said:
I got behind! Sorry! Duty called!Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles asks whether she made "a big deal" about not getting dinner when going to Donald Trump's hotel room.
"I went to dinner and didn't get dinner," Daniels says.
Necheles is reading a few different interview accounts from over the the years, including Daniels telling Jimmy Kimmel she was "very food-motivated," so she stayed in the hotel room because she was holding out for dinner.
Necheles then asks whether Daniels said the opposite in her 2011 InTouch interview.
"I never said we ate," Daniels says. Necheles is now bringing up the article for Daniels to review.
Daniels defends herself: "My story's the same."
"I've maintained that I didn't see any food," Daniels. "It was dinner but we never got food."
"All of these interviews I would have talked about the food," Daniels adds.Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles is now pressing Stormy Daniels about her 2018 interview with Anderson Cooper.
During the interview, Cooper asks Daniels if they went out for dinner. She says no. He asks if they had dinner in the room. She says yes. Daniels says it was dinner time but they didn't eat dinner."Your words don't mean what they say, do they?" Necheles asks. Judge Juan Merchan then sustained an objection.Quote:
"We did not have any food. I did not eat any food. I maintain that in every interview. That has not changed," Daniels says.
"When you said to Anderson Cooper you didn't really mean you had dinner, you meant something else?" Necheles asks.
"We had dinner time in the room," Daniels said.Quote:
We ended up having dinner in the room. I cannot remember what we ordered.When you lie, it gets harder to remember the story every time you tell it...Quote:
IT: So this is all conversation while you're eating?
Stormy: Yeah, like before, during, and after.
Very dumb question.Quote:
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger is walking through Stormy Daniels' motivation for entering into the non-disclosure agreement, including her fear for her safety.
Daniels recalls being told about being safer hiding in plain sight.
"Something won't happen to you if everyone is looking at you," Daniels says, noting it was one of the reasons she signed the NDA.
Hoffinger follows up: "You were also happy to take the money?"
"We're all happy to take money. It's just a bonus," Daniels says
If she signed the NDA, why would everybody be looking at her?
If you think I am a liberal, you are incorrect. Assume sarcasm on my part. Sorry if something I post has already been posted.
If that is how they intend to rehabilitate her, that's not a good direction.Quote:
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger is focusing on Stormy Daniels' "60 Minutes" interview.
"You didn't tell every single detail to Anderson Cooper, did you?" Hoffinger asks.
"No," Daniels says in a soft voice.
Hoffinger also shows the InTouch article in 2011 and says it was "lightly edited," noting again that Trump attorney Susan Necheles did not mention that during cross-examination.
Well remember she said her goal was to get the story out there so she signed an NDA which kept her story from getting out there while claiming the goal wasn't money but to get her story out which the NDA prevents from happening....that's the logic from the gerbil on the wheel in her headjustcallmeharry said:
If she signed the NDA, why would everybody be looking at her?
Quote:
Donald Trump is chatting with Todd Blanche, gesturing with his hands and leaning over to whisper in his attorney's ear, as lawyers are in a sidebar.
Trump attorney Susan Necheles objected to admitting something into evidence related to the interview, prompting the sidebar.
Why is this prosecutor going there again?Quote:
Donald Trump attorney Susan Necheles is objecting after the prosecution asked, "In terms of the context, you did tell Anderson Cooper that you had sex with Mr. Trump?"
Daniels agrees.
Lawyers are in another sidebar.
But that's not really an excuse in this context, with how I understand this case.Gyles Marrett said:Which again, wasn't possible per prior testimony...TXAggie2011 said:The proper way to account for the payments would be any way which makes it reasonably understandable they weren't actually the businesses' legal expenses but payments for an unrelated personal matter.oldag00 said:
I completely agree. I'm trying to understand from posters who see no problems with bringing these charges what the correct accounting would have been.
My suspicion is that it's something as germane as arguing about whether the accounting line says "expenses" or "fees".
That wouldn't absolve them of any (theoretical) underlying issues such as campaign finance violations or wrongfully trying to write that off for tax purposes, but at least the accounting ledgers and statements would be accurate.
Its not about "expenses" vs "fees" or something so pedantic. I think that's been said already this morning.
If Trump knowingly and with the intent to conceal something caused false accounting, then he knowingly and with the intent to conceal something caused false accounting. Even if they have outdated and ****ty accounting software, he would have used that outdated and ****ty accounting software with criminal intent. In other words, Trump would have had it accounted for improperly even if the system was better.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the system *could* have accounted for it more above board. Its about whether Trump wanted it accounted truthfully or not.
If Trump wanted it done correctly, he wouldn't have criminal intent, regardless of whether the system could do it correctly or not.
If they were going after the bookkeeper, and she said the software is ****ty but I don't make that decision so I did the best I could, then that's a more meaningful excuse.
Beginning to wonder if she might actually be a true blonde.Gyles Marrett said:Well remember she said her goal was to get the story out there so she signed an NDA which kept her story from getting out there while claiming the goal wasn't money but to get her story out which the NDA prevents from happening....that's the logic from the gerbil on the wheel in her headjustcallmeharry said:
If she signed the NDA, why would everybody be looking at her?
You're splitting hairs. Again.TXAggie2011 said:An NDA is a contract. Payments made to another party per a contract aren't "legal fees." Legal fees are what you paid the lawyer to negotiate and draft the contract.Ag with kids said:
So...
Let's just assume the following as facts...
Trump paid Cohen, a lawyer, for having him get SD to sign an NDA.
An NDA is a legal document.
The attorney was performing a job he had been tasked with - a legal service.
So, explain to me how classifying these as "legal expenses" is in any way incorrect.
Is there a ledger entry that should chosen that said "illegal campaign contribution for legal expenses"?
Mike Elko's salary isn't "legal fees" for A&M even though its a payment per a written contract negotiated and drafted by lawyers. Or, more analogous, Jimbo Fisher's payout isn't "legal fees" even though A&M's lawyers negotiated a contract for Jimbo to not coach.
Lets say you owned a trucking business and you had a contract to lease 50 trucks for $XXXX per month, which you're lawyer negotiated. Those monthly payments aren't legal fees, even though it was negotiated by a lawyer.
If at least some of the payments marked as legal fees weren't actually for legal services, but were actually for Stormy Daniels or to reimburse Cohen for paying Stormy Daniels, then they at least were making an accounting mistake, even if the state doesn't prove a crime.
(***With the obvious exception of payments to a lawyer per a contract for legal services would be legal fees.)
All of the examples you stated above ultimately resulted in counsel being retained for - and billing for - negotiating and drafting of the contract. Period.
The Trump case is different. To expand on one of your examples above, if A&M hired a consultunt to "take care of the Jimbo Fisher" problem, that could concievably include negotiating, drafting and compensating JF for his departure. Then, the consultant would bill A&M for the whole thing, including compensation.
You are suggesting that if said consultant fails to break down what was negotiating, what was drafting, and what was consulting, then the responsibility is on A&M for the lack of clarity in the invoice.
Based upon your rationale, any construction contract has the potential to be "criminally" miscoded because it was bid and invoiced as a lump sum contract. However, in reality, there was materials, there was labor, there were subcontracts, and there was overhead and profit Your analogy assumes that the building owner now could bear some responsibility of how the contractor invoiced his billings.
Your whole line of reasoning is unreasonable.
You are kind of losing the whole "Baffle them with BS" game. Your might consider packing it in.
That's a pretty gigantic reach and assumption...TXAggie2011 said:But that's not really an excuse in this context, with how I understand this case.Gyles Marrett said:Which again, wasn't possible per prior testimony...TXAggie2011 said:The proper way to account for the payments would be any way which makes it reasonably understandable they weren't actually the businesses' legal expenses but payments for an unrelated personal matter.oldag00 said:
I completely agree. I'm trying to understand from posters who see no problems with bringing these charges what the correct accounting would have been.
My suspicion is that it's something as germane as arguing about whether the accounting line says "expenses" or "fees".
That wouldn't absolve them of any (theoretical) underlying issues such as campaign finance violations or wrongfully trying to write that off for tax purposes, but at least the accounting ledgers and statements would be accurate.
Its not about "expenses" vs "fees" or something so pedantic. I think that's been said already this morning.
If Trump knowingly and with the intent to conceal something caused false accounting, then he knowingly and with the intent to conceal something caused false accounting. Even if they have outdated and ****ty accounting software, he would have used that outdated and ****ty accounting software with criminal intent.
In other words, Trump basically would have had it accounted for improperly even if the system was better.
If they were going after the bookkeeper, and she said the software is ****ty but I don't make that decision so I did the best I could, then that's a more meaningful excuse.
I've also seen just in my work tons of companies with systems in various areas of the business that are extremely antiquated. Often a "it works for us, why spend money to change it" situation. So to assume the antiquated accounting system is kept to cover criminal accounting practices is also a pretty hard case to make.
TXAggie2011 said:But that's not really an excuse in this context, with how I understand this case.Gyles Marrett said:Which again, wasn't possible per prior testimony...TXAggie2011 said:The proper way to account for the payments would be any way which makes it reasonably understandable they weren't actually the businesses' legal expenses but payments for an unrelated personal matter.oldag00 said:
I completely agree. I'm trying to understand from posters who see no problems with bringing these charges what the correct accounting would have been.
My suspicion is that it's something as germane as arguing about whether the accounting line says "expenses" or "fees".
That wouldn't absolve them of any (theoretical) underlying issues such as campaign finance violations or wrongfully trying to write that off for tax purposes, but at least the accounting ledgers and statements would be accurate.
Its not about "expenses" vs "fees" or something so pedantic. I think that's been said already this morning.
If Trump knowingly and with the intent to conceal something caused false accounting, then he knowingly and with the intent to conceal something caused false accounting. Even if they have outdated and ****ty accounting software, he would have used that outdated and ****ty accounting software with criminal intent. In other words, Trump would have had it accounted for improperly even if the system was better.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the system *could* have accounted for it more above board. Its about whether Trump wanted it accounted truthfully or not.
If they were going after the bookkeeper, and she said the software is ****ty but I don't make that decision so I did the best I could, then that's a more meaningful excuse.
You are relentless in your pursuit of your viewpoint. Fortunately, that doesn't make it a fact or truth.
I think our resident 2011 is very indicative of the dangers of an attorney who has an agenda to promote being on a jury.BMX Bandit said:Quote:
I'm optimistic that the entire jury sees right through this nonsense -- ESPECIALLY the two attorneys on the case
Your belief that attorneys could see through the nonsense any better than a layman is amusing
Due process. Equal justice. All are expendable as long as he gets his man.
Quote:
Stormy Daniels said she didn't testify before the grand jury.
"You had nothing to do with the charges in this case," prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asks.
"I did not," Daniels says.
Hoffinger notes that defense attorney Susan Necheles had suggested Daniels was responsible for Trump's indictment.
Quote:
Stormy Daniels testifies that she is telling the truth about Trump.
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asks, "Have you been telling lies about Mr. Trump or the truth about Mr. Trump?"
"The truth," Daniels says.
Well at least the prosecutor cut that short.Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles is back to ask Stormy Daniels another round of questions.
Stupid prosecutor should have not called her to testify in the trial either...aggiehawg said:Quote:
Stormy Daniels said she didn't testify before the grand jury.
"You had nothing to do with the charges in this case," prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asks.
"I did not," Daniels says.
Hoffinger notes that defense attorney Susan Necheles had suggested Daniels was responsible for Trump's indictment.Quote:
Stormy Daniels testifies that she is telling the truth about Trump.
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asks, "Have you been telling lies about Mr. Trump or the truth about Mr. Trump?"
"The truth," Daniels says.Well at least the prosecutor cut that short.Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles is back to ask Stormy Daniels another round of questions.
Featured Stories
See All
Ags host Buckeyes with an early-season Quad 1 opportunity at stake
by Olin Buchanan
Players to Watch: No. 15 Texas A&M vs. New Mexico State
by Olin Buchanan
8:22
10h ago
1.5k
34:11
4h ago
560
Reed Report: Preparing for Friday's marquee showdown vs. Ohio State
by Luke Evangelist
Bid on Legacy Club tickets to Saturday's Texas A&M vs. NMSU game!
by Texas Aggies United
ConfidentAg
Michigan to Offer 5 Star LSU QB Commit 8 Figure Deal
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
199
ElkoSZN
Instead of scheduling tough non-conference games like ND...
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
86