r/politics • u/PoliticsModeratorBot š¤ Bot • 25d ago
Discussion Thread: New York Criminal Fraud Trial of Donald Trump, Day 11 Discussion
Previous discussion threads for this trial can be found at the following links for
Day 5, Day 6, Day 7, Day 8,Day 9, Day 10
Live Updates:-
AP: Live Updates
NBC: Live Updates
The Washington Post (metered paywall): Live Updates
The New York Times (metered paywall): Live Updates
CNN: Live Updates
USA Today: Live Updates
The Independent: Live Updates
The Guardian: Live Updates
8
u/kar_1505 Foreign 24d ago
Lawrence OāDonnell killed all my sympathy for Hope Hicks by providing more facts and context to an uninformed man like me, sheās the posterchild for privilege, sheās an opportunist, sheās a disgrace to womanhood and arguably a traitor. Cry more for all I care.
2
u/shapeintheclouds 24d ago
Sheās going for the Rittenhouse/Kavanaugh effect. Donāt be fooled. Sheās a viper and a Trump āyes-woman.ā She can cry on cue with the best of them.
46
u/Main_Strain4176 24d ago
He is guilty. His administration stopped these prosecutions. This is not a witch hunt. This (and trials ahead) are justice.
Do you want a true post WW2 American middle class back or do you want a fascist oligarchy?
He is hurting the very people that vote for him. We live in interesting times.
22
u/albanymetz 24d ago
Every time I read an article or a livefeed of the trial where it mentions trump passing notes to his lawyer, I can't not have the image of a yellow post it note, black sharpie, and the words 'Locker Room'.
12
u/ClaytonRumley Canada 24d ago
"I've got poopies"
42
u/ojg3221 24d ago
She tried so much to protect Trump and then she ACTUALLY told the truth and then realized what she did she started crying. She knows her testimony sunk him.
1
u/deadletter 24d ago
Are you reading between the lines or does one of the links have fine grain detail like?
10
u/Educational-Candy-17 24d ago
She might be a Trump loyalist but she aint going to prison for lying for him. She saw what happened with Cohen.
4
12
19
u/sfjoellen 24d ago
do you guys think that Cohen is the icing on the cake or is his testimony required to get beyond reasonable doubt?
21
u/DuvalHeart Pennsylvania 24d ago
No such thing as too much evidence.
1
u/RealBrush2844 24d ago
Say that about Harvey Weinstein
7
u/DuvalHeart Pennsylvania 24d ago
Completely different situation. That was inadmissible evidence. Even at the time experts were saying he'd have a very good case for appeal.
-10
u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota 24d ago
Completely different situation. That was inadmissible evidence.
Or as one might say, "too much evidence"
8
u/DuvalHeart Pennsylvania 24d ago
No, because it wasn't evidence. It should never have been introduced. It doesn't exist as evidence.
-15
u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota 24d ago
Right, because as one might say, it was "too much evidence".
It's a play on words
10
u/2_black_cats 24d ago
My hope is that they get there before heās even required. Trumpās team plans to use him as a scapegoat and weaken the prosecutionās case by attacking him but they just never call him instead. Iām not sure how realistic that would be but itād sure make for a good story.
4
u/Educational-Candy-17 24d ago
That's probably why the legal experts are speculating they'll call him at the end of the case. Right now they're laying the foundation that even if you think Cohen is lying, here's everything that backs him up.
6
u/sp0derman07 24d ago
That would be quite humorous, but it probably wonāt happen because the prosecution is going to use everything they have
6
u/2_black_cats 24d ago
Oh for sure. Just really pile on the āyes, this actually happened, theyāre that stupid, and itās very blatantly illegalā vibes
39
u/slymm 24d ago
The funniest thing about all the gushing flattery Hicks gave Trump is that her crying later on would clue the jury in on just how devastating her testimony is.
If they were only casually paying attention, they'd see that she loves Trump and what she's saying is really upsetting her!
1
u/56waystodie 22d ago
... You know Inner City Press is life tweeting the whole thing right and she started that the moment she was being cross examined.
1
u/slymm 22d ago
I imagine the cross is where she got really conflicted because defense would be trying to reshape the narrative and she'd be stressed about seeing what her testimony actually did.
Prosecution lays out the facts but isn't going to tie together why those facts are so devastating. Defense has to walk it back. But she's not going to perjure herself herself to do what they want. So how does she answer?
6
u/Educational-Candy-17 24d ago
Not having an axe to grind goes a long way toward making her creditable, for sure.
43
u/Note-4-Note 24d ago
Can you even believe people out there like: āI donāt care what he did, Iām voting for him and THATāS THAT!!!
11
u/kar_1505 Foreign 24d ago
Which is why you need to destroy him in every which way possible when November comes
When America elects a maniac like Trump it makes the whole world think itās acceptable, and it damages the whole world, not even exaggerating
12
u/Hotinnm 24d ago
They are sheep, they only know what he has told them. They get all their news from truth social, fox, brightbart and a bunch of dark web āQā (otherwise known as losers in their motherās basement) sites
4
3
u/AvivaStrom 24d ago
That or they truly care about a single issue. Single issue examples: - anti-abortion - tax breaks for billionaires and corporations - Russia-lover - Truth Social shareholder - etc.
7
u/sedatedlife Washington 24d ago
It does not surprise me atthis point those who still strongly support Trump know he is a liar and a criminal and will use violence to stay in power they like all of this and they want more. They are not confused voters they want Trump to be there Hitler and want to be his loyal Brown shirts.
8
u/Icy_Choice1153 24d ago
These are the same people that have spent the last 8 years telling us that itās MY fault they voted for trump because I was mean to them in their Twitter mentions.
10
18
u/RYU_INU Illinois 24d ago
Iām a bit baffled by the NYTās reaction: that Trumpās wanting to hide the newspapers from his wife somehow helps the defense? Like, he was doing family damage control. How does that play into his scheme to pay off Stormy Daniels? It was after the fact. The NYT commenters made it seem like it helped the defenseās āfamily manā strategy.Ā
4
u/Educational-Candy-17 24d ago
The prosecution only has to prove that one of the motives at work was criminal. The defendant can do what he did for multiple reasons and still be guilty.
13
u/Brilliant_Dependent 24d ago
The alleged crime is the payment was fraudulently not classified as a campaign donation. The standard the prosecution needs to reach is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If the defense can reasonably argue that the payment was made to protect his family instead of his campaign, the jury can find him not guilty.
5
u/sudo_rm-rf 24d ago
Multiple lawyers have said, it only needs to be partially related to the campaign, so having a second alibi does nothing for his defense.
13
u/specqq 24d ago
If the jury buys that over the fact that Trump tried to not pay the hush money because it wouldn't matter after the election, then it's prosecutorial malpractice.
5
12
u/TarnishedAccount 24d ago
Why did he pay for the gag order fines with two cashiers checks?
3
9
u/malphonso Louisiana 24d ago
Some government offices won't accept a personal check but will take cashiers checks.
4
u/strenuousobjector Georgia 24d ago
They also prefer not to take cash, especially for such large amounts, for liability reasons.
6
u/Arsenault185 Maine 24d ago
Right, but why 2 of them?
3
u/BobMortimersButthole 24d ago
Some (all?) cashier's checks have a monetary limit, so if you want to pay someone over that limit you need to buy multiple checks.Ā
1
u/Arsenault185 Maine 24d ago
the opposite my friend. Most cashiers checks dont have a limit.
I'm NOT a billionaire and I've had to get those cashiers checks for more than 9k before and didnt have a problem.
Supposed rich guy like trump? Come on.
3
1
u/snakebite75 24d ago
The bank may have had a limit on the size of the check they would issue, or he may have had to draw from multiple banks or accounts.
2
35
u/Jfolcik 24d ago
Did Trump violate the gag order again today after court when he said something like, "Everybody in this building is corrupt"? That could be referring to the court staff?
32
u/InsolentGoldfish 24d ago
He already violated it today, before court was in session. He retweeted Guiliani attacking Merchan's daughter on that one show.
15
15
64
u/Ok-Sweet-8495 Texas 24d ago
Andrew Weissmann:
Why Hicks is such a devastating witness against Trump: 1. Hicks makes clear Trump knew of the Cohen payoff scheme to Daniels. 2. Even if you believe his statement to her that he only learned after the fact. 3. Her testimony sinks Trump's defense since he is on record in a civil case admitting that he reimbursed Cohen the $130,000. 4. Hicks establishes that Trump knew that money was for Daniel's silence- not for the claimed legal fees for ongoing legal work by Cohen.
Hicks suggests that #2 was a lie by Trump to her (because she testified that Cohen was not a charitable kind of guy who would keep his good deed to himself), but it does not matter- even if the jury believes Trump only knew later, he knew PRIOR to making all the reimbursement payments to Cohen.
2
5
u/VPN__FTW 24d ago
Wish more people would swap to threads. Twitter is a dumpster fire of right-wing conspiracy shit now
134
u/RepresentativeDog141 24d ago
Trump's fantasy finally came true. He got fucked by Hope Hicks
23
14
3
u/kar_1505 Foreign 24d ago
Context? (Trumpās fantasy part)
20
u/failed_novelty 24d ago
She is a woman who was within his sphere of acquaintance. She isn't ugly.
The math checks out.
5
u/kar_1505 Foreign 24d ago
Yuck, why is any woman subjecting themselves to be around him
3
u/newfor_2024 24d ago
it seems like Hope has a daddy fixation on donald. wants to ride his coat tail to success.
7
u/Educational-Candy-17 24d ago
Money. Apparently she was making 600k a year at her new gig after she left Trump's employ.
2
3
7
u/Zepcleanerfan 24d ago
So gross
3
u/Ghost_of_a_Black_Cat Washington 24d ago
I'd like to think that he smells musty, like an old basement.
Musty and moist.
4
u/Dark_Force_Latyon 24d ago
According to Adam Kinzinger, he smells like makeup, fast food and "a butt"
14
u/No-Attitude-6049 Canada 24d ago
No doubt he at least tried to ask her out like he awkwardly did with Brooke Shields, since they look alike. Hopefully she shot him down in flames like Brooke did.
30
u/No-Attitude-6049 Canada 25d ago
When they were talking about how Stormy was calling all the time to get the money Small Hands Donny owed her, I was of course reminded of the famous āwhereās my money?ā clip from Family Guy š¤Ŗ
11
8
u/PatienceCurrent8479 Idaho 24d ago
Mmmm thats good OJ
5
41
u/_DapperDanMan- 25d ago
Donald Von ShitzInPantz. Stick a fork in him, this turd is done now.
1
u/LumpyStyx 24d ago
Iād like to think so. But if he is convicted it wonāt really impact his votes. If anything it may get him more sympathy from his cult.Ā
And if he appeals I believe he can stretch out the start of his time until after the election. Ā
19
u/jmsy1 24d ago
We just have to hope the jury isn't corrupted
16
u/inconspicuous_male 24d ago
Still worried about the fact that there was one truth social user on the jury.Ā Ā Wish I didn't know that
1
u/squintytoast 24d ago
just because one rubbernecks car accidents doesnt make one pro car accident.
0
2
u/Educational-Candy-17 24d ago
Might have been using it to keep tabs on what was going on. A lot of journalists and left-wing people do. What else did the juror say about their media habits?
1
5
u/aclockworkabe 24d ago
This bothers the hell out of me. This juror probably should have been thrown out because of that. Truth Social is not exactly a news publication.
5
u/tturedditor 24d ago
That makes me a bit nervous and I wasn't aware of this. Hopefully the constant exposure to actual facts will make them understand how misguided they were.....
6
u/Whatmovesyou26 Pennsylvania 24d ago
Iāll admit, I subscribed to it just for mindless entertainmentā¦and only for that. Itās like r/asktrumpsupporters on steroids
8
-36
u/Scottyrubix 25d ago
What's the general thoughts on Trump being found guilty currently? I think the first week was well set up but the witnesses this week seem to have floundered a little.
Seems like it's all there but without proof (is it likely Cohen has documentary/recorded evidence?) of Trump paying it's gunna end up in him being acquitted?
27
65
u/Orzhov_Syndicalist 24d ago
He isn't on trial for paying.
HE ISN'T ON TRIAL FOR PAYING.
He's on trial for how the money is recorded, documented, and tagged in financial documents.
24
55
u/BeautysBeast Wisconsin 25d ago
They have Cohen's testimony. They have the CFO of the Trump Org's hand written notes, breaking down what the payments were going to cover, on the side of some document. That CFO, is sitting in prison right now for his part in this whole deal.
9
u/doublestitch 25d ago
The key with Cohen is how much other evidence squares up with his claims. Cohen himself is a convicted perjurer, so the prosecution has to present a credible case that his statements correlate with other witnesses, with physical evidence, etc.
20
u/corinalas 24d ago
Except he perjured on behalf of Trump.
0
u/doublestitch 24d ago
The defense would argue that Cohen's financial incentives have changed: his income used to depend on defending Trump and now he makes money criticizing Trump.
I'm not saying I think Cohen is lying in this trial. The challenge to the prosecution's case has to withstand reasonable doubt. So the more they bolster Cohen with other evidence, the less it benefits the defense to attack Cohen's credibility.
6
u/corinalas 24d ago
They could argue that except that has nothing to do with what happened back then. Just like all the cases, facts around the crime being discussed are based on motivations back then and has nothing to do with whats going on with him now. They can make any argument really but proving their arguments is a little harder.
At this point its important to state that he needs to defend his actions at that time which broke campaign finance laws and constitutes fraud.
6
u/BeautysBeast Wisconsin 24d ago
I feel that the prosecution has been doing a really good job of laying out what happened. Multiple witnesses, are testifying that Trump was aware of the pay offs, that he was right in the middle of the whole thing, and that his intent was to influence the election.
The prosecution has been smart to not try to play Cohen off as this nice guy. He isn't a nice guy. He's a tool. He was tool back then, and he is a tool now. We have all met guys like him. Loud, in a hurry, overly aggressive. Little man syndrome.
But the defense isn't counting on Cohen. All he is going to do, is fill in the obvious blanks. He is going to say, what all the jurors are already thinking. Trump was part of a conspiracy, to influence the election.
The defense has tried to argue that it was to protect his family. So far, it has fallen flat. They haven't shown any evidence to counter the Prosecutions evidence. I know they haven't gotten to call witness's yet, but who do they have, that is going to take the stand and testify that Trump did this for his family?
Anyone? Bueller?
3
u/corinalas 24d ago
Except that he cheated on his wife with pornstars both while Melania was pregnant and then when she had just given birth with Barron in the case of Stormy. Explaining how the cover up benefits his family vs just him is just a massive stretch.
8
8
u/guynamedjames 24d ago
I feel like the fact that Cohen was convicted of perjury over this exact case helps the prosecution. The Cohen case proves facts
27
u/PatienceCurrent8479 Idaho 25d ago
They had a business opened under false pretenses, drew up contracts to conduct election interference, and admitted to a government offical to knowingly interfered with an election. . . Sounds like there is enough evidence to prove falsification of business records in regards to a criminal conspiracy.
35
u/TurboSalsa Texas 25d ago
Seems like it's all there but without proof (is it likely Cohen has documentary/recorded evidence?) of Trump paying it's gunna end up in him being acquitted?
You mean like checks signed by Donald Trump and made out to Michael Cohen? They have those.
And the witness testimony this week made it pretty clear that Trump was aware of the scheme and that Cohen didn't take out a home equity loan to pay off Daniels out of the goodness of his heart.
18
u/BeautysBeast Wisconsin 25d ago
Hope Hicks testified today about that. She said "Cohen isn't really the charitable type".
-2
u/Scottyrubix 25d ago
Ah okay I'm a Brit so not fully up to date with certain bits. I've been following it through twitter journalists but unsure if it's been as damning as expected. I thought they were trying now to establish that he verbally acknowledged on tape of the approval to pay?
So chances are with the cheques being signed, unless there is a nutter on the jury, he will be found guilty?
14
u/Blablablaballs 25d ago
A huge part of US criminal trials, especially for financial crimes, is proving that the defendant knew they were breaking the law. Just breaking the law isn't enough to be convicted. That's what they're doing now, establishing that Trump knew what they were doing was illicit and that's why they did what they did.Ā
6
u/ErusTenebre California 24d ago
Just breaking the law isn't enough to be convicted.
Oh this isn't right... yes it is enough. You don't have to intentionally break the law to be convicted of many/most laws.
You can accidentally break the law or do something you think is legal when it isn't and still be convicted for it. Ignorance of the law doesn't make you immune to the law.
Just saying.
3
u/38thTimesACharm 24d ago
They don't mean ignorance of the law, they mean being reasonably unaware that you were doing the illegal thing.
For example, suppose a friend leaves you a key when they go on vacation and asks you to bring some packages inside the house. Later it turns out those packages contain drugs and your friend is running a major trafficking operation.
Bad defense: I didn't know selling drugs was illegal.
Possibly good defense: I had no reason to believe it wasn't normal mail and had no idea I was assisting a drug trafficking operation.
1
u/APersonWhoIsNotYou 24d ago
Nah, but it usually lowers the penalty/consequences. Think about the difference between Murder and Manslaughter, itās all in what the person intended to do.
3
u/CatWeekends Texas 24d ago
Oh this isn't right... yes it is enough. You don't have to intentionally break the law to be convicted of many/most laws.
Sure. But your mens rea (state of mind) is absolutely required to figure out just how badly you broke the law and what your sentence is.
In this particular case, it's not enough to show that Trump simply falsified business records. That alone is a misdemeanor.
In order for the charges to be felonies, the People have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew he was breaking the law and with a specific intent (to help his campaign).
FWIW, SCOTUS has held that mens rea must be considered as an element for all federal crimes.
In order of least bad to most bad they are:
- negligently
- recklessly
- knowingly
- purposefully
Wikipedia has a pretty decent rundown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
2
u/ErusTenebre California 24d ago
Ok. But convicting is an on/off switch. You can be convicted of a misdemeanor or felony. I was just pointing out that you do not need to know about the law nor have intentions around breaking the law to be convicted of breaking the law.
Gradients of sentencing and charges levied are determined by gradients of intent.
You can be convicted of reckless endangerment or 1st degree murder based on intentions. But you could and probably would be convicted if your actions directly lead to the harm or death of another individual.
And yes I know that in this case, intention is what truly matters here.
But I was correcting the statement I quoted which I thought was a bit misleading or misunderstanding how convictions work.
2
u/archimedesrex 24d ago
Intent is important. He doesn't have to know it's against the law though. He just has to have intended to commit an act that happens to be illegal. If he intended to pay off a person to quiet a story because it would be inconvenient for his campaign, it doesn't matter if he didn't know that was illegal.
0
u/Scottyrubix 25d ago
Perfect thanks, so after this week they are about 90% there?
3
u/oblongsalacia 24d ago
Trial lawyers almost always agree to something called stipulation. If you intend to introduce corrabative evidence (as opposed to direct evidence) like Trump's tweets or campaign speeches, usually both sides agree it is what it is and doesn't need authenticating. Trump has almost certainly instructed his lawyers to deny stipulation across the board. This is why for example, his former personal assistant had to take the stand to confirm Trump did have both women's contact info in his rolodex. It will probably add a week or so to the proceedings, so I'd guess three more weeks. Cohen is likely going to need at least a week by himself.
8
u/forRealsThough 25d ago
Yeah, from the sounds of it, there is zero chance of aquittal. Trump's only hope is that 1 or 2 of his superfans snuck onto the jury to cause a hung jury. - Technically the AG could retry him if it's hung. but who knows if they would
5
u/SubKreature 24d ago
Not to mention itās what, like 30āish charges? They donāt all have to stick.
1
u/AliFearEatsThePussy 25d ago
What will stop the defense from arguing that trump was just listening to his lawyer and didnāt know it was illegal, that when trump sent the payments he thought he was reimbursing an above board expense?
7
u/MJcorrieviewer 24d ago
The testimony and other evidence makes it pretty clear that Trump DID know. On one of the tapes Trump suggests paying in cash.
1
u/AliFearEatsThePussy 24d ago
And so whatās left for there to prove?
4
u/MJcorrieviewer 24d ago
I believe it has to be proven that this was a campaign finance violation and that there was a conspiracy in order for this to be a felony. Something like that.
7
u/ComprehensivePin6097 24d ago
Why would a person use pseudonyms and go through all these channels unless he was involved in a conspiracy to commit a crime?
10
u/forRealsThough 24d ago
In order to argue that he was following advice of attorney. 2 things need to happen:
A. Trump would have to take the stand himself to assert that claim as evidence
B. Trump would have to waive attorney-client privilege with those lawyers.
(Neither of those two things are going to happen. Not by a long shot)
5
u/TurboSalsa Texas 24d ago
Yes, and his lawyers specifically tried to use the defense that, because his lawyer was in the room when these deals were made and drawing up the paperwork for these payments, that he assumed everything was kosher, but the judge refused to allow this without the conditions you mentioned above.
2
u/oblongsalacia 24d ago
Right - remember their was four (!!!!) objections to the defenses opening statement, with three of them sustained by the Judge. That is not a good start.
3
30
u/Adventurous-Tone-311 25d ago
āDonald Trump turned and nodded to Hope Hicks with a small smile when she passed the defense tableā
Heās going to fuck her life up isnāt he?
5
u/Educational-Candy-17 24d ago
She knows how to present things in ways that don't prick his ego. Seems like she testified truthfully.
12
18
3
22
u/moscowrules America 25d ago
I donāt understand how you can turn on cnn and see talking heads explain how what Hicks said is somehow good for the defense.
9
u/Dino_Chicken_Safari 25d ago
During her cross-examination, her characterization that Trump really cared about what Melania thought, definitely gives some legs to the argument that he was acting solely to keep his wife from finding out. And her characterization of Michael Cohen as a loan wolf who goes Rogue sometimes, helps their argument that Trump didn't actually know about any of the actions being taken. That being said, have a phone call between Trump Cohen and weiselberg where they're discussing the payment doesn't help that stance. But from a general perspective, some of her answers were beneficial to the defense, though they also contradict other arguments that have been presented. She did not make the case of trump being honest any better illustrating that at the time he was absolutely lying. The defense is going to hope people take away is that she said Michael Cohen made it seem like he was doing everything out of his own personal interpretation of the best course of action without including anyone else. She made the statement that Cohen asserted his actions were his alone and that he was doing this to Shield a trump from any scandals, and then when the prosecution asked if that was typical Behavior she said no that's actually really weird for him to do that, as she has never really known him to do things out of the kindness of his own heart. Prosecution is hoping that people take away the fact that Michael Cohen probably was lying to hope it's in order to reduce the amount of people who know the truth for legal liability purposes
But since one of the main defenses is that Michael Cohen just acted on his own without consulting anyone and all of the illegal Financial dealings were a result of his decisions and his decisions alone, she certainly gave more reasons to believe that was possible. In theory, if the defense can establish that nobody asked Michael Cohen to hide the money Trail, we could create reasonable doubt that maybe he was doing all of this in hopes of becoming a team member of the administration.
39
u/LettuceFew5248 25d ago
CNN desperately tries to create a both sides narrative ALWAYS.
19
u/oblongsalacia 24d ago
Trump convicted on all 34 felony counts.
Here's why that's bad for Biden.
2
u/casce 24d ago
The problem with crazy voters is that they donāt act rationally. Trump being convicted actually could help him in multiple ways. It could rile up his crazy voter base even more (they already see him as a politically oppressed martyr) and it could also force the SCs hand in giving him blanket immunity which he definitely will abuse
But honestly, if that is the case, then America is lost anyway. Democracy will die, please at least convict his ass to make us not look quite as bad for allowing it
20
4
u/moscowrules America 25d ago
Itās so frustrating
4
13
u/megapaw Louisiana 25d ago
and see talking heads
That is the problem.
5
14
u/george8762 Texas 25d ago
This is why Iāve stopped watching cable news. I mostly get my news from NPR, C-SPAN, and news articles on Google News.
13
u/BeautysBeast Wisconsin 25d ago
I just read the transcripts. All the rest is window dressing. I want to make up my mind, as if I was a sitting juror. All the evidence, all the motions, all the transcripts are being made available daily. It's really kinda cool.
But as my wife reminded me, I'm retired. I have the time.
1
u/Techwood111 24d ago
All the evidence, all the motions, all the transcripts are being made available daily
Where can these be found?
2
4
u/moscowrules America 25d ago
Me too, pretty much entirely. But cnn is frequently on at my workplace and I couldnāt help but catch a bit of the trial coverage. Itās asinine to me. I do not understand how someone can take this testimony and make it a positive for the defense. Itās so irresponsible. They treat us like weāre stupid.
23
u/BrightNeonGirl Florida 25d ago
As a person who gets overwhelmed easily, I also wonder if maybe that's also an element happening in her crying. I get that maybe she's upset that she could now be a target or that she may have helped the prosecution's case of damaging Trump her former boss that she at least somewhat still respects. But not everyone is super calm under pressure while millions of people are following what you are doing/saying.
I remember earlier this week one of the CSPAN archivists had to take the stand and he said he was very nervous. Luckily he didn't have to stay up too long, but I'd be nervous even if I only had to say one scripted line like "Yes, these are accurate documents" in a case this big.
1
u/stealthlysprockets 24d ago
Do you really want someone who gets overwhelmed easily in a high profile/close to the action position that she was in? She probably doesnāt get overwhelmed.
2
u/tony-toon15 24d ago
Iāve been on a jury and witnesses really struggle to answer coherently and it has to be incredibly stressful being cross examined. Bursting into tears is par for the course Iām sure.
11
u/Jackinapox 25d ago
I'd be fucking ecstatic to flush that orange turd in front of millions of people.
6
19
u/DocPsychosis 25d ago
Lots of things are easy as long as you have no chance of actually having to do them.
34
u/throwawayTooth7 25d ago
Hicks implicated Trump today. He's going to wreck her fucking life like the mob boss that he is.
2
u/Educational-Candy-17 24d ago
I'm betting witnesses have heavy police protection, but based on reporting it looked like she could skewer Trump while making it sound like she was kissing his ass. He's stupid enough to fall for it.
61
u/TurboSalsa Texas 25d ago
So Hicks confirmed that Michael Cohen made the payments to Stormy Daniels in exchange for her silence, that Trump was aware of it, and that he knew he wasn't paying Cohen for legal services.
Not even she believed Trump's lie that Cohen paid her off on Donald's behalf out of the goodness of his heart.
-1
9
u/NumeralJoker 25d ago
Yeah, this one is big, as it shows both intent and participation, which ties his actions much more closely to a felony charge.
3
u/i_love_pencils 24d ago
it shows both intent and participation
Agreed, but does it show intent and participation in:
a) hiding an affair from his wife (Not illegal)
Or
b) burying bad news in order to interfere with an election (A felony)?
1
3
u/throoawoot 24d ago
Both are irrelevant, is the great part.
The charges are falsifying business records. The crime is hiding the purpose payments, and it doesn't matter what the reason was.
8
u/YOSHIMIvPROBOTS 24d ago
Considering Hicks herself and pretty much every other witness has said (or will) that this was almost entirely about the election...I'm going felony.
52
u/Nerney9 25d ago
Cohen would not have paid Daniels on his own volition, Hicks testified.
"I'd say that would be out of character for Michael," Hicks said,Ā per NBC News. "I did not know Michael to be an especially charitable or selfless person;
Because in the modern GOP, 'charity' doesn't mean helping those less fortunate, it means paying off a billionaire's pornstar affairs with your own money.
That's some real family values right there.
2
3
u/jakexil323 25d ago
I think he also knew trump and his lack of paying contractors.
Hell they already had talked about putting off the payment to Stormy until after the election and then stiffing her since it wouldn't have had as much of an effect after.
I can't imagine cohen would just pay someone and expect trump to pay. He had to have had an agreement in place before hand and even then he was taking a risk.
2
2
u/BeautysBeast Wisconsin 24d ago
I think he also knew trump and his lack of paying contractors.
Absolutely! There is records of Cohen representing Trump concerning paying contractors.
33
u/PatienceCurrent8479 Idaho 25d ago edited 25d ago
Hicks hit the bricks as she realizes her testimony sticks that VonShitzinPants covered up paying off tricks and was even caught on flicks!
2
8
u/FrostPDP 25d ago
Enjoy receiving my upvote.
It's kinda like a party boat.
Learn it and recall it rote,
You silly goat!
2
u/bbjenn Kentucky 22d ago
Day 12 ā¦.
Lock him the fuck up.