aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

---

What in the world is the access hollywood tape probative of in the matter of an NDA signed in 2016, paid for in 2017, related to Stormy Daniels?

Quote:

---

Madeleine Westerhout is providing details about working for the former president.
She says they kept the resolute desk "pristine" for meetings and Trump spent his time going over documents in the dining room.
"It was really his working office," Westerhout says.

---

Quote:

---

Trump preferred to sign things himself, Madeleine Westerhout testifies.

"He liked to use Sharpies or, I believe, a Pentel felt-tip pen," she says.

---

Quote:

---

Madeleine Westerhout confirmed that in her experience Donald Trump typically liked to read things before signing them.

---

Quote:

---

What in the world is the access hollywood tape probative of in the matter of an NDA signed in 2016, paid for in 2017, related to Stormy Daniels?

---

It increased possible interest in Stormy's story at the time, strike while the iron is hot, so to speak. And the prosecutors are obsessed with that tape, just to reflect poorly on Trump.

Science Denier said:

---

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?

---

LOL, no.


I will edit.
Words only matter to lawyers, right?

---

lol would be a bold strategy if the defense went full nuking like that

Quote:

---

"My understanding is that he was attentive to things that were brought to his attention" even during busy periods, Madeleine Westerhout said.

---

Quote:

---

"It's my understanding that he liked to use the Oxford comma," Madeleine Westerhout says.

Trump smiled at that comment.

---

LOL.

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Rebecca Mangold asks ex-Trump assistant Madeleine Westerhout whether the former president used social media while in the White House.
"He did, yes," Westerhout says, adding that he posted tweets himself.
Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino also had access to Trump's Twitter account, she testifies. She does not believe anyone else had access.
Scavino might post an event video recap without Trump seeing it, but Westerhout said, "The president did like to see the tweets that went out."

Quote:

---

"My recollection there were certain words he would like to capitalize, words like 'country,' and he liked to use exclamation points," Westerhout says.

---

Trump would review hard copies of the post drafts and make handwritten edits, Westerhout continues. She'd fix them and reprint it with his edits.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

---

Integrate that into a campaign ad to contrast with Biden waking up late and going to bed early.

Quote:

---

Rhona Graff was Madeleine Westerhout's point of contact at Trump Tower when she had any questions.
"Especially the first few months I think Rhona and spoke at least weekly, sometimes daily. That trickled off as I grew into the role and the contacts shifted over more to the White House side," she said.
She said they coordinated his contacts, his calendar, his golf schedule and his personal mail, among other things.

---

Quote:

---

The jury is being shown an email.
On January 24, 2017, Madeleine Westerhout asked Rhona Graff to send her contacts of those Donald Trump most frequently spoke to.
Westerhout emailed Graff on January 24, 2017:

Quote:

---

"Could you have the girls put together a list for me of people that he frequently spoke to? I don't want to have t bug you all the time - even though I will still call often ."

---

Jurors are being shown the contact list that Graff provided to Westerhout, with the phone numbers redacted.

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

---

Integrate that into a campaign ad to contrast with Biden waking up late and going to bed early.

---

Add the oxford comma bit, and he's got this election in the bag!

aggiejayrod said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

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?

---

LOL, no.


I will edit.
Words only matter to lawyers, right?

---

lol would be a bold strategy if the defense went full nuking like that

---

Well, maybe in trying and failing, they would prove to the jury it's a bunch of stupid BS. But, the prosecution is already nuking themselves.

Quote:

---

Jurors are being shown the contact list Rhona Graff provided to Madeleine Westerhout, with the phone numbers redacted.
Here's who is on the list:

Quote:

---

David Pecker, Bill O'Reilly, Charles Kushner, Matt Calamari, Jack Nicklaus, Tiffany Trump, Joe Scarborough, Nelson Peltz, Phil Ruffin, Lou Rinaldi, Jeanine Pirro, Ike Perlmutter, Robert Trump, Maryanne Trump Barry, Allen Weisselberg, Steve Wynn, Serena Williams, Ari Emanuel, David Friedman, Jerry Falwell, Sean Hannity, Tom Barrack, Tom Brady, Pam Bondi.

---

---

Quote:

---

As the court reviews a list of Trump's most regular contacts that was sent to former assistant Madeleine Westerhout during the transition to the White House, prosecutor Rebecca Mangold has zeroed in on two key names.
Ex-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker and former Trump attorney Michael Cohen both appear on the list, and are pivotal players in the alleged hush money scheme as laid out by the prosecution.
Mangold asks Westerhout whether Cohen and Trump had a close relationship.
"At that time, yes," she says.

---

Quote:

---

The jury is now being shown an email dated February 5, 2017. It's from Madeline Westerhout to Michael Cohen, and it's about a meeting.
"We're confirmed for 4:30 pm on Wednesday," the email reads.
In the email, Westerhout asked Cohen for details he needs to provide to get clearance from Secret Service into the White House, including his social security number, date of birth and city and state of residence.
"Mr. Cohen was coming in to meet with the president," she says about why she sent that email, though she also said she doesn't remember the meeting specifically.
Some background on this: Prosecutors allege Cohen and Trump worked out the reimbursement at a February meeting in the Oval office.

---

Haven't we established payments started in January, not in February like CNN is babbling about?

Has this trial made anyone (on this forum) change their vote?

So Trump decided to pay Cohen after the election. Unless Cohen has some elaborate sorry about how Trump made him take out a personal loan and then wait until after the election to get repaid this pretty much blows up the election interference case.

I still stand by my gut on this one. Stormy is paid by Cohen. Cohen knows he can make more than the payment later so he takes out a loan. He shakes down Trump in 2017 to get paid back, plus legal fees, plus profit.

Quote:

---

The jury is now seeing a text thread between Madeleine Westerhout and longtime aide Hope Hicks from March 2017.
"Hey - the president wants to know if you called David Pecker again?" Westerhout wrote.
The former Trump assistant says she doesn't remember the events surrounding the text, and adds it wasn't unusual for her to send a message like this to Hicks.
Remember: Hicks testified earlier in the trial, and this exchange came up during her testimony as well.
Pecker is a key figure for his role in helping "catch and kill" the story from Stormy Daniels about Trump

---

Quote:

---

Madeleine Westerhout testified that Donald Trump liked using oxford commas while describing how she would often take diction from the former president.
This is actually important to show that Trump was actually quite involved in matters that involved his name, CNN anchor Audie Cornish said.

Quote:

---

"I joked earlier about fonts and now we're talking about the oxford comma, but there's an actual point to this, which is to say he was always involved if his name was on it," Cornish said.

---

Details like this adds to the prosecutions argument that Trump would had to known about the details surrounding the alleged hush money payments.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Rebecca Mangold is asking about Madeleine Westerhout's understanding of how Donald Trump's personal expenses were handled.
"Checks were sent from the Trump Organization to an employee at the White House and I brought them in for the president to sign," Westerhout testifies.
She says she would take a manila folder with a stack of checks to Trump when she received them. "I didn't really dig around in the folder but I believe there were invoices attached to some of the checks sometimes," she adds.
She says it was "consistent" that the checks were regularly sent, adding, "maybe twice a month."
Asked how many checks she would receive at a time, Westerhout says, "Sometimes there was one, sometimes there was a stack, maybe half an inch thick. I never counted them."
"I can't speak to the ones I didn't see him sign," she says.
Westerhout said after Trump signed the checks, "he would give the folder back to me" and she would put them in a pre-labeled FedEx envelope to send back to the Trump Organization.

---

Tramp96 said:

---

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.

---

I'm pretty certain this is probably 99.9% accurate.

---

It seems clear that she appeared with him many times after this and benefitted from the publicity this has brought her. When she didn't get on Apprentice, she stopped taking his calls.

They willingly exchanged value.

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

So Trump decided to pay Cohen after the election. Unless Cohen has some elaborate sorry about how Trump made him take out a personal loan and then wait until after the election to get repaid this pretty much blows up the election interference case.

I still stand by my gut on this one. Stormy is paid by Cohen. Cohen knows he can make more than the payment later so he takes out a loan. He shakes down Trump in 2017 to get paid back, plus legal fees, plus profit.

---

Apparently, Cohen didn't send an invoice between October 2016 and January 2017?

And when the payments started in 2017, Cohen had to be asked to send an invoice which he did via a private gmail account with just a total on it.

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Rebecca Mangold has Madeleine Westerhout read a handwritten note Rhona Graff wrote on an invoice for the Winged Foot Golf Club asking if he wanted her to look into suspending the membership for 4 to 8 years.
Written in black sharpie: "Pay--" At the bottom, "ASAP," which is underlined in sharpie next to Trump's "short signature," Westerhout says.
This was included in the stack of checks so he individually approved the invoice, Mangold confirms with Westerhout.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Rebecca Mangold asks Madeleine Westerhout if she recalls the Stormy Daniels story coming out.

"I remember he was very upset by it," Westerhout says of the story.

---

Quote:

---

Madeleine Westerhout recalls that Donald Trump and Michael Cohen spoke around the time of the Stormy Daniels story.

---

So January 2018?

Quote:

---

Madeleine Westerhout recalled Trump's relationship with Melania Trump.
"There was really no one else that could put him in his place too. He was my boss but she was definitely the one in charge. I just remember that… thinking that their relationship was really special. They laughed a lot when she came into the Oval Office," she added.

---

Quote:

---

Madeline Westerhout broke down in tears as she described the circumstances of her departure from the White House.
She noted that she said some things she shouldn't have and said she was "very regretful of my youthful indiscretion."
"I've grown a loft since then," she said as she started tearing up.
Judge Juan Merchan handed her a tissue.
Westerhout abruptly left the White House in 2019 after sharing intimate details about the president's family with reporters.

---

Quote:

---

Madeleine Westerhout is talking about her book, "Off the Record: My Dream Job at the White House, How I Lost It, and What I Learned."

Quote:

---

"I thought it was real important to share with the American people the man that I got to know," she says, tearing up again.
"I don't think he's treated fairly and I wanted to tell that story.

---

---

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

So Trump decided to pay Cohen after the election. Unless Cohen has some elaborate sorry about how Trump made him take out a personal loan and then wait until after the election to get repaid this pretty much blows up the election interference case.

I still stand by my gut on this one. Stormy is paid by Cohen. Cohen knows he can make more than the payment later so he takes out a loan. He shakes down Trump in 2017 to get paid back, plus legal fees, plus profit.

---

I'm sure the prosecution will say Trump falsified business records to cover up the crime of extortion.

agAngeldad said:

---

Has this trial made anyone (on this forum) change their vote?

---

I'm getting close...

Quote:

---

Madeleine Westerhout, who has grown emotional while recounting the events leading up to her leaving the White House, said she wrote a flattering book because she still felt positively toward Trump.
"I didn't have anything negative to say, so why would I write it," she testifies.
"President Trump forgave you, right?" Necheles asks. "He did," Westerhout says.

---

Quote:

---

Madeleine Westerhout, under cross-examination, says she enjoyed working for Donald Trump.

Quote:

---

"He never once made me feel that I didn't deserve that job and that I didn't belong there. Especially in an office filled with older men he never made me feel like I didn't belong there. He was a really good boss. "Westerhout says.
"I found him very enjoyable to work for."

---

---

That's why Trump had so many very long term employees.

Quote:

---

The jury is being dismissed for the day.
There will still be motions from Trump's side to go through after the jury leaves.

---

Quote:

---

When asked, former Trump assistant Madeleine Westerhout testifies that Trump is very close to his family and his wife.
She'd see Trump talking on the phone with his wife when he was in the Oval Office, Westerhout says.
She also recalls hearing him say, "Honey come over to the window." The former assistant explained there was a window in the residence where Melania Trump could wave to the president in the Oval Office.
They'd stand by the window and wave to each other, Westerhout said, smiling.

---

Note he didn't call her honey bunch.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Madeleine Westerhout, who has grown emotional while recounting the events leading up to her leaving the White House, said she wrote a flattering book because she still felt positively toward Trump.
"I didn't have anything negative to say, so why would I write it," she testifies.
"President Trump forgave you, right?" Necheles asks. "He did," Westerhout says.

---

Quote:

---

Madeleine Westerhout, under cross-examination, says she enjoyed working for Donald Trump.

Quote:

---

"He never once made me feel that I didn't deserve that job and that I didn't belong there. Especially in an office filled with older men he never made me feel like I didn't belong there. He was a really good boss. "Westerhout says.
"I found him very enjoyable to work for."

---

---

That's why Trump had so many very long term employees.

---

Wait! What?

Quote:

---

The jury has left. There's now a 10-minute break before a discussion of the defense's motions.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Jurors are being shown the contact list Rhona Graff provided to Madeleine Westerhout, with the phone numbers redacted.
Here's who is on the list:

Quote:

---

David Pecker, Bill O'Reilly, Charles Kushner, Matt Calamari, Jack Nicklaus, Tiffany Trump, Joe Scarborough, Nelson Peltz, Phil Ruffin, Lou Rinaldi, Jeanine Pirro, Ike Perlmutter, Robert Trump, Maryanne Trump Barry, Allen Weisselberg, Steve Wynn, Serena Williams, Ari Emanuel, David Friedman, Jerry Falwell, Sean Hannity, Tom Barrack, Tom Brady, Pam Bondi.

---

---

Quote:

---

As the court reviews a list of Trump's most regular contacts that was sent to former assistant Madeleine Westerhout during the transition to the White House, prosecutor Rebecca Mangold has zeroed in on two key names.
Ex-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker and former Trump attorney Michael Cohen both appear on the list, and are pivotal players in the alleged hush money scheme as laid out by the prosecution.
Mangold asks Westerhout whether Cohen and Trump had a close relationship.
"At that time, yes," she says.

---

Quote:

---

The jury is now being shown an email dated February 5, 2017. It's from Madeline Westerhout to Michael Cohen, and it's about a meeting.
"We're confirmed for 4:30 pm on Wednesday," the email reads.
In the email, Westerhout asked Cohen for details he needs to provide to get clearance from Secret Service into the White House, including his social security number, date of birth and city and state of residence.
"Mr. Cohen was coming in to meet with the president," she says about why she sent that email, though she also said she doesn't remember the meeting specifically.
Some background on this: Prosecutors allege Cohen and Trump worked out the reimbursement at a February meeting in the Oval office.

---

---

Serena WIlliams and Tom Brady?

Quote:

---

Security has removed 2 members of the public from the courtroom

Two members of the public were removed from the courtroom by security.

---

Wonder what that was about?

Quote:

---

Madeleine Westerhout testified for 1 hour and 13 minutes. She will be back on the stand on Friday.

---

For redirect?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Security has removed 2 members of the public from the courtroom

Two members of the public were removed from the courtroom by security.

---

Wonder what that was about?

---

That is interesting. Code Pink, perhaps?

Quote:

---

That is interesting. Code Pink, perhaps?

---

Seats in the courtroom are highly prized with many of the reporters covering the case are in an overflow room. Further, I'd imagine the SS would have a list of who was going to be in the gallery everyday.

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?

---

Is it your opinion that a sexual encounter did or did not occur?

Quote:

---

Karen McDougal will not be testifying, according to defense attorney Todd Blanche.

'The People informed me they no longer intend to call Ms McDougal," he says.

---

LOL.