aggiehawg said:

---

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?

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

This is obviously a long time ago so this might be asking a lot but would be interesting to see Trumps hotel itemized bill.

---

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.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This is obviously a long time ago so this might be asking a lot but would be interesting to see Trumps hotel itemized bill.

---

He was at a celebrity golf tournament. Was likely comped. Or did Trump have a hotel in Lake Tahoe in 2006? IDK.

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

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.

---

Since the payments were made from personal funds, what difference does it make if the payments are to "cover it up", which is the point of every NDA in the first place?

If Trump didn't use Trump Org's AP people to handle all of his personal business, there would be no link at all. Even so, this was a personal matter. Hicks testified Trump was concerned Melania would find out. Nobody has said Trump told them it was to protect the campaign.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

That gets back to the somehow seemingly forgotten but million dollar question in regards to their "election interference" case....Is anything a candidate does to try to keep his image positive and bad looks out of the media when running for office considered election interference? If they want to make that case this NDA is crumbs compared to the giant cake Hunters laptop story was being covered up.

---

Quote:

---

New York prosecutors introduced documents into evidence this week that they say establish Donald Trump's knowledge of "falsifying business records" to cover up his repayments to his former attorney, Michael Cohen, who paid Stormy Daniels "hush money" in 2016.
CNN has transcribed some of the handwritten notes in the exhibits, and what prosecutors say they hope to establish for the jury.
Click here to see some of the documents that have been submitted as evidence.

---

Quote:

---

Donald Trump is back in the courtroom. He didn't speak on his way in but did a fist bump.
The former president is scanning the rows. He just met the eye of two sketch artists and smiled in their direction.
Trump's legal team is all smiles
Prosecutors are back. They're entering the courtroom.

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Not saying this happened at all but had this random thought....

What if it is the case that the sleaze Stormy is went to Trumps suite intending to do what happened hoping sleeping with this powerful guy would promote her career, she initiated all of it in the bedroom, led him on and then obviously is pissed after the fact when she didn't get a gig like Celebrity Apprentice.

Now imagine being Trump if that happened and how infuriating it must be to sit there listening to her testimony making it out like he raped her while being told if he just shakes his head he can be found in contempt.

Again, not saying that's the case, but tbh I can believe that is the case just as much as I believe the story she's telling now.

---

Quote:

---

Donald Trump's attorney Susan Necheles is at the podium to begin cross-examination of Trump Organization bookkeeper Rebecca Manochio.

---

Quote:

---

The defense asks Trump Organization bookkeeper Rebecca Manochio, "You didn't really interact with President Trump, right?"
"No," Manochio responds.

---

Quote:

---

Under cross-examination, bookkeeper Rebecca Manochio confirms her understanding that Donald Trump is the only person who could sign his personal checks.
She says no business expenses were sent to him the same way.
Attorney Susan Necheles asks whether "it was all the checks for all of his personal expenses" sent to Trump. "Correct," Manochio says.
"It was no business expenses that were being sent to him?" Necheles asks. "Correct," she said.
"These were all personal bills that had to be paid promptly, right?" Necheles asks. "Yes," Manochio says.

---

Quote:

---

Rebecca Manochio, a junior bookkeeper at the Trump Organization, is done testifying after a brief period of cross-examination from the defense.
The prosecution used Manochio to submit invoices, documents and emails as evidence.
Trump appeared to smile at Manochio as she walked past him out of the courtroom.
She testified for about 35 minutes.

---

Quote:

---

Now that Rebecca Manochio has finished her testimony, we're waiting for the next witness in the Donald Trump hush money trial.

"It will just be a minute," Judge Juan Merchan says.

---

Quote:

---

Tracey Menzies, who works at Harper Collins, is the next witness.
She is the senior vice president of production and creative operations.
She has a book with her on the witness stand.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

That gets back to the somehow seemingly forgotten but million dollar question in regards to their "election interference" case....Is anything a candidate does to try to keep his image positive and bad looks out of the media when running for office considered election interference? If they want to make that case this NDA is crumbs compared to the giant cake Hunters laptop story was being covered up.

---

Well without double standards, Dems would have no standards at all.

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Rebecca Mangold is questioning Tracey Menzies of Harper Collins.
Donald Trump is whispering with his attorney Susan Necheles as Menzies begins testifying.
Menzies is testifying as a custodian of records for Harper Collins which was subpoenaed.

---

Quote:

---

Tracey Menzies holds up a copy of Trump's book "Think Big: Make it Happen in Business and Life" so the courtroom can see it.

She says Trump narrated a part of the audio book.

---

Owlagdad said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

That gets back to the somehow seemingly forgotten but million dollar question in regards to their "election interference" case....Is anything a candidate does to try to keep his image positive and bad looks out of the media when running for office considered election interference? If they want to make that case this NDA is crumbs compared to the giant cake Hunters laptop story was being covered up.

---

Well without double standards, Dems would have no standards at all.

---

LOL. Some lawyer on WBAP this morning said state brought her in to sway jury emotionally. And that jury knows she is a liar and tramp, but state is hoping jury will watch Trump for emotion while she speaks. He advised Trumps lawyers to coach him to show no emotion.

Eff this kind of justice, where lawyers result to trickery rather than truth.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Rebecca Mangold is questioning Tracey Menzies of Harper Collins.
Donald Trump is whispering with his attorney Susan Necheles as Menzies begins testifying.
Menzies is testifying as a custodian of records for Harper Collins which was subpoenaed.

---

Quote:

---

Tracey Menzies holds up a copy of Trump's book "Think Big: Make it Happen in Business and Life" so the courtroom can see it.

She says Trump narrated a part of the audio book.

---

---

Owlagdad said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

That gets back to the somehow seemingly forgotten but million dollar question in regards to their "election interference" case....Is anything a candidate does to try to keep his image positive and bad looks out of the media when running for office considered election interference? If they want to make that case this NDA is crumbs compared to the giant cake Hunters laptop story was being covered up.

---

Well without double standards, Dems would have no standards at all.

---

LOL. Some lawyer on WBAP this morning said state brought her in to sway jury emotionally. And that jury knows she is a liar and tramp, but state is hoping jury will watch Trump for emotion while she speaks. He advised Trumps lawyers to coach him to show no emotion.

Eff this kind of justice, where lawyers result to trickery rather than truth.

---

Quote:

---

Is it normal for the witness to take evidence themselves to the stand?

---

aggieforester05 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.

---

Somehow, I seriously doubt that it would even occur to anyone involved that a mundane bookkeeping entry would qualify as criminally conspiring to conceal/aid in another crime that manifested itself only in the minds of those desperately slinging **** against the wall to get Trump. The idea that Trump of all people would be scrutinizing and directing the categorization of a bookkeeping entry is highly unlikely. Six figure expenses are routine for people at his level of cash flow.

---

Science Denier said:

---

aggieforester05 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.

---

Somehow, I seriously doubt that it would even occur to anyone involved that a mundane bookkeeping entry would qualify as criminally conspiring to conceal/aid in another crime that manifested itself only in the minds of those desperately slinging **** against the wall to get Trump. The idea that Trump of all people would be scrutinizing and directing the categorization of a bookkeeping entry is highly unlikely. Six figure expenses are routine for people at his level of cash flow.

---

If I was a betting person, I would bet the defense intends to have Cohen testify that
1. Trump knew the money was for an NDA
2. Trump directed Cohen to code this as to hide the intent
3. Trump was worried about how this would change the election
4. Somehow attempt to tie all that BS to the BS that is their claim that it was "illegally" trying to influence an election.
5. Pray that the "lawyers" in the jury room work to convince the jurors that what the prosecution claims is an "illegal" attempt to sway an election.

---

Tramp96 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

aggieforester05 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.

---

Somehow, I seriously doubt that it would even occur to anyone involved that a mundane bookkeeping entry would qualify as criminally conspiring to conceal/aid in another crime that manifested itself only in the minds of those desperately slinging **** against the wall to get Trump. The idea that Trump of all people would be scrutinizing and directing the categorization of a bookkeeping entry is highly unlikely. Six figure expenses are routine for people at his level of cash flow.

---

If I was a betting person, I would bet the defense intends to have Cohen testify that
1. Trump knew the money was for an NDA
2. Trump directed Cohen to code this as to hide the intent
3. Trump was worried about how this would change the election
4. Somehow attempt to tie all that BS to the BS that is their claim that it was "illegally" trying to influence an election.
5. Pray that the "lawyers" in the jury room work to convince the jurors that what the prosecution claims is an "illegal" attempt to sway an election.

---

The defense?

---

Quote:

---

Like with Trump's other books, prosecutor Rebecca Mangold is asking about the prominence of Donald Trump's name on the cover of the book "Think Big: Make it Happen in Business and Life."
Tracey Menzies notes Trump's name is larger than his co-author, Bill Zanker.
Different sections of the book are written by the different authors, Menzies says.
"Donald Trump's words, or at least the writing, is in a serif font, and Zanker's is in a non-serif," she says.

---

Quote:

---

The jury is now seeing excerpts from the book "Think Big: Make it Happen in Business and Life."
Tracey Menzies is reading an excerpt being shown to the jury:

• "I used to say, 'Go out and get the best people, and trust them.' Over the years I have seen too many shenanigans, and now I say, "Get the best people, and don't trust them.' Do not trust them because if you don't know what you are doing, they are going to rob you blind."
• "As a matter of fact, I value loyalty above everything elsemore than brains, more than drive, and more than energy."
• "I just can't stomach disloyalty. I put the people who are loyal to me on a high pedestal and take care of them very well. I got out of my way for the people who were loyal to me in bad times," reads an excerpt.
• "I think the reason we have so many loyal people is that we reward loyalty and everybody knows this. It has become part of the corporate culture of the Trump Organization. People like Allen Weisselberg and Matt Calamari are great and have proven themselves over many years."

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors are using Harper Collins custodian of records Tracey Menzies' testimony to present the jury with more excerpts from the book "Think Big: Make it Happen in Business and Life."
The portions read by Menzies for the court include:

• "My motto is: Always get even. When somebody screws you, screw them back in spades."
• "When you are wronged, go after those people, because it is a good feeling and because other people will see you doing it. Getting even is not always a personal thing. It's just part of doing business."

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors have wrapped up their direct questioning of Tracey Menzies. The defense team is now starting the cross-examination.

---

Quote:

---

Trump attorney Todd Blanche is asking Tracey Menzies whether was part of publishing this book.
"No, I was not," she says.
She is looking at excerpts on six pages.

---

Quote:

---

Trump attorney Todd Blanche is asking Tracey Menzies to confirm generally book covers are designed and developed for sales.
She confirms they are designed "to help sell the book, but they're also done very closely with the author."
Blanche follows up and asks whether she picked the excerpts to read or if the prosecution did. "I did not pick them," Menzies says.

---

Quote:

---

Cross-examination of Tracey Menzies is over and she is off the stand.

She testified for about 14 minutes.

---

Quote:

---

The next witness is Madeleine Westerhout, who was Trump's personal assistant at the White House

Madeleine Westerhout, the former director of Oval Office Operations, is the next witness in the trial.

---

Quote:

---

Madeleine Westerhout is smiling and speaking toward the jury as she's describing that she worked for former President Donald Trump at the White House.
"I am now, yes," she says when asked if she was nervous to testify, letting out a small giggle.
Trump gave a big smile, lifting his chin and looking at Westerhout when she said she was nervous.
Westerhout looked at Trump and smiled after she spelled her name.
More context: She left her role at the White House after she revealed details about his children at an off-the-record dinner with reporters in Bedminster, New Jersey. From her desk directly outside the Oval Office, she observed almost every coming and going over more than two and a half years.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Like with Trump's other books, prosecutor Rebecca Mangold is asking about the prominence of Donald Trump's name on the cover of the book "Think Big: Make it Happen in Business and Life."
Tracey Menzies notes Trump's name is larger than his co-author, Bill Zanker.
Different sections of the book are written by the different authors, Menzies says.
"Donald Trump's words, or at least the writing, is in a serif font, and Zanker's is in a non-serif," she says.

---

---

Quote:

---

Madeleine Westerhout says she's now a chief of staff to a chairman of a geopolitical consulting firm.

She was compelled to appear by subpoena, and says her lawyer is "graciously taking this case pro bono."

---

Quote:

---

Madeleine Westerhout is being asked about the "Access Hollywood" tape.

"At the time I recall it rattling RNC leadership," she says.

---

Quote:

---

Madeleine Westerhout is asked if there were discussions about replacing Donald Trump on the presidential ticket after the "Access Hollywood" tape.

"It's my recollection there were conversations about how to, if it was needed, how it would be possible to replace him as the candidate if it came to that," she says.

---

Quote:

---

After Trump was elected, Madeleine Westerhout worked out of Trump Tower and helped schedule interviews for high-level staff roles for the administration.
She was nicknamed by the media "The Greeter Girl."
Westerhout said she worked "seamlessly" with Rhona Graff who still maintained Trump's schedule. Graff was "integral" in helping the Republican National Committee team schedule interviews for Trump during the transition, Westerhout says.

---

Quote:

---

Trump is craning his neck to look at Madeleine Westerhout as she testifies.

Westerhout, who sat the closest to Trump in the White House through much of his presidency, adjusted her language at one point, first referring to him as "President Trump" and then correcting herself to say "Mr. Trump."

---

Quote:

---

Madeleine Westerhout recalls her then-boss asked her if she wanted a job sitting outside the Oval Office.
With a big smile looking at the jury Westerhout said, "Yes I do. That sounds like a really cool job."
Donald Trump is sitting back in his chair watching Westerhout and smiles again as she describes being offered the job.
"I knew I was going to sit outside the Oval Office and I didn't really care what my title was," she testi

---

Quote:

---

A map of the first floor of the West Wing is being shown to the jury.
Madeleine Westerhout's office was in the "outer Oval Office," which is where the president's secretaries or assistants sat, she says

---

Quote:

---

Madeleine Westerhout testifies that in the first few months of the Trump presidency, no one else sat closer to Trump.

Westerhout adds that Hope Hicks also sat in the area with her during her time working in the White House.

---

Quote:

---

Asked how many people Trump would typically speak to in a day, Madeleine Westerhout says, "a lot."

---

Quote:

---

Madeleine Westerhout says he would take calls as early as 6 a.m. and would be taking calls "late into the night" after she had gone to bed.

---

Quote:

---

Jurors are paying attention this testimony. Their eyes are bouncing from the prosecutor to to Madeleine Westerhout as she answers questions.

---

Quote:

---

Trump preferred hard copy documents, his former close aide Madeleine Westerhout testifies.

She says Trump did not use a computer or have an email address to her knowledge.

---