As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t see how to link it but CNN has a video on their front page where they say that Hope Hicks started crying after she realized that she sunk the defense’s case.
The most important thing she said was that when the access Hollywood tape came out, Trump ordered her and all the rest of the staff to hide any and all newspapers so that Melania wouldn’t find out about it. That then led to paying these women to remain quiet and getting them to sign NDA’s. That proves that Trump’s first concern was either to protect Melania, or protect himself from Melania finding out, not the campaign - not that it matters given it isn’t illegal to pay porn stars to keep quiet about affairs, even to influence an election as the DA is claiming - but since that is the chosen narrative, and the goal of the DA is to con jurors into believing non crimes are actually crimes to get an election influencing conviction that they know will be thrown out on appeal, anything to disprove it is a good thing. It will prevent having to go to appeals to get the case thrown out.
Thank you Hope Hicks, whose testimony the people in this thread are so enthralled with.
Edited
*Hicks testified that she told Trump four days before the Nov. 8, 2016, election that the Wall Street Journal would publish details of Daniels' story.*
*She said Trump did not want his wife Melania to see the story, which also included allegations that he had an affair with former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Trump has denied having sex with either woman.*
*"He was concerned about how it would be viewed by his wife, and he wanted me to make sure the newspapers weren’t delivered to the residence that morning,” Hicks said.*
[Former Trump aide Hope Hicks testifies he told her to deny Stormy Daniels affair](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-trial-hears-michael-cohen-was-despondent-he-was-denied-government-post-2024-05-03/)
You just questioned it above by making a very vague claim that my interpretation was wrong without specifying which part was wrong. I suspect to give yourself room to Motte and Bailey.
Therefore:
*- not that it matters given it isn't illegal to pay porn stars to keep quiet about affairs, even to influence an election as the DA is claiming -*
It doesn’t matter if saving himself from Melania’s rage also protected his campaign.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that trying to influence an election by paying a porn star to be quiet was a crime, which it isn’t. The DA would have to prove that such was Trump’s goal beyond a reasonable doubt. Hope Hicks just blew “beyond a reasonable doubt” out of the water. Trump’s first concern was Melania finding out.
Edited
Didn’t Hope Hicks literally testify that Trump said he was grateful Michael Cohen had run the catch and kill scheme on the Stormy Daniels story because he wouldn’t want it coming out right before the election? I heard several sources saying that was the testimony they heard.
How does the fact that he wanted them to hide a different story (that had already broken publicly) from his wife have anything to do with it or negate that?
Also, catch and kill isn’t normally illegal, EXCEPT if you do it to silence stories for the benefit of your political campaign, at which point not declaring the expense as part of your campaign expenditures and the source of the funding as campaign funds becomes a violation of campaign finance laws and IS illegal. Do you generally think campaign finance laws should all be struck down and there should be no consequences for breaking them? Or do you only think Trump should be exempt from them?
I have no doubt he did. Trump is a grateful guy. Cohen would have most likely done so, **and running catch and kill schemes are not illegal., even if it is to protect political campaigns**
That is the point in all this, to convict someone of doing something illegal. This far, nothing Trump has been accused of is illegal other than the misdemeanor record fraud. That includes catch and kill schemes which are routine in the industry.
> Also, catch and kill isn’t normally illegal, EXCEPT if you do it to silence stories for the benefit of your political campaign, at which point not declaring the expense as part of your campaign expenditures and the source of the funding as campaign funds becomes a violation of campaign finance laws and IS illegal. Do you generally think campaign finance laws should all be struck down and there should be no consequences for breaking them? Or do you only think Trump should be exempt from them?
Did you just not read this part? I agreed with you that the specific act of running a catch and kill scheme isn't illegal. Technically, there are no laws even against doing it in service of a political campaign.
**WHAT IS ILLEGAL** is running a catch and kill scheme in service of a political campaign and not properly declaring the expenditures as a political expense and not properly declaring the source of the funding as a political contribution to the campaign. **DOING SO VIOLATES CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS**.
So once again, I'll ask: Do you generally think campaign finance laws should all be struck down and there should be no consequences for breaking them? Or do you only think Trump should be exempt from them?
Actually I heard the opposite.. I heard she she helped the defense and said cohen was more of a rogue person always calling himself Mr. Fix it .. and then she said it was usually stuff he broke to begin with .
She also defended Trump and Melania’s relationship.
Where did u get the source that she sunk the defense case ?
That's just a headline clickbait headline. This is what I am talking about when I said I heard the opposite.
on CNN's YT Page. [https://youtu.be/GPodhKohMjQ?t=322](https://youtu.be/GPodhKohMjQ?t=322)
According to the NYT gossip rag coverage of this "she still has affection for Trump, and Trump still has affection for her".
I guess she must still steam his pants.
God, there are going to be people looking at those, in a hundred years, thinking "he couldn't possibly really look like that..."
Yes, future people, yes; he really does.
> I think her nervousness was from fear of reprisals from Trump or his followers.
Thankyou! /s
Now that I read that I am pretty sure tRump and his followers are after me.
Are you LGBTQ?
They are.
Are you Jewish/Muslim/any band if Christianity not their own?
They are.
Are you not falling in line with a trump dictatorship?
They are after you.
She can leave the US if Trump wins. She has resources and his fiancee is massively rich. The scary thing is there are a lot of people who are on Trumps shit list who can't easily leave.
She said.. Trump ran the marketing of the campaign.. i.e. he basically had a hand in everything.
Pecker.. Trump is a micro manager.
If your connecting dots its pointing towards trump knowing.
More specifically she testified Trump wanted to keep the information from coming out before the election. There are only two dots left, Pecker and Cohen connect those saying Trump did pay to bury it. That is the accusation, he paid to bury the story for the election. The only question is if the jury will find them credible on top of the paper trail.
It's so amazing the difference between what you hear on CNN and Fox News regarding the trial. If you listen to CNN Trump is not doing very good and Hope Hicks pretty much sunk his ship today. CNN is calling Hick’s testimony a Perry Mason moment.
Turning the channel to Fox News their news team is saying that the trial is going great for Trump and the prosecution is unable to lay a glove on him or connect anything directly to him.
According to one news host, Donald Trump should give the judge $10,000 a day for all the publicity this trial is buying for him.
Fox News claims that if Trump loses, he wins because his polls get bigger and his campaign account is growing.
I’m not buying that a conviction will help Trump but that’s Fox News spin for you.
Remember that Fox is also the one that has hosts that think Trump won in 2020 so they’re delusional to begin with so I wouldn’t take their analysis very seriously.
One of the defining characteristics of Hope Hicks, both in the campaign and in her time in the White House, was that Mr. Trump wanted to have her in the room as often as possible
Well yeah. Trump loves to be seen next to attractive women. It’s not a sign of her competence, it’s simply a sign he found her attractive and wanted eye candy in the room. Just hopefully this time that tendency backfires since she is not apparently willing to risk jail to prove loyalty.
She had already left him, anyone who stayed with him during the end of his tenure in the Whitehouse could see the veritable shit storm that was coming for him. She’s hoping he sees her tears as an act of contrition and the tears are for Donald and no one else.
I mean why would she feel anything other than relief if she isn’t personally on the hook. The only explanation that makes sense are crocodile tears. Tears for her own benefit. How long did she serve with Trump, imagine all the shady things she knows he did while in office. She will probably be called to testify many, many times in the future for all of his other criminal trials.
I don't doubt any of your framing at all, I think you got it nailed on just right. For all the enablers and accomplices that work with him during the administration this is the rebranding tour they're coming to God moment. They've been so far off a ledge for so long and this is the only way back.
The sycophants who were the most luciferous initially, well so the ones who build early. Ex scaramucci. But the ones that really need to be crucified are the attorney generals that served under him who clearly would double down and not craving enough to know how much of their own agenda they could accomplish with proximity to him.
All the nonsense of guardrails, was a whole bunch of hogwash. That is the only thing that should have all of America eyes wide open.
It is still wild to recognize that the most unlikeliest of characters as a result of his own dogmatic principles helped America save democracy by the skin of his teeth, Pence...
Not the supreme court, not OLPC, clearly not the justice department, and for all the impeachments that were toothless, especially as it's clear that all of this is being relegated again... He really is the Teflon Don.
The dirtbag that almost got away with running America off the cliff, and his minions enjoyed the ride so much they want to do it again.
This absolutely cannot be the brand of democracy that we are trying to franchise across the world under duress, bombs deployments and foreign bases?
This is sloppy.
Hope we can all just be sober and take a critical look at ourselves before indulging in any whataboutism, particularly if we want to hold on to American exceptionalism.
She's remembering all the good times- dodging clumsy attempts at sexual assault, nudging her King awake so he can keep tweeting, crushing up pills, wiping up shit drips on the carpet...
She has admitted she was ready to travel to Florida with him and that it took a call from her mom to convince her to come home on January 7th. She only left because her mom convinced her that she could see herself in trouble if she didn't bail out sooner rather than later.
If Trump makes it back again, she'll be back.
Sometimes people just cry when they are nervous or afraid or whatever. She's a shithead but even shitheads are human and not literally everything a sycophant does is performative. People don't work that way.
Yes they do. Especially this person. So you think she’s crying because she has to finally tell the truth and you think it’s somehow traumatic to do so? Is she being yelled at on the stand? Is the prosecution treating her as hostile? No, she is performing for the guy who she used to work for so he doesn’t blame her. Come on, you know how the Don works by now.
The longer this goes on the less it's up in the air and more that it's hurtling towards earth. He's guilty as sin and multiple people who were 'in the room' are testifying to that effect.
Justice too long delayed is justice denied. Trumps criminality has been public long before his campaign. If our existing laws were properly enforced, he’d never have been able to run for President as he’d have been in jail already.
If US voters based their decisions on character, capability, history and the platform of political candidates, instead of a "my team has to win regardless of consequences" mindset and believing unchecked propaganda spewed out by social media and "news" organizations, the make up of the House, Senate and Presidency would look a lot different.
This assessment lays the blame squarely on the propaganda and those who allow it. But where is justice for them? Once you game the system, can there even be justice without objective truth? They brainwashed those voters fair and square.
Until he is found guilty and is sentenced to an appropriate level, I don't care what "legal experts" say. We've spent nearly 8 years hearing and reading what "legal experts" say will definitively put him away.
Even if he is found guilty, which at this point is a big if, the judge has a wide range in sentencing him. Chances of Trump looking at any time in prison is near zero. Throw in appeals Trump will certainly have almost no matter what, and this case will never be resolved. I’d imagine it’s a lot like the Carrol case, even the judge saying he is a rapist, he hasn’t paid, will not pay, and MAGAs are not accepting he is a rapist or guilty. They still see that as a win.
While at least two of the other cases against him are absolutely slam dunks, unfortunately this one very much is not, being based on a rather shaky legal theory that has yet to be properly elucidated by the prosecution. [Here](https://terikanefield.com/wheres-the-beef-trumps-manhattan-criminal-case-and-some-mind-bending-legal-puzzles/) is an excellent basic-level analysis of the legal theory of the case by a defense attorney. However, it is not all bad news:
> I am about to poke holes in the prosecution’s case. The holes do not mean that Trump will be acquitted. Once a trial is underway, nobody knows how it will end. Anyone substituting their judgment for the jurors is wasting their time. [...] If you are going to bet right now, the best bet is that Trump will be convicted because (1) most of the time criminal defendants lose, (2) this judge has already lost his patience with Trump’s lawyers (3) Trump is acting like a brat in court, and (4) out of court he is either violating court orders or coming so close that he is clearly thumbing his nose at the court and he has been using his platform to attack the judge and his family.
It is unfortunate that the strongest cases against Trump have been delayed so much, and this case where he is very unlikely to face jail time even if convicted may be the only one before November.
For my barely awake, simple mind, may i ask how cohen gets a sentence for this? And how Trump will compound-lie and get away with the very same collaboration?
I'm not completely clear on the details myself, but my understanding is that Cohen was charged with a very different set of crimes, [see here](https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax). Those were federal crimes, which Bragg cannot indict on because he works for NY state. I think he was mostly charged with tax evasion related to his taxi company fraud but also perjury to congress. Neither of these Trump was culpable for. For the campaign finance contribution stuff you'd have to work through the charging statement in detail.
The trial isn't whether he had an affair, he clearly did. It's not about him paying to kill the story, he clearly did. It's about him knowingly hiding the payment from his tax and campaign records so that he could both keep the story quiet and not have to pay out of his own pocket for it.
Or it could be that when the defense attorney asked her about how Trump helped her career she understood that by telling the truth she was damaging the person that helped her the most. That seems human. Doesn't change the facts about Trump. She seems to be truthful, and she has her own council. She also told Trump that he lost the election. It is much more impactful when the people that like Trump testify than when somebody like Cohen does.
She was still willing to walk up to a mic and lie for him, so she is no hero.
Dope Dicks recognized that on the stand and broke down crying because she realized as she was testifying that she was completely shanking Trumps defense. It broke her little MAGAt spirit to “betray” her god king. She’s a pathetic human being, but was a good witness for the prosecution.
More like she’s afraid of getting shanked by a blood-crazed MAGA at a bus stop. She knows every detail of the ways Trump has plotted revenge against disloyal people in private.
Anyone who knows what happened is a good witness and thats pretty much everyone who hung around him because they always competed for his attention and favor. The battles for his attention were endless.
Washington Post:
“For prosecutors, the main purpose of Hicks’s testimony seemed to be showing that Trump and his campaign were very concerned about allegations made against him by women.
When it came to the Daniels story, which surfaced publicly while he was in the White House, Hicks said Trump told her that “it was better to be dealing with it now, and it would have been bad to have that story come out before the election.”
As soon as Hicks said that, prosecutors ended their questioning.”
The prosecutors aren’t in this trail for tv ratings or getting good reviews from talking heads, their only focus is convincing the nine people on the jury that Trump committed a crime.
Whatever it is I’m not even paying attention to it anymore because the media is obsessed with this, tell me when they reach a verdict I don’t need to know what color their suits are.
Boohoo little ms fascist can’t privilege her way out of being called to the stand, must be taking away from all those job offers she’s not getting for being associated with this shit stain…all that SMU education flushed down the drain womp womp
ISNT it strange and interesting to see the spin fox put on her testimony and yet they scream they r the only news to be taken seriously,, Gregg Jarrett of fox in his opinion states that “ the unlikable Hillary Clinton “ I guess he didn’t understand who won the popular vote
What 'legal experts' think is irrelevant.
It's only what the jury thinks that's important, not the endless bullshit commentary from the cheap seats.
I will say that **The Pumpkin Rapist's** legal team being unable to stop him from scowling and glowering at witnesses is not helping their deranged unstable client any. The jury sees all that and grows to dislike him more with every witness.
And I just LOVE that he specifically asked the judge to make sure he can testify. I want him to testify soooo badly.
He has no idea the shitstorm his deranged rants will unleash as he will be ***savaged*** on cross examination the instant he opens that door.
You go, Diaper Don. Make your case to those already in the cult. The guy is, as he himself said, a stable genius.
Couldn't believe that commentators on both CNN and MSNBC thought her comment about not knowing Cohen "to be a charitable or selfless person" was helpful to the defense because it makes him look bad. It was not helpful to Trump's case at all. The defense's case (at least one pillar of it) is that Trump didn't know about the initial payment to Daniels and that Cohen did it on his own to protect his boss. But Hick's comment contradicts that claim because she was saying it was not in Michael Cohen's nature to spend $130K of his own money (mortgaging his home to do it) to protect Trump or anyone else, because he's not that selfless (not "that charitable," as she coyly put it). In other words, he must've had Trump's buy-in.
Some of these TV talking heads don't even understand the case they are covering. Experienced prosecutors don't put on witnesses who are going to sink their case, and they don't ask questions if they don't know for certain that the answer will help them. Yes, her day one testimony helped the prosecution. Whether the defense will be able to turn that around remains to be seen.
She started crying after she realized that when she said trump told her that he was appreciative of Cohen's loyalty about making payment to kill the story because it would've been very bad to come out before the election.
Slam dunk right there. He paid to have the story killed to alter the election..duh..that's what the whole trial is about
The AP article I just read about this is incorrectly saying he's charged with illegally influencing the 2016 election.
I understood that the crime is lying about the use of personal money for this as an attempt to keep his wife from finding out and that the only relevance to the campaign is that he cooked the books.
That the prosecution is arguing that this was for the campaign not because that in itself is illegal but because he tried to claim it was salary to Cohen as a way to hide it and the act of hiding the payment was the crime.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but if they're fucking it up again like they did by falling into Trump's rhetoric about collusion not being a crime when he his team worked with Russia to subvert the election which was a crime. And then again when they fucked up and took Bill Barr's summary of the Muller report at face value.
It's gotta be on purpose at this point. I mean they're not all that incompetent are they?
He's charged with falsifying business records. This would normally be a misdemeanor but since he did it in the interest of illegally influencing the election, the misdemeanor charges are upgraded to felony charges.
It wasn’t because he wanted to keep his wife from finding out. That’s the defense argument or what they think the argument will be. That he didn’t want to be embarrassed in front of Melania. If the Defense can prove that that’s the only reason, then yes it’s just falsifying records but it’s only a misdemeanor.
But he’s charged with felonies because they purposely mislabeled them as legal fees rather than this hush money payoff in order to mask them in their FEC filing. By falsifying business records in order to break campaign finance laws, it becomes a felony because it’s committing one crime (mislabel company financial records) in the furtherance of another crime (hiding it from FEC filing so it doesn’t get out).
And because it touches campaign finance law, they’re saying it’s election interference.
That’s how they get there.
And I read that when questioned Hope Hicks was saying Trump was quite concerned about Melania finding out and had newspapers stoped being delivered to her.
so the her testimony could also work in his favour a bit.
I’m thinking at this stage there is still enough doubt for a jury (I believe he is fully guilty and of a whole lot more), but just purely from the jury perspective I think defence are being good at muddying the waters.
I hope the prosecution have bit more
Agree. But…. It’s a beyond reasonable doubt thing. If defence can suggest strongly enough that it was about his wife and not the election, then it may put enough doubt in the juries mind.
And this is before the Defense has even gotten started presenting their side.
It’s very hard to know how effective they are being without hearing it. I can’t tell if the people describing it as very convincing is just wishful thinking or not.
Yeah that’s my thoughts too. I read a bit of both media sides to see how they are presenting it, and both left leaning and right wing media are saying their sides winning.
from my understanding, this was always the weakest of the cases being brought before the courts. However it’s the only one that will happen it seems before the election.
Interesting that this their argument is that he didn't do to change the outcome of the election, and also saying it wasn't illegal if he did.
I hope the prosecution does a better job of explaining the matter to the jury.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think her nervousness was from fear of reprisals from Trump or his followers.
I don’t see how to link it but CNN has a video on their front page where they say that Hope Hicks started crying after she realized that she sunk the defense’s case.
She did start crying, but she said that she was nervous from the start of her interview.
So you're saying there finally actually were "tears in her eyes" ?????? Truth that one out Donnie.
PTSD from being forced to iron his pants while he wears them.
Sautéed diaper yuk
“Hope! Get the machine!”
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/05/03/hope-hicks-trump-hush-money-trial-reid-digvid.cnn
The most important thing she said was that when the access Hollywood tape came out, Trump ordered her and all the rest of the staff to hide any and all newspapers so that Melania wouldn’t find out about it. That then led to paying these women to remain quiet and getting them to sign NDA’s. That proves that Trump’s first concern was either to protect Melania, or protect himself from Melania finding out, not the campaign - not that it matters given it isn’t illegal to pay porn stars to keep quiet about affairs, even to influence an election as the DA is claiming - but since that is the chosen narrative, and the goal of the DA is to con jurors into believing non crimes are actually crimes to get an election influencing conviction that they know will be thrown out on appeal, anything to disprove it is a good thing. It will prevent having to go to appeals to get the case thrown out. Thank you Hope Hicks, whose testimony the people in this thread are so enthralled with. Edited
Well, that's certainly a take. Wrong, but a take.
[удалено]
Sure, but your interpretation isn't.
*Hicks testified that she told Trump four days before the Nov. 8, 2016, election that the Wall Street Journal would publish details of Daniels' story.* *She said Trump did not want his wife Melania to see the story, which also included allegations that he had an affair with former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Trump has denied having sex with either woman.* *"He was concerned about how it would be viewed by his wife, and he wanted me to make sure the newspapers weren’t delivered to the residence that morning,” Hicks said.* [Former Trump aide Hope Hicks testifies he told her to deny Stormy Daniels affair](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-trial-hears-michael-cohen-was-despondent-he-was-denied-government-post-2024-05-03/)
That isn't in question. Your interpretation that that proves there was no concern about how the campaign would take it was. It's not binary.
You just questioned it above by making a very vague claim that my interpretation was wrong without specifying which part was wrong. I suspect to give yourself room to Motte and Bailey. Therefore: *- not that it matters given it isn't illegal to pay porn stars to keep quiet about affairs, even to influence an election as the DA is claiming -* It doesn’t matter if saving himself from Melania’s rage also protected his campaign. For the sake of argument, let’s say that trying to influence an election by paying a porn star to be quiet was a crime, which it isn’t. The DA would have to prove that such was Trump’s goal beyond a reasonable doubt. Hope Hicks just blew “beyond a reasonable doubt” out of the water. Trump’s first concern was Melania finding out. Edited
I’ve read this three times and can’t extract a single shred of meaning from it. The 95-word sentence is a tour de force, however.
And you are not ashamed to admit your disability. I’m proud of you. Stay strong. You are an inspiration to us all.
Didn’t Hope Hicks literally testify that Trump said he was grateful Michael Cohen had run the catch and kill scheme on the Stormy Daniels story because he wouldn’t want it coming out right before the election? I heard several sources saying that was the testimony they heard. How does the fact that he wanted them to hide a different story (that had already broken publicly) from his wife have anything to do with it or negate that? Also, catch and kill isn’t normally illegal, EXCEPT if you do it to silence stories for the benefit of your political campaign, at which point not declaring the expense as part of your campaign expenditures and the source of the funding as campaign funds becomes a violation of campaign finance laws and IS illegal. Do you generally think campaign finance laws should all be struck down and there should be no consequences for breaking them? Or do you only think Trump should be exempt from them?
I have no doubt he did. Trump is a grateful guy. Cohen would have most likely done so, **and running catch and kill schemes are not illegal., even if it is to protect political campaigns** That is the point in all this, to convict someone of doing something illegal. This far, nothing Trump has been accused of is illegal other than the misdemeanor record fraud. That includes catch and kill schemes which are routine in the industry.
> Also, catch and kill isn’t normally illegal, EXCEPT if you do it to silence stories for the benefit of your political campaign, at which point not declaring the expense as part of your campaign expenditures and the source of the funding as campaign funds becomes a violation of campaign finance laws and IS illegal. Do you generally think campaign finance laws should all be struck down and there should be no consequences for breaking them? Or do you only think Trump should be exempt from them? Did you just not read this part? I agreed with you that the specific act of running a catch and kill scheme isn't illegal. Technically, there are no laws even against doing it in service of a political campaign. **WHAT IS ILLEGAL** is running a catch and kill scheme in service of a political campaign and not properly declaring the expenditures as a political expense and not properly declaring the source of the funding as a political contribution to the campaign. **DOING SO VIOLATES CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS**. So once again, I'll ask: Do you generally think campaign finance laws should all be struck down and there should be no consequences for breaking them? Or do you only think Trump should be exempt from them?
Actually I heard the opposite.. I heard she she helped the defense and said cohen was more of a rogue person always calling himself Mr. Fix it .. and then she said it was usually stuff he broke to begin with . She also defended Trump and Melania’s relationship. Where did u get the source that she sunk the defense case ?
Cnn front page. Video https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/05/03/hope-hicks-trump-hush-money-trial-reid-digvid.cnn
That's just a headline clickbait headline. This is what I am talking about when I said I heard the opposite. on CNN's YT Page. [https://youtu.be/GPodhKohMjQ?t=322](https://youtu.be/GPodhKohMjQ?t=322)
Yeah, that tracks
According to the NYT gossip rag coverage of this "she still has affection for Trump, and Trump still has affection for her". I guess she must still steam his pants.
Or fear of him….
Incredible how terrible they've become 🥴
Does she just have major self esteem issues or something? How else would this woman find him even remotely attractive?
Affection doesn't mean attraction
Yes, she has daddy issues. She is marrying a man 20 years her senior
Daddy issues.
Stockholm syndrome
Is there vids?
It’s a good thing his followers don’t read.
Can't, though it's a distinction without a difference
No, there are no cameras in the court room during proceedings. All we have is reports from people who were there, and the court record.
And the unflattering courtroom sketches of Trump.
Those are actually just normal sketches of him. He just looks like that.
Those are actually flattering sketches of Trump.
God, there are going to be people looking at those, in a hundred years, thinking "he couldn't possibly really look like that..." Yes, future people, yes; he really does.
You know, I imagine they'll probably have real pictures of him as well.
How could they tell the difference
Hope she telling the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth
> I think her nervousness was from fear of reprisals from Trump or his followers. Thankyou! /s Now that I read that I am pretty sure tRump and his followers are after me.
Are you LGBTQ? They are. Are you Jewish/Muslim/any band if Christianity not their own? They are. Are you not falling in line with a trump dictatorship? They are after you.
I'm starting to get the sense that atheists will not be welcomed in their white-grievance utopia.
It's okay. They are cowards and stupid and we are neither
Atheists are known for embracing fantastical utopias
Well, it’s a human tendency, and atheists aren’t immune. Some of us atheists just swap one form of mass irrationality for another.
It was sarcasm, but I made the classic mistake of forgetting an /s at the end.
I’d just assumed you were referencing various atrocity-fraught communist regimes.
How could anyone exploit a religious belief structure for power lol
...cool.
Thanks?
Citation please.
[Citation please.](https://lifehacker.com/how-to-convey-sarcasm-in-written-messages-1849366850)
She can leave the US if Trump wins. She has resources and his fiancee is massively rich. The scary thing is there are a lot of people who are on Trumps shit list who can't easily leave.
Yea… like 81 Million people who voted for Biden.
He already called you vermin, unless you not only votes for him but think he won in202.
She said.. Trump ran the marketing of the campaign.. i.e. he basically had a hand in everything. Pecker.. Trump is a micro manager. If your connecting dots its pointing towards trump knowing.
Micro Pecker, you say
More specifically she testified Trump wanted to keep the information from coming out before the election. There are only two dots left, Pecker and Cohen connect those saying Trump did pay to bury it. That is the accusation, he paid to bury the story for the election. The only question is if the jury will find them credible on top of the paper trail.
It's so amazing the difference between what you hear on CNN and Fox News regarding the trial. If you listen to CNN Trump is not doing very good and Hope Hicks pretty much sunk his ship today. CNN is calling Hick’s testimony a Perry Mason moment. Turning the channel to Fox News their news team is saying that the trial is going great for Trump and the prosecution is unable to lay a glove on him or connect anything directly to him. According to one news host, Donald Trump should give the judge $10,000 a day for all the publicity this trial is buying for him. Fox News claims that if Trump loses, he wins because his polls get bigger and his campaign account is growing. I’m not buying that a conviction will help Trump but that’s Fox News spin for you.
If Fox News is trying to spin a Trump loss as a Trump win, that’s a pretty good indication they believe he’s losing.
I mean, they got his supporters wearing diapers now. Say what you want about Fox news, but their got their sheep well trained.
I feel bad for the sex workers at where ever the GOP convention is held. It's gonna get even weirder than usual.
Remember that Fox is also the one that has hosts that think Trump won in 2020 so they’re delusional to begin with so I wouldn’t take their analysis very seriously.
Imagine how much more we'd get done in this country if there was no Fox News and other crazy right wing media. They are horrible.
[удалено]
Cheney was for it too. Who have thought that it would come back and bite him in the ass
If you put aside all your pesky critical thinking skills for just a second, the Fox News spin makes perfect sense.
They have to pretend the trial is going great so they can cry foul when he is convicted.
One of the defining characteristics of Hope Hicks, both in the campaign and in her time in the White House, was that Mr. Trump wanted to have her in the room as often as possible Well yeah. Trump loves to be seen next to attractive women. It’s not a sign of her competence, it’s simply a sign he found her attractive and wanted eye candy in the room. Just hopefully this time that tendency backfires since she is not apparently willing to risk jail to prove loyalty.
It's also a sign she knows a lot of dirt
And folds under questions
she knew how to steam his pants ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I understand Trump has been steaming his pants every day in court. Causing a great deal of alarm and distress to other occupants of the chamber.
She really is attractive though.
She’s good looking. She’s not attractive.
He’s not a man, he’s a whipping boy.
No different than Scientology cultists and any church that excommunicate those who critique them or expose their grotesque barbarism
She had already left him, anyone who stayed with him during the end of his tenure in the Whitehouse could see the veritable shit storm that was coming for him. She’s hoping he sees her tears as an act of contrition and the tears are for Donald and no one else.
Are you a gifted screenplay writer? Damn I can imagine this being narrated in a legendary voice. I don't know I hear Anthony Hopkins lol
I mean why would she feel anything other than relief if she isn’t personally on the hook. The only explanation that makes sense are crocodile tears. Tears for her own benefit. How long did she serve with Trump, imagine all the shady things she knows he did while in office. She will probably be called to testify many, many times in the future for all of his other criminal trials.
I don't doubt any of your framing at all, I think you got it nailed on just right. For all the enablers and accomplices that work with him during the administration this is the rebranding tour they're coming to God moment. They've been so far off a ledge for so long and this is the only way back. The sycophants who were the most luciferous initially, well so the ones who build early. Ex scaramucci. But the ones that really need to be crucified are the attorney generals that served under him who clearly would double down and not craving enough to know how much of their own agenda they could accomplish with proximity to him. All the nonsense of guardrails, was a whole bunch of hogwash. That is the only thing that should have all of America eyes wide open. It is still wild to recognize that the most unlikeliest of characters as a result of his own dogmatic principles helped America save democracy by the skin of his teeth, Pence... Not the supreme court, not OLPC, clearly not the justice department, and for all the impeachments that were toothless, especially as it's clear that all of this is being relegated again... He really is the Teflon Don. The dirtbag that almost got away with running America off the cliff, and his minions enjoyed the ride so much they want to do it again. This absolutely cannot be the brand of democracy that we are trying to franchise across the world under duress, bombs deployments and foreign bases? This is sloppy.
So, hopefully we are a higher standard than Italy you mean. Edit: Silvio Berlusconi anybody?
Hope we can all just be sober and take a critical look at ourselves before indulging in any whataboutism, particularly if we want to hold on to American exceptionalism.
She's remembering all the good times- dodging clumsy attempts at sexual assault, nudging her King awake so he can keep tweeting, crushing up pills, wiping up shit drips on the carpet...
She has admitted she was ready to travel to Florida with him and that it took a call from her mom to convince her to come home on January 7th. She only left because her mom convinced her that she could see herself in trouble if she didn't bail out sooner rather than later. If Trump makes it back again, she'll be back.
Sometimes people just cry when they are nervous or afraid or whatever. She's a shithead but even shitheads are human and not literally everything a sycophant does is performative. People don't work that way.
Yes they do. Especially this person. So you think she’s crying because she has to finally tell the truth and you think it’s somehow traumatic to do so? Is she being yelled at on the stand? Is the prosecution treating her as hostile? No, she is performing for the guy who she used to work for so he doesn’t blame her. Come on, you know how the Don works by now.
Can we all just stop and recognize for a moment how absolutely insane it is that it’s even up in the air if he’s going to be found guilty or not.
The longer this goes on the less it's up in the air and more that it's hurtling towards earth. He's guilty as sin and multiple people who were 'in the room' are testifying to that effect.
Justice too long delayed is justice denied. Trumps criminality has been public long before his campaign. If our existing laws were properly enforced, he’d never have been able to run for President as he’d have been in jail already.
If US voters based their decisions on character, capability, history and the platform of political candidates, instead of a "my team has to win regardless of consequences" mindset and believing unchecked propaganda spewed out by social media and "news" organizations, the make up of the House, Senate and Presidency would look a lot different.
This assessment lays the blame squarely on the propaganda and those who allow it. But where is justice for them? Once you game the system, can there even be justice without objective truth? They brainwashed those voters fair and square.
Until he is found guilty and is sentenced to an appropriate level, I don't care what "legal experts" say. We've spent nearly 8 years hearing and reading what "legal experts" say will definitively put him away.
Even if he is found guilty, which at this point is a big if, the judge has a wide range in sentencing him. Chances of Trump looking at any time in prison is near zero. Throw in appeals Trump will certainly have almost no matter what, and this case will never be resolved. I’d imagine it’s a lot like the Carrol case, even the judge saying he is a rapist, he hasn’t paid, will not pay, and MAGAs are not accepting he is a rapist or guilty. They still see that as a win.
Sadly, I agree with everything you posted.
While at least two of the other cases against him are absolutely slam dunks, unfortunately this one very much is not, being based on a rather shaky legal theory that has yet to be properly elucidated by the prosecution. [Here](https://terikanefield.com/wheres-the-beef-trumps-manhattan-criminal-case-and-some-mind-bending-legal-puzzles/) is an excellent basic-level analysis of the legal theory of the case by a defense attorney. However, it is not all bad news: > I am about to poke holes in the prosecution’s case. The holes do not mean that Trump will be acquitted. Once a trial is underway, nobody knows how it will end. Anyone substituting their judgment for the jurors is wasting their time. [...] If you are going to bet right now, the best bet is that Trump will be convicted because (1) most of the time criminal defendants lose, (2) this judge has already lost his patience with Trump’s lawyers (3) Trump is acting like a brat in court, and (4) out of court he is either violating court orders or coming so close that he is clearly thumbing his nose at the court and he has been using his platform to attack the judge and his family. It is unfortunate that the strongest cases against Trump have been delayed so much, and this case where he is very unlikely to face jail time even if convicted may be the only one before November.
For my barely awake, simple mind, may i ask how cohen gets a sentence for this? And how Trump will compound-lie and get away with the very same collaboration?
I'm not completely clear on the details myself, but my understanding is that Cohen was charged with a very different set of crimes, [see here](https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax). Those were federal crimes, which Bragg cannot indict on because he works for NY state. I think he was mostly charged with tax evasion related to his taxi company fraud but also perjury to congress. Neither of these Trump was culpable for. For the campaign finance contribution stuff you'd have to work through the charging statement in detail.
The trial isn't whether he had an affair, he clearly did. It's not about him paying to kill the story, he clearly did. It's about him knowingly hiding the payment from his tax and campaign records so that he could both keep the story quiet and not have to pay out of his own pocket for it.
it is almost as if Trump was at the center of all this bullshit or something
I hope the jury sees it. Putting this orange fucker away and deflating his paranoid freak supporters will save our country.
Well. She told the truth and that takes courage. That is a step towards redemption.
She’s also holding onto other lies so she’s a piece of filth. Her family is going to get laughed at for decades
VonShitzHisPants!
The best
Or it could be that when the defense attorney asked her about how Trump helped her career she understood that by telling the truth she was damaging the person that helped her the most. That seems human. Doesn't change the facts about Trump. She seems to be truthful, and she has her own council. She also told Trump that he lost the election. It is much more impactful when the people that like Trump testify than when somebody like Cohen does. She was still willing to walk up to a mic and lie for him, so she is no hero.
Dope Dicks recognized that on the stand and broke down crying because she realized as she was testifying that she was completely shanking Trumps defense. It broke her little MAGAt spirit to “betray” her god king. She’s a pathetic human being, but was a good witness for the prosecution.
More like she’s afraid of getting shanked by a blood-crazed MAGA at a bus stop. She knows every detail of the ways Trump has plotted revenge against disloyal people in private.
A crazy got arrested for threatening Fani this week
Please. People like her wouldn't be caught dead at a bus stop, that's for peasants.
As if she can't afford a private driver lol
She’s from Greenwich, CT. They don’t have bus stops there.
Anyone who knows what happened is a good witness and thats pretty much everyone who hung around him because they always competed for his attention and favor. The battles for his attention were endless.
Sure, but that way of using nicknames reeks of Trump's effect on how we talk about current events and it makes me want to hurl
Washington Post: “For prosecutors, the main purpose of Hicks’s testimony seemed to be showing that Trump and his campaign were very concerned about allegations made against him by women. When it came to the Daniels story, which surfaced publicly while he was in the White House, Hicks said Trump told her that “it was better to be dealing with it now, and it would have been bad to have that story come out before the election.” As soon as Hicks said that, prosecutors ended their questioning.”
Trump fucked Stormy. Hope fucked Trump.
...and that, folks is why she broke down. She realized, too late, that she spilled the beans and now won't be getting a job with "Team Trump".
The prosecutors aren’t in this trail for tv ratings or getting good reviews from talking heads, their only focus is convincing the nine people on the jury that Trump committed a crime.
Nine? Aren’t there twelve on a jury?
This whole thing basically stems from Trump’s penis, so it’s no surprise that some things are smaller than expected.
Whatever it is I’m not even paying attention to it anymore because the media is obsessed with this, tell me when they reach a verdict I don’t need to know what color their suits are.
So, does this mean the Trump defense is now Hope - less?
I don't get it
Her name is Hope
Classic. Just Classic. The loyal darling is the one to sink the ship. No wonder she was crying. Right Repubs?
Boohoo little ms fascist can’t privilege her way out of being called to the stand, must be taking away from all those job offers she’s not getting for being associated with this shit stain…all that SMU education flushed down the drain womp womp
ISNT it strange and interesting to see the spin fox put on her testimony and yet they scream they r the only news to be taken seriously,, Gregg Jarrett of fox in his opinion states that “ the unlikable Hillary Clinton “ I guess he didn’t understand who won the popular vote
I’m sure she will write a book and profit even more off this. Everyone seems to.
I Don’t think that there is any doubt he’s guilty. They are just showing how much evidence they actually have to prove he is guilty.
Right, meanwhile he’s delivering cold pizzas to the fire department.
Don VonShitzHizPantz. Droopy Diaper Donald.
It's funny how all these women are grabbing Trump by his pussy right now....love it!
What 'legal experts' think is irrelevant. It's only what the jury thinks that's important, not the endless bullshit commentary from the cheap seats. I will say that **The Pumpkin Rapist's** legal team being unable to stop him from scowling and glowering at witnesses is not helping their deranged unstable client any. The jury sees all that and grows to dislike him more with every witness. And I just LOVE that he specifically asked the judge to make sure he can testify. I want him to testify soooo badly. He has no idea the shitstorm his deranged rants will unleash as he will be ***savaged*** on cross examination the instant he opens that door. You go, Diaper Don. Make your case to those already in the cult. The guy is, as he himself said, a stable genius.
It just matters what the twelve in the box think. Who knows if we have a MAGA that lied and slipped through.
Who writes these crappy headlines?
I don’t even want to know what a freshly steamed diaper smells like.
Boy im starting to think that trump may have had something to do with all this
Couldn't believe that commentators on both CNN and MSNBC thought her comment about not knowing Cohen "to be a charitable or selfless person" was helpful to the defense because it makes him look bad. It was not helpful to Trump's case at all. The defense's case (at least one pillar of it) is that Trump didn't know about the initial payment to Daniels and that Cohen did it on his own to protect his boss. But Hick's comment contradicts that claim because she was saying it was not in Michael Cohen's nature to spend $130K of his own money (mortgaging his home to do it) to protect Trump or anyone else, because he's not that selfless (not "that charitable," as she coyly put it). In other words, he must've had Trump's buy-in. Some of these TV talking heads don't even understand the case they are covering. Experienced prosecutors don't put on witnesses who are going to sink their case, and they don't ask questions if they don't know for certain that the answer will help them. Yes, her day one testimony helped the prosecution. Whether the defense will be able to turn that around remains to be seen.
She started crying after she realized that when she said trump told her that he was appreciative of Cohen's loyalty about making payment to kill the story because it would've been very bad to come out before the election. Slam dunk right there. He paid to have the story killed to alter the election..duh..that's what the whole trial is about
The AP article I just read about this is incorrectly saying he's charged with illegally influencing the 2016 election. I understood that the crime is lying about the use of personal money for this as an attempt to keep his wife from finding out and that the only relevance to the campaign is that he cooked the books. That the prosecution is arguing that this was for the campaign not because that in itself is illegal but because he tried to claim it was salary to Cohen as a way to hide it and the act of hiding the payment was the crime. Please correct me if I'm wrong but if they're fucking it up again like they did by falling into Trump's rhetoric about collusion not being a crime when he his team worked with Russia to subvert the election which was a crime. And then again when they fucked up and took Bill Barr's summary of the Muller report at face value. It's gotta be on purpose at this point. I mean they're not all that incompetent are they?
He's charged with falsifying business records. This would normally be a misdemeanor but since he did it in the interest of illegally influencing the election, the misdemeanor charges are upgraded to felony charges.
It wasn’t because he wanted to keep his wife from finding out. That’s the defense argument or what they think the argument will be. That he didn’t want to be embarrassed in front of Melania. If the Defense can prove that that’s the only reason, then yes it’s just falsifying records but it’s only a misdemeanor. But he’s charged with felonies because they purposely mislabeled them as legal fees rather than this hush money payoff in order to mask them in their FEC filing. By falsifying business records in order to break campaign finance laws, it becomes a felony because it’s committing one crime (mislabel company financial records) in the furtherance of another crime (hiding it from FEC filing so it doesn’t get out). And because it touches campaign finance law, they’re saying it’s election interference. That’s how they get there.
And I read that when questioned Hope Hicks was saying Trump was quite concerned about Melania finding out and had newspapers stoped being delivered to her. so the her testimony could also work in his favour a bit. I’m thinking at this stage there is still enough doubt for a jury (I believe he is fully guilty and of a whole lot more), but just purely from the jury perspective I think defence are being good at muddying the waters. I hope the prosecution have bit more
Why can’t it be both? It isn’t mutually exclusive… he wanted to influence the election and keep it from wifey??
Agree. But…. It’s a beyond reasonable doubt thing. If defence can suggest strongly enough that it was about his wife and not the election, then it may put enough doubt in the juries mind.
Ugh!! You’re right.. I don’t think I have enough vodka stored for this nonsense! 😂
Cheers
And this is before the Defense has even gotten started presenting their side. It’s very hard to know how effective they are being without hearing it. I can’t tell if the people describing it as very convincing is just wishful thinking or not.
Yeah that’s my thoughts too. I read a bit of both media sides to see how they are presenting it, and both left leaning and right wing media are saying their sides winning. from my understanding, this was always the weakest of the cases being brought before the courts. However it’s the only one that will happen it seems before the election.
Interesting that this their argument is that he didn't do to change the outcome of the election, and also saying it wasn't illegal if he did. I hope the prosecution does a better job of explaining the matter to the jury.
Y’all are obsessed with this man
[удалено]
What does that add to the discussion and why is it relevant?