Quote:

---

Stupid prosecutor should have not called her to testify in the trial either...

---

True. Not only was she an irrelevant witness but calling her actually hurt the state's case and the credibility of the prosecutors themselves with the jury.

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Susan Necheles is going back to Stormy Daniels' tweets and written attacks from users.
Necheles asks whether that on Twitter, strangers "post nasty things, right?"
"You engage in these kind of back-and-forths with these strangers all the time?" Necheles asks. "Sure," Daniels says.
"I was defending myself," Daniel says.

Quote:

---

"I never attack anybody first. Same with Mr. Trump. I didn't say anything negative about him until he said it about me," Daniels says

---

---

Quote:

---

Stormy Daniels is off the stand. Her testimony is over, and she's now leaving the courtroom.

Before she stepped down, Daniels said, "Thank you, sir" to Judge Juan Merchan on the bench above her.

---

Aaand she's done.

Quote:

---

Stormy Daniels was on the stand for 6 hours and 10 minutes over two days of testimony.

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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".

---

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.

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.

---

Which again, wasn't possible per prior testimony...

---

But that's not really an excuse in this context, with how I understand this case.

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 Even if they have outdated and ****ty accounting software, he would have used that outdated and ****ty accounting software with criminal intent.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.

---

That's a pretty gigantic reach and assumption...

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.

---

To be clear, I wasn't stating that as "fact" or "what happened here." I was trying to explain why whether the system was good or bad isn't really an excuse in this context. The State has to prove he had criminal intent, and that doesn't really turn on whether they had a good or bad accounting software.

Quote:

---

The next witness to testify is Rebecca Manochio who works at the Trump Organization as a junior bookkeeper.

Prosecutor Rebecca Mangold is questioning Manochio.

---

Quote:

---

Trump Organization bookkeeper Rebecca Manochio says she has worked at the company for 11 years.
"I worked at a supermarket and then I got a job at the Trump Organization" in 2013, she says.
She was compelled to testify via subpoena, and is answering questions from prosecutor Rebecca Mangold.
Trump is turned toward Manochio and is watching her while she testifies.

---

Quote:

---

Manochio says she was Weisselberg's assistant for 8 years
Rebecca Manochio is testifying about her responsibilities while working for former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg.
She worked as an assistant to Weisselberg for eight years and sat outside his office. Weisselberg and Trump would interact "every" day, Manochio says.
Manochio says she attached invoices to checks for Weisselberg to sign.

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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".

---

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.

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.

---

Which again, wasn't possible per prior testimony...

---

But that's not really an excuse in this context, with how I understand this case.

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.

---

That's a pretty gigantic reach and assumption...

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.

---

To be clear, I wasn't stating that as "fact" or "what happened here." I was trying to explain why whether the system was good or bad isn't really an excuse in this context. The State has to prove he had criminal intent, and that doesn't really turn on whether they had a good or bad accounting software.

---

It certainly is a big factor when the entry itself is a focus of the charge and the book keeper says Trump nor anyone else directed her to record it any specific way and that anything that went to a lawyer was recorded the same. Brushing that aside is ignoring important details in an effort to support an assumption of criminal intent.

Quote:

---

Trump organization Rebecca Manochio is testifying that Trump's personal expenses were handled by the Trump Organization and he paid his expenses by check.

When Trump was in the White House, Manochio says she would FedEx checks to Trump once a week.

---

Quote:

---

Bookeeper Rebecca Manochio is testifying that she often sent 10 to 20 checks at a time.
Manochio says she sent the checks unsigned and they came back from Washington signed by Donald Trump, typically within a few days.
The checks were sent back to her at the Trump Organization, Manochio says.
If she didn't get a check back, Manochio said she would reach out to Madeline Westerhout at the White House. "She would just look for it and see if she had it," Manochio says of Westerhout when a check was missing.
When the signed checks came back to her, the backup invoices were still attached to them, she says.
When she received the checks back from Washington, she would give them to Deb Tarasoff, Manochio says. Tarasoff, who worked in the Trump Organization accounting department, testified on Monday.

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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".

---

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.

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.

---

Which again, wasn't possible per prior testimony...

---

But that's not really an excuse in this context, with how I understand this case.

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.

---

That's a pretty gigantic reach and assumption...

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.

---

To be clear, I wasn't stating that as "fact" or "what happened here." I was trying to explain why whether the system was good or bad isn't really an excuse in this context. The State has to prove he had criminal intent, and that doesn't really turn on whether they had a good or bad accounting software.

---

It certainly is a big factor when the entry itself is a focus of the charge and the book keeper says Trump nor anyone else directed her to record it any specific way and that anything that went to a lawyer was recorded the same. Brushing that aside is ignoring important details in an effort to support an assumption of criminal intent.

---

Respectfully, please stop telling me I'm trying to "assume criminal intent" when I've said over and over I'm skeptical about whether there was criminal intent and I'm not assuming that at all. Thanks.

Anyways, there would still be criminal intent IF they knew how the bookkeeper would do it given what they presented to her, they knew that wouldn't accurately reflect what was going on, and let it happen with the requisite intent of concealing/aiding another crime.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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".

---

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.

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.

---

Which again, wasn't possible per prior testimony...

---

But that's not really an excuse in this context, with how I understand this case.

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.

---

That's a pretty gigantic reach and assumption...

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.

---

To be clear, I wasn't stating that as "fact" or "what happened here." I was trying to explain why whether the system was good or bad isn't really an excuse in this context. The State has to prove he had criminal intent, and that doesn't really turn on whether they had a good or bad accounting software.

---

I feel like it's a huge point. My understanding is that the records are considered to be falsified because they were labeled as "Legal Expense." The defense can argue that the payments were marked as legal expense because that was the only option that made sense. There wasn't an option for "Hush Money Payment." If there was an option for "Hush Money Payment" and they still chose to mark as Legal Expense, then that helps the prosecution.

Quote:

---

Bookkeeper Rebecca Manochio is being used now to get Trump Organization emails and FedEx invoices into evidence.
The jury is currently being shown a FedEx invoice from May 29, 2017.
Manochio is listed as the sender of the invoice. Keith Schiller, who served as the Trump Organization's director of security, is the recipient.
The checks were sent to Schiller's home address in Washington, DC, the bookkeeper said.
It was sent with FedEx's Priority Overnight service, as "always," Manochio said.
Remember: Legal analysts have noted that issues of standard record-keeping are central to this case, so prosecutors will call some witnesses primarily to produce things like documents, ledgers and invoices.

---

Basically she's a foundation witness to get those exhibits into evidence.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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".

---

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.

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.

---

Which again, wasn't possible per prior testimony...

---

But that's not really an excuse in this context, with how I understand this case.

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.

---

That's a pretty gigantic reach and assumption...

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.

---

To be clear, I wasn't stating that as "fact" or "what happened here." I was trying to explain why whether the system was good or bad isn't really an excuse in this context. The State has to prove he had criminal intent, and that doesn't really turn on whether they had a good or bad accounting software.

---

It certainly is a big factor when the entry itself is a focus of the charge and the book keeper says Trump nor anyone else directed her to record it any specific way and that anything that went to a lawyer was recorded the same. Brushing that aside is ignoring important details in an effort to support an assumption of criminal intent.

---

Respectfully, please stop telling me I'm trying to "assume criminal intent" when I've said over and over I'm skeptical about whether there was criminal intent and I'm not assuming that at all. Thanks.

Anyways, there would still be criminal intent IF they knew how the bookkeeper would do it given what they presented to her, they knew that wouldn't accurately reflect what was going on, and let it happen with the requisite intent of concealing/aiding another crime.

---

I think you have said repeatedly that you didn't know whether the state would meet their burden to prove intent, but not that you personally didn't believe there was intent.

If that's the case, I am happy to update my spreadsheet, but all you have done in this thread is explain how this novel lawfare is legitimate and saying flat out that you think this case should be brought.

Quote:

---

The defense can argue that the payments were marked as legal expense because that was the only option that made sense. There wasn't an option for "Hush Money Payment." If there was an option for "Hush Money Payment" and they still chose to mark as Legal Expense, then that helps the prosecution.

---

If the defense can show there is a reasonable reason to believe Trump Org would have accurately labeled it if they had a better system and weren't purposefully avoiding getting a better system in order to avoid doing it accurately, the defense should win and the state should lose.

If the state can prove beyond reasonable doubt that even if there was a more accurate way in their system to account for it but they would have done it inaccurately anyways, the state should win and the defense should lose.

Neither of those scenarios turns on what the system *actually* was capable of doing. That was my point and my response to the poster saying I was ignoring what the system *actually* is capable of doing.

It seems to me that all that will really matter with all of this is what Michael Cohen says, and how he comes across. If he says, "Trump told me to submit an invoice as a legal expense so we can cover this up" (and he's believable) then it's probably a crime. If he doesn't say that, or isn't believable, then I don't see the crime. They've got all these records of payments, and I don't think anyone has ever disputed that Trump paid Cohen.

Even Stormy's testimony was pretty pointless. It doesn't even matter if she did or did not have sex with him. All that matters is that she asked for money to stop her from saying it. I think her testimony would have been far more effective if she just said, "Trump had money and a TV show that could better my career, and I tried to use him." There's nothing illegal about that. Instead, she came across as a liar (at least to me), and even though her testimony really doesn't matter for the actual crime, it shows the prosecution didn't vet their witnesses. It's likely Cohen's testimony will go similar, and that will just continue to make the prosecution look like they've got an axe to grind more than just trying to prosecute a case.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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".

---

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.

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.

---

Which again, wasn't possible per prior testimony...

---

But that's not really an excuse in this context, with how I understand this case.

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.

---

That's a pretty gigantic reach and assumption...

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.

---

To be clear, I wasn't stating that as "fact" or "what happened here." I was trying to explain why whether the system was good or bad isn't really an excuse in this context. The State has to prove he had criminal intent, and that doesn't really turn on whether they had a good or bad accounting software.

---

It certainly is a big factor when the entry itself is a focus of the charge and the book keeper says Trump nor anyone else directed her to record it any specific way and that anything that went to a lawyer was recorded the same. Brushing that aside is ignoring important details in an effort to support an assumption of criminal intent.

---

Respectfully, please stop telling me I'm trying to "assume criminal intent" when I've said over and over I'm skeptical about whether there was criminal intent and I'm not assuming that at all. Thanks.

Anyways, there would still be criminal intent IF they knew how the bookkeeper would do it given what they presented to her, they knew that wouldn't accurately reflect what was going on, and let it happen with the requisite intent of concealing/aiding another crime.

---

Jesus Christ.

I'm not saying you are trying to assume criminal intent....but what your presenting would require the jury to assume an accounting practice that is standard for the Trump Organization is done with criminal intent. There is no evidence of that whatsover. It would take mind reading capabilities to get to that assumption. There's no evidence anywhere to support that anything related to the invoice and how it was recorded was done with criminal intent. So yes it does require assuming criminal intent using that theory.

Quote:

---

Aaand she's done.

Quote:

---

Quote:
Stormy Daniels was on the stand for 6 hours and 10 minutes over two days of testimony.

---

---

LOL, the banana republic show trial marches on! I tried to keep up with this one today and something like 45 new posts each time I look. The prosecution, and their witnesses, have been utter farces at best.

CNN fake news; Ok, porn star for 6 hours over 3 days didn't work, but this junior book keeper is about to really take down Trump! We're gonna get him this time, trust us!

Quote:

---

"This witness is way more important than Stormy Daniels," CNN legal analyst Karen Friedman Agnifilo said.

---

The earth shattering take down making everyone want to immediately vote for Biden; weekly checks were fedexed overnight 'as always.'

Quote:

---

Manochio is listed as the sender of the invoice. Keith Schiller, who served as the Trump Organization's director of security, is the recipient.
The checks were sent to Schiller's home address in Washington, DC, the bookkeeper said.
It was sent with FedEx's Priority Overnight service, as "always," Manochio said.

---

This is all too damn funny.

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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".

---

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.

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.

---

Which again, wasn't possible per prior testimony...

---

But that's not really an excuse in this context, with how I understand this case.

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.

---

That's a pretty gigantic reach and assumption...

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.

---

To be clear, I wasn't stating that as "fact" or "what happened here." I was trying to explain why whether the system was good or bad isn't really an excuse in this context. The State has to prove he had criminal intent, and that doesn't really turn on whether they had a good or bad accounting software.

---

It certainly is a big factor when the entry itself is a focus of the charge and the book keeper says Trump nor anyone else directed her to record it any specific way and that anything that went to a lawyer was recorded the same. Brushing that aside is ignoring important details in an effort to support an assumption of criminal intent.

---

Respectfully, please stop telling me I'm trying to "assume criminal intent" when I've said over and over I'm skeptical about whether there was criminal intent and I'm not assuming that at all. Thanks.

Anyways, there would still be criminal intent IF they knew how the bookkeeper would do it given what they presented to her, they knew that wouldn't accurately reflect what was going on, and let it happen with the requisite intent of concealing/aiding another crime.

---

Jesus Christ.

I'm not saying you are trying to assume criminal intent....but what your presenting would require the jury to assume an accounting practice that is standard for the Trump Organization is done with criminal intent. There is no evidence of that whatsover. It would take mind reading capabilities to get to that assumption. There's no evidence anywhere to support that anything related to the invoice and how it was recorded was done with criminal intent. So yes it does require assuming criminal intent using that theory.

---

Nearly every criminal case requires the jury to determine if there was criminal intent and in nearly every criminal case the defendant doesn't get up on the stand and say "I had criminal intent."

The jury will do what all criminal juries do, hear and see the evidence and decide if it shows any doubt about the criminal intent.

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

Aaand she's done.

Quote:

---

Quote:
Stormy Daniels was on the stand for 6 hours and 10 minutes over two days of testimony.

---

---

LOL, the banana republic show trial marches on! I tried to keep up with this one today and something like 45 new posts each time I look. The prosecution, and their witnesses, have been utter farces at best.

CNN fake news; Ok, porn star for 6 hours over 3 days didn't work, but this junior book keeper is about to really take down Trump! We're gonna get him this time, trust us!

Quote:

---

"This witness is way more important than Stormy Daniels," CNN legal analyst Karen Friedman Agnifilo said.

---

The earth shattering take down making everyone want to immediately vote for Biden; weekly checks were fedexed overnight 'as always.'

Quote:

---

Manochio is listed as the sender of the invoice. Keith Schiller, who served as the Trump Organization's director of security, is the recipient.
The checks were sent to Schiller's home address in Washington, DC, the bookkeeper said.
It was sent with FedEx's Priority Overnight service, as "always," Manochio said.

---

This is all too damn funny.

---

The juxtaposition of two days of Stormy with the next witness being the bookkeeper is a bad look for the prosecution with the jury, in my view. They have to be wondering WTH were we forced to listen to all of that crap for?

Quote:

---

The prosecution continues to use Trump Organization bookkeeper Rebecca Manochio to introduce documents as evidence, focusing on a series of correspondence regarding Trump's personal checks from 2017.
Several invoices show packages shipped from Manochio to Keith Schiller, the Trump Organization's former head of security.
"Did you ever send anything to Keith Schiller other than checks to sign?" the prosecution asks the bookkeeper. "No," Manochio says.
Prosecutors then show an email from John McEntee, a Trump White House aide, from September 7, 2017. It shows that he asked to get in touch with Manochio because with Schiller leaving the company, he would need Trump's personal checks mailed to him.
Why it matters: The documents outline that Trump's personal checks were facilitated in Washington, DC, by the bodyguard Schiller and then by the personal aid McEntee, once Schiller left.
There's no claim that only the checks related to then-Trump attorney Michael Cohen went through this channel.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors are now showing Trump Organization bookkeeper Rebecca Manochio another FedEx invoice.
In this one, Manochio sent a package to the personal address of John McEntee, a Trump White House aide.
The customer reference code on the invoice changed to "AW" from "DT" when she sent packages to McEntee. Asked why, Manochio says, "I just like to switch it up," with a smile and a laugh.
Manochio is testifying about these FedEx receipts because Trump would not stipulate that these were official records kept at the Trump Organization.

---

Quote:

---

Court is now in a lunch break for about an hour.

Cross-examination of bookkeeper Rebecca Manochio will start after lunch.

---

Quote:

---

One of Donald Trump's attorneys, Todd Blanche, is raising three issues with the judge:

• renewed motion for a mistrial
• to preclude Karen McDougal from testifying
• an issue having to do with the gag order related to Stormy Daniels.

Judge Juan Merchan says the trial will break at 4 p.m. ET, and they will take it up then after the jury leaves.

---

Called it.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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"?

---

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.

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.)

---

And someone at A&M should go to prison for 131 years if they ever recorded "salary" as "legal fees."

Because this isn'y just about getting Trump -- it's about ensuring the law is upheld in all circumstances.

Quote:

---

The juxtaposition of two days of Stormy with the next witness being the bookkeeper is a bad look for the prosecution with the jury, in my view. They have to be wondering WTH were we forced to listen to all of that crap for?

---

IF you're going to call a colorful but marginally meaningful witness, right in the middle of trial is when to do it. It doesn't set the up front tone and it becomes an increasingly distant memory as the trial moves along over the coming days and weeks. That's likely why she was brought in when she was.


That was a majority waste of time but not entirely, even if maybe unnecessary. The State did ask her repeatedly if Trump ever expressed concern at the time about the story getting out, which is meaningful to their case. That was probably their main purpose and that did require working through the story some. The defense obviously doesn't want the jury to believe that and why they hammered credibility concerns

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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".

---

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.

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.

---

Which again, wasn't possible per prior testimony...

---

But that's not really an excuse in this context, with how I understand this case.

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.

---

That's a pretty gigantic reach and assumption...

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.

---

To be clear, I wasn't stating that as "fact" or "what happened here." I was trying to explain why whether the system was good or bad isn't really an excuse in this context. The State has to prove he had criminal intent, and that doesn't really turn on whether they had a good or bad accounting software.

---

It certainly is a big factor when the entry itself is a focus of the charge and the book keeper says Trump nor anyone else directed her to record it any specific way and that anything that went to a lawyer was recorded the same. Brushing that aside is ignoring important details in an effort to support an assumption of criminal intent.

---

Respectfully, please stop telling me I'm trying to "assume criminal intent" when I've said over and over I'm skeptical about whether there was criminal intent and I'm not assuming that at all. Thanks.

Anyways, there would still be criminal intent IF they knew how the bookkeeper would do it given what they presented to her, they knew that wouldn't accurately reflect what was going on, and let it happen with the requisite intent of concealing/aiding another crime.

---

Well...that's not how you've ALWAY couched it...

Quote:

---

I believe there is absolutely enough to have brought the charges. I think both sides agree on 99% of the facts, like I said earlier.

This comes down to nitty gritty issues of who knew or said this or that based on emails, texts, daily practice, etc., which is exactly the kind of issue a jury exists to wade through and decide.

We'll see what else the state can show over the next couple of weeks.

---

This definitely doesn't sound like you're skeptical at all. Sounds more like you're not sure if they can PROVE the intent...

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

That was a majority waste of time but not entirely, even if maybe unnecessary. The State did ask her repeatedly if Trump ever expressed concern at the time about the story getting out, which is meaningful to their case. That was probably their main purpose and that did require working through the story some. The defense obviously doesn't want the jury to believe that and why they hammered credibility concerns

---

No, respectfully this is just terrible analyses. He signed an NDA. They didn't need this clown show of testimony to get the jury to believe he didn't 'want the story to get out.' (Which had 'gotten out' repeatedly for over a decade.)

The intent of the witness was just to get into the public eye more salacious claims about Trump during campaign season. That's really the whole purpose of the trial.

---

He signed an NDA right before the election, years later. The State will feature that point in closing arguments, I guarantee it.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

The juxtaposition of two days of Stormy with the next witness being the bookkeeper is a bad look for the prosecution with the jury, in my view. They have to be wondering WTH were we forced to listen to all of that crap for?

---

IF you're going to call a colorful but marginally meaningful witness, right in the middle of trial is when to do it. It doesn't set the up front tone and it becomes an increasingly distant memory as the trial moves along over the coming days and weeks. That's likely why she was brought in when she was.


That was a majority waste of time but not entirely, even if maybe unnecessary. The State did ask her repeatedly if Trump ever expressed concern at the time about the story getting out, which is meaningful to their case. That was probably their main purpose and that did require working through the story some. The defense obviously doesn't want the jury to believe that and why they hammered credibility concerns

---

Hope Hicks SPECIFICALLY said Trump didn't want the story to get out because it would hurt Melania and his kids.

What are you talking about?

jrdaustin said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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".

---

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.

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.

---

Which again, wasn't possible per prior testimony...

---

But that's not really an excuse in this context, with how I understand this case.

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.

---

That's a pretty gigantic reach and assumption...

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.

---

To be clear, I wasn't stating that as "fact" or "what happened here." I was trying to explain why whether the system was good or bad isn't really an excuse in this context. The State has to prove he had criminal intent, and that doesn't really turn on whether they had a good or bad accounting software.

---

It certainly is a big factor when the entry itself is a focus of the charge and the book keeper says Trump nor anyone else directed her to record it any specific way and that anything that went to a lawyer was recorded the same. Brushing that aside is ignoring important details in an effort to support an assumption of criminal intent.

---

Respectfully, please stop telling me I'm trying to "assume criminal intent" when I've said over and over I'm skeptical about whether there was criminal intent and I'm not assuming that at all. Thanks.

Anyways, there would still be criminal intent IF they knew how the bookkeeper would do it given what they presented to her, they knew that wouldn't accurately reflect what was going on, and let it happen with the requisite intent of concealing/aiding another crime.

---

Jesus Christ.

I'm not saying you are trying to assume criminal intent....but what your presenting would require the jury to assume an accounting practice that is standard for the Trump Organization is done with criminal intent. There is no evidence of that whatsover. It would take mind reading capabilities to get to that assumption. There's no evidence anywhere to support that anything related to the invoice and how it was recorded was done with criminal intent. So yes it does require assuming criminal intent using that theory.

---

Nearly every criminal case requires the jury to determine if there was criminal intent and in nearly every criminal case the defendant doesn't get up on the stand and say "I had criminal intent."

The jury will do what all criminal juries do, hear and see the evidence and decide if it shows any doubt about the criminal intent.

---

Sometimes, juries don't hear and see evidence and use that to decide criminal intent.

Remember the movie "A Time to Kill"? A deciding factor of the movie is the denial of a change of venue that results in an all white jury in a racially charged trial.

We're back in in the racist south. But now it's not race, but political affiliation.

We have a biased judge. A biased DA. And likely a biased jury. All in a case that would never have been brought had the accused not been a candidate for POTUS.

So forgive me if I give less and less credence to your assertions of how our justice system will work in this case.

---

Kinda ironic isn't it that he thinks this jury will have wholesome unbiased intentions in deciding if Trump had criminal intentions with his book keeping lol

TXAggie2011 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

That was a majority waste of time but not entirely, even if maybe unnecessary. The State did ask her repeatedly if Trump ever expressed concern at the time about the story getting out, which is meaningful to their case. That was probably their main purpose and that did require working through the story some. The defense obviously doesn't want the jury to believe that and why they hammered credibility concerns

---

No, respectfully this is just terrible analyses. He signed an NDA. They didn't need this clown show of testimony to get the jury to believe he didn't 'want the story to get out.' (Which had 'gotten out' repeatedly for over a decade.)

The intent of the witness was just to get into the public eye more salacious claims about Trump during campaign season. That's really the whole purpose of the trial.

---

He signed an NDA right before the election, years later. The State will feature that point in closing arguments, I guarantee it.

---

Signing an NDA, and paying a sum in exchange for non-disclosure, is not a crime. Her testimony did not provide any evidence of his 'expressed concern' what so ever that the actual agreement doesn't much more conclusively provide. Your argument otherwise is wholly unfounded. Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel among others signed NDA's in NY they paid for as well, to hide things from the public as best they could.

The prosecution has proven that Trump did sign an NDA and did pay Stormy and that she profited nonetheless for telling her 'story' to the tune of 900K at least since then (and utterly despises him), but that really doesn't amount to anything even under their joke of a 'well, we won't tell you the underlying crime but trust us' theory of criminality.

Your position that 'their main purpose' with her testimony was 'probably' to get her to state that Trump 'expressed concern about the story getting out' is again entirely illogical/wrong/absurd (trying to use kind words here).

Quote:

---

Your position that 'their main purpose' with her testimony was 'probably' to get her to state that Trump 'expressed concern about the story getting out' is again entirely illogical/wrong/absurd (trying to use kind words here).

---

She said he did NOT express concern at the time, though. She said that repeatedly during her testimony.

The State will feature that in closing arguments as evidence the election was his main purpose, not Melania and the kids. The Defense will say she's lying and/or Stormy made it an issue during election season so it was coincidental timing from Trump's side of things.

Quote:

---

If the state can prove beyond reasonable doubt that even if there was a more accurate way in their system to account for it but they would have done it inaccurately anyways, the state should win and the defense should lose.

---

No. I'm no lawyer, but this is incorrect. But it seems to me that they have to prove BOTH of the following:

1. TRUMP PERSONALLY knew it was labeled inaccurately
2. TRUMP PERSONALLY directed the inaccurate labeling
3. TRUMP PERSONALLY did it specifically to cover up a felony.

Much different from your statement.

While court is on lunch break, have a few points I'd like to revisit.

According to Stormy the encounter in 2006 occured in a penthouse hotel suite in Lake Tahoe. High end hotel suites have more than one bathroom at the very least a half bath for guests. Those suites are used for entertaining. So why would she be in the private bathroom of the primary suite?

Also I find it hard to believe that Trump would invite her for dinner but not order dinner or at least some appetizers to nibble on. He's in the hospitality business. That's what he does. Further even though Trump himself doesn't drink alcohol he has no issues wih other people drinking around him. She testified that she was only offered and drank water.

The contradictions within past interviews wherein she stated they actually had dinner that night although she couldn't recall what she ordered, with her testimony on Tuesday there was never any food?

Science Denier said:

---

Quote:

---

If the state can prove beyond reasonable doubt that even if there was a more accurate way in their system to account for it but they would have done it inaccurately anyways, the state should win and the defense should lose.

---

No. I'm no lawyer, but this is incorrect. But it seems to me that they have to prove BOTH of the following:

1. TRUMP PERSONALLY knew it was labeled inaccurately
2. TRUMP PERSONALLY directed the inaccurate labeling
3. TRUMP PERSONALLY did it specifically to cover up a felony.

Much different from your statement.

---

By "they" I mean Trump and his inner circle involved in this. Hope that clears that up

Science Denier said:

---

Quote:

---

If the state can prove beyond reasonable doubt that even if there was a more accurate way in their system to account for it but they would have done it inaccurately anyways, the state should win and the defense should lose.

---

No. I'm no lawyer, but this is incorrect. But it seems to me that they have to prove BOTH of the following:

1. TRUMP PERSONALLY knew it was labeled inaccurately
2. TRUMP PERSONALLY directed the inaccurate labeling
3. TRUMP PERSONALLY did it specifically to cover up a felony.

Much different from your statement.

---

He believes they just need the jury to assume Trump knew those things and subconsciously made those directions. Insane...BUT we do need to realize this jury pool likely has a lot of people that still think Trump is a Russian spy sent by Putin to destroy our democracy and thus always operates with criminal dark intentions. For the sake of our justice system we just have to hope theres at least one juror there with a functioning brain.