Podcast Summary
Hope Hicks: A Credible Witness for the Prosecution: Hope Hicks, a key witness in the NY trial against Trump and the Trump Organization, provided powerful and credible testimony for the prosecution, filling an important hole in the case regarding the access Hollywood tape scandal.
Hope Hicks, a key witness in the New York trial against Donald Trump and the Trump Organization, was a powerful and credible witness for the prosecution. Unlike some other witnesses, Hicks was not biased against Trump and had her own attorney, making her testimony more impactful. Her testimony filled an important hole in the case, particularly regarding the access Hollywood tape scandal that emerged just before the presidential debate and election. The defense may have argued that she gave information to both sides, but as prosecutors, it's essential to consider their potential arguments. Hicks' testimony exuded credibility, making her a significant witness for the prosecution. Additionally, we will discuss the contempt finding against Trump, the warning of potential incarceration, and recent developments in the Mar-a-Lago case.
Hope Hicks' Testimony Reveals Trump's Knowledge of Hush Money Payments: Hope Hicks' testimony at the Trump tax evasion trial revealed that Trump was aware of hush money payments made on his behalf in 2018 and expressed relief when they were made public after the election. This knowledge strengthens the prosecution's case that Trump and associates conspired to falsify records to hide potential crimes.
Hope Hicks' testimony during the Trump tax evasion trial provided crucial insights into the motivations behind the efforts to conceal hush money payments made on behalf of Donald Trump. Her testimony established that Trump was aware of these payments by 2018 and that he expressed relief that the stories broke after the election. This knowledge bolsters the prosecution's case that Trump and his associates conspired to create false business records to conceal potential crimes, including election fraud. Hicks also emphasized Trump's desire to keep his wife unaware of the situation, adding another layer to the case. Overall, her testimony provided valuable evidence for the prosecution, particularly in establishing Trump's knowledge and intent.
Testimony on Trump's knowledge of hush money payments raises questions: Hope Hicks' testimony and new evidence question Trump's honesty over Stormy Daniels payments and Cohen's character
Hope Hicks' testimony regarding Donald Trump's knowledge of the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen's role in making them raises questions about Trump's honesty and Cohen's character. Hicks testified that Trump told her he had spoken to Cohen and that Cohen had made the payment out of kindness, but she expressed skepticism about Cohen's charitableness. Additionally, it was later revealed that Cohen had indeed told others about the payments at the time they were made, contradicting Trump's statement to Hicks. The defense's attempts to portray Cohen as a liar and a louse may backfire, as his lack of disclosure about the payments could be used as evidence of his loyalty to Trump. Another important point is that Melania Trump's reaction to the public revelation of the payments may not have been the reason for Trump's decision to make them at the time. Overall, the testimony and evidence presented in the case suggest a complex web of deceit and potential legal issues surrounding the hush money payments.
Trump's concerns over hush money payments before Access Hollywood tape: Trump may have had valid reasons to delay Stormy Daniels payments for both campaign protection and wife's reputation
During the Donald Trump hush money case trial, it was discussed that Trump's concern about the payments to Stormy Daniels before the Access Hollywood tape was not a priority for him. He attempted to avoid paying until after the election to prevent any financial obligation. This raises questions about his true intentions - was he more concerned about protecting his campaign or his wife Melania? The law allows for mixed motives, meaning Trump could have had both reasons, and the jury would not necessarily need to determine that one was the sole purpose for the payments to Stormy Daniels. The judge would likely instruct the jury that they do not need to believe that Trump didn't care about Melania or his campaign, but rather that one of these reasons was a driving force behind the payments. This understanding of mixed motives under New York law allows for the possibility that Trump had valid concerns for both his campaign and his wife.
Testimonies of two key witnesses reveal approval and payment process: Prosecution focusing on business records and fraud allegations, with testimonies detailing approval process and recording of payments as legal expenses
That the prosecution in the Trump Organization case is focusing on the business records and allegations of fraudulent activities. Two key witnesses, Jeff Makani and Deb Tarasov, testified about the approval and payment process of invoices. According to their testimonies, invoices for payments over $10,000 required approval from Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., or Eric Trump. Once approved, Deb Tarasov, the accounts payable person, would print and mail checks and invoices to the White House for Trump's signature. Makani also testified that Tarasov would record the payments as legal expenses in the general ledger without questioning the invoices. The prosecution's burden is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every single count related to the invoices, checks, and vouchers in the 34-count indictment. This process requires going through each document in detail, making the proceedings lengthy and tedious.
Payments disguised as legal fees were actually reimbursements for campaign expenses: Handwritten notes in exhibit 3536 revealed that payments to Michael Cohen for hush money and campaign expenses were falsely labeled as legal fees, leading to double payment and the issuance of false 1099 forms.
During the Trump election fraud investigation, the importance of understanding the difference between legal fees and reimbursements came to light. Exhibits 3536, containing handwritten notes from Jeff McConaughey and Alan Weisselberg, revealed that payments disguised as legal fees were actually reimbursements for hush money and campaign expenses. Donald Trump himself admitted to reimbursing Michael Cohen for these payments. The false tax documents generated from these reimbursements led to a significant issue, as they were not legal fees and generated income for Cohen, requiring double payment and the issuance of false 1099 forms. The handwritten notes in exhibit 3536 were crucial evidence in exposing this fraud, as they showed the calculation of the reimbursements and confirmed that they were not billed as legal fees. Additionally, the $50,000 payment to Redfinch for a poll to favor Trump was another campaign expense disguised as a legal fee. Overall, the cover-up part of the case involved a complex web of deceit, with payments being disguised as legal fees to keep campaign expenses off the books.
Evidence of hush money payment concealment: Handwritten notes on bank statement suggest hush money payment was not a legitimate business expense, inconsistencies in records further support this, and Trump's attorney received the documents, indicating awareness of the transaction.
The payment of $130,000 to Michael Cohen for the hush money payment was not a legitimate business expense, as evidenced by Alan Weisberg's handwritten notes on the bank statement. The notes were intentionally added to keep it as a record for the files, not because it was related to any tech services as claimed. The inconsistencies in the records, such as the incorrect bonus amount and the need for tax calculations, further suggest that this was an attempt to hide the true nature of the payment. The fact that these documents were presented to Donald Trump's attorney, Michael Cohen, and that Weisselberg did not disclose this to Trump despite their long-standing professional relationship, makes it highly unlikely that Trump was unaware of this transaction. This evidence is a significant piece of the puzzle in understanding the efforts to conceal the hush money payment.
Evidence against Weisselberg and Cohen collaboration on hush money payments is weak: Despite earlier claims, there's no solid proof that Allen Weisselberg and Michael Cohen colluded to conceal hush money payments from Donald Trump. Trump was aware of the payments as evidenced by testimonies and documents.
There is strong evidence suggesting Allen Weisselberg and Michael Cohen were not in cahoots in a scheme to hide hush money payments from Donald Trump. Weisselberg's job was at risk, and the invoices and checks went directly to Trump. Testimonies from Hope Hicks, Deborah Tarasov, and Jeff McConaughey, as well as the documents themselves, show that Trump was aware of the payments, contradicting his earlier claims. The invoices were described as ongoing work during the time period, not as a cover for hush money payments. Additionally, the gag order findings did not reveal any new information, and the focus has shifted to Florida.
Judge Garland warns Trump of potential jail time for contempt: Judge Merrick Garland issued a stern warning to former President Trump for potentially violating a gag order, hinting at jail time if he continues, emphasizing the importance of upholding the judicial system's integrity.
Judge Merrick Garland issued a stern warning to former President Donald Trump for contempt of court related to alleged gag order violations, hinting at potential jail time if he continues to violate the order. The judge expressed concerns about the implications of imprisoning a former president, but emphasized the importance of upholding the judicial system's integrity. Trump seems to be curtailing some of his speech in response, and the judge previously mentioned that fines have not been effective. Other possible penalties include home detention or a stay of enforcement with the possibility of reconsidering the sentence if Trump behaves himself. The prosecution has not yet asked for jail time, and it remains to be seen if they will request contempt findings for other statements. The lack of a trial date in Trump's Florida case, despite a hearing to set one, further complicates matters.
Dispute over Mar-a-Lago documents causing delays in trial proceedings: The Mar-a-Lago legal dispute is causing significant delays in the trial process due to concerns of potential discovery violations and evidence tampering, making it unlikely for the case to go to trial before the November elections.
The ongoing legal dispute over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago is causing significant delays in the Special Master's proceedings, making it increasingly unlikely for the case to go to trial before the November elections. The latest development involves the defense's claim that the order of documents in certain boxes has changed since they were first examined, leading to concerns of potential discovery violations and evidence tampering. The government responded, stating that this shouldn't impact the defendant, who isn't charged with mishandling classified information. However, the defense has now filed multiple motions based on this revelation. Judge Cannon has temporarily stayed the filing deadline for the CPAs section 5, adding to the case's already lengthy proceedings. With numerous pending motions and the complex nature of the case, a trial before the election seems even less likely.
Discussing Stormy Daniels' testimony and its impact on Trump trial: Legal professionals analyze Stormy Daniels' testimony and its potential impact on Trump's ongoing trial in New York. Listeners encouraged to send questions for future episodes.
As legal professionals, Mary and the speaker are constantly considering how evidence presented in a trial will impact the outcome. They are looking forward to discussing Stormy Daniels' testimony in future episodes as the trial in New York continues. Listeners are encouraged to send in their questions, which will be answered on the show. The podcast is produced by Vicki Virgolina, Jamaris Perez, Bryson Barnes, and Ayesha Turner, with Rebecca Cutler serving as the senior vice president for content strategy at MSNBC. Don't forget to follow "Prosecuting Donald Trump" wherever you get your podcasts.