"'Come on,' he said. 'She’s a crisis-communications professional.' She’d been terse at crucial moments for the prosecution, and generous with her praise of Trump. ('A very good multitasker and a very hard worker,' she called him.) Though she’d confirmed that Trump and his circle were worried that sex scandals would hurt him in the 2016 election, she’d also testified that Trump had asked his staff to hide newspapers from Melania when the Wall Street Journal published an article about McDougal. ('I don’t think he wanted anyone in his family to be hurt or embarrassed by anything that was happening on the campaign,' she said. 'He wanted them to be proud of him.') It wasn’t clear if her testimony had helped either side. Maybe it had helped Hope Hicks."
Writes Eric Lach, in "What Is Hope Hicks Crying About? During Donald Trump’s criminal trial, the inscrutable former White House aide was equally inscrutable on the witness stand, despite breaking out into tears while testifying" (The New Yorker).
56 comments:
Oh come on! Now they're going to pillory Hope Hicks.
All courtroom allusions, none of it addressing the substance of the "inscrutable" charges brought by Bragg.
It's all they've got.
The Regime desperately wants to make it seem like she was crying because of Trump. They wont talk about how the case has completely blown up in their face.
Trump makes women cry!
And women with daddy issues, the strongest democrat voter block now, will fall for it.
The tears were strange. I couldn't understand why the act of giving testimony on cross was causing such a strange outburst of self-pity. My guess is that she wanted to preclude the defense from asking hostile questions on areas where she knew Trump had knowledge about her that made her vulnerable.
As a male civil litigator, I know that the crying female witness is a risky proposition in the middle of a jury trial. Don't you dare mansplain, or be a meanie.
Yeah, these so-called journalists can't comprehend that people have love, loyalty and affection for Donald Trump.
Better question. Would anyone cry for Joe Biden? Jill? Hunter? KJP?
Some women... females... persons of feminine gender are more empathetic to sympathetic eyes than others.
Matthew Russell Lee's daily ebook (Amazon portal, free with unlimited) for Friday has the complete transcript and more. This is where hicks cries. It's a bit baffling to me
Prosecutor: When the Stormy Daniels story resurfaced, what next?
Hicks: President Trump told me Michael had paid about a false allegation, with him own money.
Prosecutor: What that consistent with what you knew of Michael Cohen?
Hicks: No. He was not charitable
Prosecutor: No further questions.
Cross Trump's lawyer Emil Bove: The Trump Organization created the communications position for you?
Hicks: Yes [seems to start crying]
Justice Merchan: Ms. Hicks do you need a break? [Seems so]
Jurors, please step out
John Henry
Reportage or Movie Screenwriter? Let's just imagine Robert DeNiro, (or maybe Dinero), sitting at the table!
Keeps the subscribers in suspense. Cheap Thrills.
No wonder it's only 6 bucks.
Why was she even there? The only events she witnessed was months after whatever crime Bragg is pretending Trump committed. It is almost as if Bragg saw what happened in the Weinstein case and wanted to make sure that element was in this trial for appeal.
After coming back
Hicks: Sorry about that.
Bove: You called it a family business
Hicks: Yes Trump's lawyer
Bove: You said Mr. Trump's relationship with Rhona Graff was respectful, yes?
Hicks: I really respected Rhona.
Bove: Then for the campaign, in 2015-16, Mr. Cohen wasn't part of the campaign, right?
Hicks: He would try to insert himself Trump's lawyer
Bove: Mr. Cohen was supposed to focus on Mr. Trump's business credentials - as a surrogate, yes?
Hicks: Yes.
Bove: He went rogue at times?
Hicks: He did. He liked to call himself a fixer - only because he first broke it (laughs)
Snip
John Henry
So why the crying? Is this a distraction? Like kruschev pounding his shoe on the table?
John Henry
Stress can cause crying. This was a lose-lose for Hope. She felt great pressure to not offend either side.
Trumpomisogynists.
I didn’t know Eric Lach could read minds. His only real superpower seems to be writing really dumb articles in The New Yorker for Lefty True Believers.
The outcome of this "trial" is predetermined and these assholes aren't going to let anything puncture their bubble.
I have heard that Hicks only testified for the prosecution under the threat of subpoena. I'd lean to the J L Oliver explanation. Likely a burst of emotion after completion of the prosecution questioning since it seems to have occurred even prior to cross starting.
I guess the journos prefer women who cackle under pressure.
She's inscrutable is she?
Good thing her name isn't Hope Chow...
A stupid question perhaps, but I'm not a lawyer. How is it possible to bring a man to trial, much less someone of Trump's fame and stature, without laying out in complete detail what exactly the charges are, and what code is alleged to have been violated? My mind is struggling here. How is it even possible to bring a prosecution without charges, to issue a subpeona? How is it possible to mount a defense, to pursue discovery, when the charges themselves are kept a secret? I'm wondering what part of this story I'm missing. Because it seems perfectly Kafkaesque.
We are told by all the same people who excused Bill Clinton's sexual deviancy - that actually happened while he was president - no big dead.
Now we have an International pay to play crook in the White House - protected / above the law - and we are forced by the hacks in the press and the corrupt a-holes in Biden's corrupt regime - to focus on Trump's sex life.
Alvin Bragg.
Pardon my French.
John henry said...
So why the crying? Is this a distraction? Like kruschev pounding his shoe on the table?
Trump creating that position for her was likely one of the biggest moments in her life. She was relatively unknown before that and was chosen for a position that every public relations professional in the country would aspire to. I would remember it and possibly get emotional if Musk put me in charge of building the Falcon Heavy.
An affirmation like that is going to trigger emotion.
The real question is why that question — how did you first meet Trump — caused her to break down, no? That feels like the thread to pull on here. Odd that it was left unexplored. It should be obvious. Plus size, below average looking office aide meets handsome, attractive, polite and caring boss who hires her because she is a fast typer without ever realizing that she madly fell in love with him due to his outstanding human qualities. /s
Hope Hicks of course did not and could never convict Trump with her testimony.
Her apparently candid testimony did give prosecutors evidentiary support for a key element of their case to the jury. She contributed to establishing motive.
Of course her testimony is not definitive. Just one part of the puzzle that the prosecutors are carefully assembling. Safe to say her testimony was a good day for prosecutors, and a possible source of digestive upset, or a queasy stomach, for Trump himself.
This case is about falsification of documents. The sleaziness of Trump while telling is not the illegal act, it is the falsification of documents to conceal the sleaziness that is the problem for Trump.
Republicans do not get to have "feewings".
Trump's best hire.
There are rules that apply to being taken under the wing of a powerful person.
You will get to know that person very, very well. Eventually, you will realize that the person has a flaw, likely more than one. If that flaw causes you to compromise some core value of your own, you have choices to make.
Become a willing accomplice.
Become a nag.
Become a liability.
Become an enemy
Have a frank (somewhat) conversation with the person and explain how grateful you are for the opportunities and responsibilities you've been given. Explain you're under great stress and worry that you might be in over your head and worry greatly about fucking something up. Make it clear, you want to stay on the team but you need a breather and maybe a little more seasoning.
Next thing you know, you're in the Foreign Service School over at Georgetown or shipped-off to a friendly agency to polish your resume.
It's pretty easy to ace this test but many fail badly and bitterly. Often, they end-up being used by people even more imperfect than the one that brung them to the dance.
Everyone's gonna have to serve somebody...
Hmmm? Women are often teary for no reason at all. Politicians often cry for sympathy. They feel your pain. They FEEL your pain. The NYT said politicians crying on the job is a good thing...The Paper Of Record said it so it must be true.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/us/politics/crying-politicians-leadership.html
Lies make baby Jesus cry too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJD8n7593eE
Sometimes what makes a woman cry — I can think of a few examples — is if one man has been rough with her and she's been steeling herself and then another man comes in and offers some kindness. She's been taken a little by surprise by the offer of support, and now she is free to let go.
I can think of this happening to me at least twice. I successfully avoided breaking down when something bad was going on, but then when I was offered support shortly thereafter, I cried. I think it's a path to return to normal.
Rich said...
Her apparently candid testimony did give prosecutors evidentiary support for a key element of their case to the jury. She contributed to establishing motive.
...
This case is about falsification of documents.
You repeatedly ignore that Bragg must prove two crimes for Trump to be convicted. The document falsification charge is only a misdemeanor whose statute of limitations has run. Bragg must also prove a second underlying crime which the falsification supports in order to bootstrap the charge to an active felony. The second crime is never quite specified by Bragg but appears to be the violation of an obscure NY election provision that comes pretty close to outlawing campaigning. Hicks' testimony is far from establishing a motive for this crime, has no evidentiary value whatever to the document falsification charge, and provided compelling evidence that Trump had significant personal interest in the NDA, far beyond any interest in his (well known) infidelity as a campaign issue.
It just bothers these assholes when they see their hopes and dreams to crush Trump go up in a puff of flatulence
Rich continues to descend into a pit of shit.
"Better question. Would anyone cry for Joe Biden? Jill? Hunter? KJP?"
Do tears of laughter count?
Althouse wrote: “I cried. I think it's a path to return to normal.”
My wife once asked me when did I feel happiest? Upon consideration, I responded when I wept. An admittedly strange answer, I explained that it was not grief, but the overwhelming surfeit of emotion that I experienced with certain triggers of emotional, perhaps sentimental, love. It was when I felt much alive.
One time while I was at work, my wife phoned me as she was at home watching An Affair to Remember (a film we had often viewed together).. She put the phone next to the TV as the scene played of Cary Grant discovering the painting of Deborah Kerr. She knew precisely how I would respond…and I did.
"The Regime desperately wants to make it seem like she was crying because of Trump."
Achilles gets it- all the coverage attempted two different narratives- it was Trump that made her cry or her tears were perjurious. Lach went with #2.
I read all of her testimony- it was completely irrelevant to the case such as Bragg has charged it, but was damaging to Bragg's case. The prosecutors are incompetent, not that it will save Trump from being convicted with a Manhattan jury.
Rich… you are batting .003, time for some introspection.
I don’t buy Eric Lachy.
Christopher
She had finished direct examination and been asked a dozen or so on cross. Here is the question that made her cry
Emil Bove: The Trump Organization created the communications position for you?
Hicks: Yes [seems to start crying]
Bove is for the defense
One of the first questions the da asked was if she had been subpoenad she answered yes
John Henry
Achilles,
Pretty much my thinking. She had a really great job created just for her
John Henry
Rich, can you quote the transcript where it asked how she met pedjt just before crying
Because I have the transcript and posted the question along with q&a before and after for context.
What transcript are you reading from?
Why are you posting disinformation?
John Henry
Behold the string of delusional assertions in Rich's comment at 10:47. If they had any validity, they'd be mentioned in all the evening newscasts and examined in minute detail on the op-ed page of every paper, and we wouldn't be hearing incomplete, acontextual story after incomplete, acontextual story about Hope Hicks's tearfulness on the stand.
@John henry, thanks. I interpreted your two comments with the transcript as continuous rather than separate series of questions.
'We are told by all the same people who excused Bill Clinton's sexual deviancy - that actually happened while he was president - no big dead.'
When all of the Clinton/Lewinsky stuff was going on, Bill went into a cabinet meeting and lied to everyone there.
And not a single person resigned in disgust when they knew the truth.
Democrats are communists and will do anything to gain and wield power.
"This case is about falsification of documents. The sleaziness of Trump while telling is not the illegal act, it is the falsification of documents to conceal the sleaziness that is the problem for Trump."
You can tell who has never done accounts.
1) Trump is not doing his own accounts.
2) Trump is not creating the accounts - software probably is.
So, the person doing the actual work has to choose what category and expense goes in...I know the idiots imagine Trump with a pencil writing "legal expenses" in a journal. sure, that's how you did it 1937
What happens is the accounting person will be suggested a category for expenses and the software can be set up to assign categories based on who is paid...so every month my software assigns payments to my accountant to go under 612 - Consulting & Accounting
So what do you think Trump's accounting staff is going to for payments to a lawyer?
Either it will be an automated rule, or they will select from a menu of options, for example in my software "640 - Legal Expenses"
OH THE CRIMINALITY!
> One time while I was at work, my wife phoned me as she was at home watching An Affair to Remember (a film we had often viewed together).. She put the phone next to the TV as the scene played of Cary Grant discovering the painting of Deborah Kerr. She knew precisely how I would respond…and I did.
Was your wife's boyfriend on the line with you at the same time? How would you characterize his laughter?
cremes… you rascal, you!
I’ve only had two of my trial witnesses cry on the stand. They were both very accomplished professionals whom I thought of as pretty tough. And both times I was caught totally by surprise. As it turned out, both times the sudden tears helped my case. Strange.
Quoting another, anonymous reporter who echos the opinion the writer feels won't be open about seems like low quality journalism.
And this is the mag that persists in using the diaeresis.
She was crying because Trump and his family treated her so well and now the government was trying to somehow hurt them with her testimony
Oh boy. This comment gonna survive forever. Along with Inga's "nobody knows what Mueller knows"
Chuck's pecan pie folly.
Chuck's threat to teach diminutive Greta Van Sustern a lesson by physically attacking her.
And..
Rich said...
Althouse wrote: “I cried. I think it's a path to return to normal.”
My wife once asked me when did I feel happiest? Upon consideration, I responded when I wept. An admittedly strange answer, I explained that it was not grief, but the overwhelming surfeit of emotion that I experienced with certain triggers of emotional, perhaps sentimental, love. It was when I felt much alive.
One time while I was at work, my wife phoned me as she was at home watching An Affair to Remember (a film we had often viewed together).. She put the phone next to the TV as the scene played of Cary Grant discovering the painting of Deborah Kerr. She knew precisely how I would respond…and I did.
why would anyone care what Eric Lach thinks? the MSM is dead
Maybe it was just her time of the month.
I can see weeping as a response to being involved in a trial designed to hurt people you like, particularly as partisan and unfair a trial as this one.
“One time while I was at work, my wife phoned me as she was at home watching An Affair to Remember (a film we had often viewed together).. She put the phone next to the TV as the scene played of Cary Grant discovering the painting of Deborah Kerr. She knew precisely how I would respond…and I did.”
Go bite a pillow, Rich. Have a good cry.
Post a Comment