"Her tears were prompted by a series of seemingly innocuous questions about her time working alongside the Trump family.... Here was a fiercely loyal former aide, whose young life was utterly transformed by her proximity to Mr. Trump.... For his part, Mr. Trump seemed to appreciate the drama of what was unfolding before him. Although he has appeared to nod off several times throughout the trial, on Friday his eyes were, for awhile at least, glued on his one-time confidante...."
From "Hope Hicks Reluctantly Confronts the Man She ‘Totally Understands’ in Court/The dramatic appearance of Ms. Hicks, once one of Donald J. Trump’s closest aides, riveted the audience. During her testimony, she blinked back tears" (NYT).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
There's no crying in lawfare.
It doesn't seem like drama to me, but I'm a guy.
I guess the real drama lies in the re-telling.
Women can call up tears in a heartbeat. BFD
Mr. Grynbaum writes like he wants a job with Harlequin.
Or already has one.
Whatever else she is, she's stunning...
"Although he has appeared to nod off several times throughout the trial,..."
"...has appeared..."
LOL
Lolololol.
Hope Hicks testifies that the day that the news broke about the Stormy Daniels payoff (WSJ, then everybody else in January of 2018), Trump told her to collect all the newspapers in the White House residence so that Melania wouldn't see it.
I was going to write, "This is like a Seinfeld episode." But it's too dumb for that. It's like a Green Acres episode.
Apparently she didn't say anything bad about Trump, or it would have been headlined. Why the hell was she called as a witness?
No wonder she cried. Her life got destroyed by the lefties just because she worked for Trump. Here she is being forced to testify in this travesty.
Hope Hicks burst into tears on the witness stand, this was the news story of the day on every outlet. The reason for it goes unsaid. Tells me that things are going very, very well for Trump.
Trump actually cares about the people that work for him and it shows.
The leftists that are attacking Trump and everyone close to him are just fascist pieces of shit. They will do anything to maintain their tribal claim to power.
Nobody is going to feel bad for you people who still support this regime. Everyone else hates you.
DJT has a worrisome blind spot for glossy pretty women. He should fix that.
This is really interesting...
The Drudge Report usually hews pretty closely to whatever headlines they are linking, as a news-aggregator. It's one of the curiously, adorably conservative aspects of Drudge's news-aggregation.
Tonight, near the top of the page, Drudge headlines "... ABOUT THAT WSJ STORY." Now; I have linked to "Deadline" just as Drudge did on its home page. The Deadline story is actually a pretty polite, mostly dry story about how, when the Stormy Daniels story broke in the WSJ, Hope Hicks supplied a blanket categorical denial. A denial that had been fed to her by Trump. A denial that is now shown in court to have been as pure a lie as anyone could imagine.
Yeah; "about that WSJ story..."
What sociopathic liar.
is it possible to leap frog paywall?
Sign up for the Trump on Trial newsletter. The latest news and analysis on the trials of Donald Trump in New York, Florida, Georgia and Washington, D.C. Get it sent to your inbox.
DJT has a worrisome blind spot for glossy pretty women. He should fix that.
"Here was a fiercely loyal former aide, whose young life was utterly transformed by her proximity to Mr. Trump..."
No. Transformed by the media reaction to her proximity to Trump and the lawfare against him in which she in now embroiled.
Bragg and his co-conspirators are shameless. They and their cheerleaders will pay a terrible price. They will not be forgiven.
The story didn't tell us anything at all useful about her testimony on direct or cross. Why was she called? What did she say? Was either side helped by her testimony? What a worthless article.
Country lawyer: Agreed, but if you'd like to know more detail, Matthew Lee of the Inner City Press blog is live-tweeting the trial.
Chuck:
Hope Hicks testifies that the day that the news broke about the Stormy Daniels payoff (WSJ, then everybody else in January of 2018), Trump told her to collect all the newspapers in the White House residence so that Melania wouldn't see it.
Sounds like grounds for dismissal. Not election spending. No?
So a pretty woman cried? Who caused it? This kind of non reporting leaves the young woman's cause for angst floating around in the air. Naturally yer average NYT reader will pin it all on The Donald.
Chuck said...
Hope Hicks testifies that the day that the news broke about the Stormy Daniels payoff (WSJ, then everybody else in January of 2018), Trump told her to collect all the newspapers in the White House residence so that Melania wouldn't see it.
You do get that this doesn't advance the claim he made the payoff to influence the election, right? Not that the reasons are mutually exclusive, just that not wanting Melania to see it reinforces that he had personal reasons for the NDA.
From the NY Post:
Hicks had been on the stand for roughly four hours displaying composure while prosecutors grilled her on her time working for the ex-president beginning in 2015 and ending in 2022 — which she said is the last time she saw him.
Earlier, Hicks told jurors how Trump tried to ensure a Wall Street Journal article from Nov. 4, 2016 detailing allegations of an affair with Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal wouldn’t be seen by Melania.
“He was concerned about the story. He was concerned how it would be viewed by his wife,” Hicks said. “And he wanted to make sure the newspapers weren’t delivered to his residence that morning.”
Later, during follow-up by Bove, Hicks explained the reason Trump didn’t want Melania to see the McDougal article was because of how much he cares and respects her.
“President Trump really values Mrs. Trump’s opinion and she doesn’t weigh in all the time but when she does it’s really meaningful to him,” Hicks said.
“He really, really respects what she has to say. I think he was really concerned about what the perception of this would be and, yeah, I know that was weighing on him.”
Hicks added Trump didn’t want anyone from his family to “be hurt” by stories that were “going on in his campaign.”
Hicks — a former teen model, who admitted to having no experience before coming onto Trump’s team — also took a jab at Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen, who is expected to be the star prosecution witness against his longtime boss.
“He liked to call himself a fixer, or Mr. Fix It,” Hicks said. “It’s only because he first broke it so he could fix it,” she added, to chuckles from the courtroom.
Earlier, Hicks laid out how Cohen was very involved in Trump’s media response denying the allegations of his affair with McDougal.
She explained that Cohen “wasn’t supposed to be on the campaign in any official capacity,” but he tried to “insert himself” anyway.
Cohen “wasn’t looped in on the day-to-day of campaign strategy” Hicks said of Cohen, adding he would go “rogue” and would do things that frustrated the campaign.
Achilles said...
Trump actually cares about the people that work for him and it shows.
...
And of course today in court, as Hope Hicks passed the seated Don VonShitzenpants barely an arm's-length away, Don spoke to his lawyers and did not acknowledge her. Nor she, him. They did not speak a word to each other; did not look at each other. zero acknowledgement.
It has occurred to me that an argument could be made that Trump was trying to influence the 2020 campaign, not the 2016 campaign--but I'm not sure that even these soulless bastards could say that with a straight face.
On second thought, I'm sure that is exactly the argument they will make. And the judge will allow it.
And of course today in court, as Hope Hicks passed the seated Don VonShitzenpants barely an arm's-length away, Don spoke to his lawyers and did not acknowledge her. Nor she, him. They did not speak a word to each other; did not look at each other. zero acknowledgement.
As "lawyer" Chuck reveals exactly how much trial experience he has.
Fake conservative Chuck pushing fake "conservative" Drudge Report
..which hasnt been conservative since Drudge sold out 6 years ago!
LOL
We have the weakest Lefties, like Chuck, anywhere on Teh Interwebs!
On one level, I feel a bit insulted on behalf of Althouse given the lefty powers that be havent allocated a higher quality of lefty troll to this site.
Lets see what happens as we get closer to November.
Chuck - 8:52 - Is that a felony?
LOL! Hicks' testimony damages the state's case, not that they had a case to damage, but it completely undercuts the D.A.'s theory that this was all a campaign related NDA.
I am starting to think this case is so ridiculous, more than one of the jurors will refuse to endorse it with a conviction. I never believed Bragg and his compatriots were this incompetent.
I don't think Chuck thinks any of this is a crime, but he is quite happy to have the Democrats destroy all faith in the justice system just to get Trump, but Chuck doesn't have the balls to admit this openly. Chuck is a cunt.
We will have to put Chuck on suicide watch (I mean, I wouldn't put him on suicide watch, but some have softer hearts than me- I would be sending Chuck the phone numbers of euthanasia support groups) if by some miracle this NY City jury acquits Trump.
@Chuck: as Hope Hicks passed the seated Don VonShitzenpants barely an arm's-length away, Don spoke to his lawyers and did not acknowledge her. Nor she, him. They did not speak a word to each other; did not look at each other. zero acknowledgement.
Of course they didn’t, they were warned by their lawyers that the Democrat scum prosecutor would slap on another felony charge for suborning perjury or witness tampering if they even locked eyes.
You miserable fucking asshole, how can you support this travesty? These fucking enemy ratfuck bastards need to be punched back twenty times harder than they dared to do to Trump.
Imagine the improvement to this site if both sides had a 6 month posting stand-down:
Delusional Chuck on the one side and Drago-i-need-to-call-out-LLR Chuck-and-Howitzer-Howard-in-every-post on the other.
I would like that blog. They should get a room, aleady.
They did not speak a word to each other; did not look at each other. zero acknowledgement.
Thought experiment: how would it have been covered if they'd exchanged a glance and a smile? How about a serious glance?
I don't care: do you?
I love her, she is a beautiful wonderful person.
I am confused
Are we talking about 2016 or 2020 campaign violation?
is the lawfare revenge for 2016 WIN or rubbing salt into 2020 LOSS
A campaign watchdog group filed a formal complaint to the Federal Election Commission . . . accusing Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign . . . of concealing payments of $7.2 million in legal fees by paying them through an unrelated shell company in violation of campaign finance law.
At the center of the complaint, from the Campaign Legal Center, is the company that received the payments, Red Curve. The company is run by Bradley Crate, who is also the treasurer for the Trump campaign. . . .
Meanwhile, the short memory of Hope Hicks was on display during her testimony in the Hush Money trial. Notably, Hicks specified that although she is testifying in the trial under subpoena, she declared that she is paying for her legal representation by unnamed lawyers. She said that she hadn’t spoken to Trump in nearly two years. So how is it that Hicks could afford to pay very high-priced lawyers - unless perhaps her lawyers could have been paid $7.2 million.
Conveniently, Just after Trump lawyer Emil Bove began his cross-examination of her, asking mundane questions already established by the prosecution such as her job description, she broke down in tears. And in her witness testimony, she had already declared that Michael Cohen was a "fixer" after he broke things first - setting up an attack against Cohen after his upcoming testimony.
Blogger Enlighten-NewJersey said...
Thank you for your recap. I wonder why the prosecution thinks Trump wanting to hide a salacious story of him having an affair suggests impropriety on his part? I guess guilty mind? But if someone was publishing any lies about me, I too would have a preference for diminishing the distribution of those lies.
If that's a crime, then what to make of government censorship with Twitter and Facebook during Covid? Why isn't Taylor Lorenz facing life in prison? Oh yeah; the desire to suppress free speech is bad, but it is not a crime unless you do it to violate individual rights. Who is doing that in this trial? That's right, the judge.
Chuck the conservative and a lawyer.
Gets all analysis of of today's testimony, upside down wrong.
Then opines that DJT, under a unconstitutional gag order, and cant even repost someone elses comments about the trial, is supposed to get up and hug a witness and whisper in her her
Every thing out of this lawyers maw weirdly sounds like some one the that has less knowledge of the law than any 10 year old that's watched 20 minutes Matlock.
That’s shit for reporting. What was the actual substantive testimony? She must not have been bad for Trump.
Great legs! Wears super cute skirts. Oh, and she was good at her job.
- Krumhorn
Yancey Ward said...
"LOL! Hicks' testimony damages the state's case, not that they had a case to damage, but it completely undercuts the D.A.'s theory that this was all a campaign related NDA.
I am starting to think this case is so ridiculous, more than one of the jurors will refuse to endorse it with a conviction. I never believed Bragg and his compatriots were this incompetent."
Given all the lefty lawyers,(so called), commenting on this site you have to wonder how the hell difficult law school is. Have any of our usual suspects legal team passed their bar exam?
Have any of them argued,(emphasis on argue),a case in front of a judge? Because the whole socratic dialog thing is not showing up here.
Roger This said...
Chuck has been banned more than once. But since he has no concept of personal honor he keeps coming back.
Lefties like to come here not to debate but to leave their steaming little mounds on the carpet and then leave.
Gadfly spinning like mad again!
Someone mentioned Matthew Lee as a good X source for information on the trial and he is
Something interesting about him is that he is publishing a Kindle ebook every day with the full transcript Plus his COMMENTARY.
The ebook is available free on Kindle if you have a Kindle unlimited subscription otherwise I think it's 99 CENTS.
I read the Thursday and Friday transcripts last night and it's a very easy format to read on the Kindle app on phone or tablet
John Henry
Search "Matthew Russell Lee" in kindle to find the transcripts in book form on Amazon
The titles identify day and witness
John Henry
Why, Shug?"
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/a4VDpJegh2U/maxresdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEmCIAKENAF8quKqQMa8AEB-AG8CIAC0AWKAgwIABABGHIgTSg1MA8=&rs=AOn4CLBT1AhMtLK8-pkdMuqiiIFtdOE4ng
Christopher B said...
Chuck said...
"Hope Hicks testifies that the day that the news broke about the Stormy Daniels payoff (WSJ, then everybody else in January of 2018), Trump told her to collect all the newspapers in the White House residence so that Melania wouldn't see it."
You do get that this doesn't advance the claim he made the payoff to influence the election, right? Not that the reasons are mutually exclusive, just that not wanting Melania to see it reinforces that he had personal reasons for the NDA.
Yes, you have a point there. But not much of one. Since the "hide the newspapers" caper happened in January of 2018, long after the the 2016 election had been successfully engineered by Trump to not include any discussion of Stormy Daniels.
And it is mostly hilarious, that anyone might think that Melania, living in a separate suite in the White House and scrolling through social media on her phone (as everyone among her staff says she did) would somehow not get wind of the national all-consuming story. I don't doubt Trump lied to Melania like he lied to Hope Hicks. He lies to everybody, about everything. But the real import of "hide the newspapers" was Trump's personally cartoonish attempt at manipulation. And it's particularly delicious to see Melania's name and dignity dragged into this mess. She's got to be thrilled about that.
Now; as for the question(s) of "Was this an idea to shield Trump's family from a scandal? Or was this a scheme to illegally influence an election?"...
First, there is the other (non-Hope Hicks evidence) that demonstrated that the timing and methodology of the payoff was ALL ABOUT the campaign, and not Trump's family. Then, there was Hope Hicks' emphatic confirmation that Trump knew about the payoff and that Trump cannot now claim that he didn't know about it. Hope Hicks was extremely valuable, confirming what others said where they overlapped.
Chuck - Now Do Hunter Biden's actual pay-to-play schemes using his father's VP status.
That you think an affair that may or may not have happened with a porn star is of any consequence - makes you look like every other MSNBC Adam Schitt a-hole.
How damning was Hope Hicks' trial testimony? Now that we have the Friday transcript, we know better.
It was reeeaally damning.
https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1786861179370922054?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Post a Comment