Opinion: Hope Hicks’ testimony was a nightmare for Trump

Are you following the trial? Do you share this opinion? Was her testimony in your opinion bad for the defense?

Opinion: Hope Hicks’ testimony was a nightmare for Trump | CNN

Another devastating blow came at the very end of Hicks’ direct testimony when she revealed a stunning trifecta: that, while president, Trump had admitted to her that he knew his then-fixer Michael Cohen had paid Daniels, that Trump attempted to blame Cohen and that Hicks did not believe him. She also stated that Trump felt it was better to be dealing with it after the election than beforehand. She appeared so distraught — presumably about throwing her former boss under the bus — that she then began crying.

When I took Hicks’ testimony for the impeachment proceedings, I found her to be a compelling witness, and the same was true Friday. The jury ate her words up, with even those who usually take close notes neglecting their pen and paper in favor of watching her.

The only person in the courtroom who was not consistently attentive was the one who had the most at stake: the defendant. Trump appeared to nod off repeatedly, including during Hicks’ testimony about how she first learned of the Daniels story. It seemed to me that he was doing more than just, as he claimed, closing “my beautiful blue eyes” to “take it ALL in!!!” Asleep or awake, for Trump, Hicks’ testimony was a nightmare.

 

Trump is finding it hard to convince witnesses to lie for him under oath.

It will not be easy for Trump to convince anybody that Hope Hicks is part of some "conspiracy" to elect Joe Biden. Certainly not the jury. And this being his ONLY hope (no pun intended) for a defense, it's clear that this was definitely a nightmare testimony for Trump.

During the impeachment, the allegations were that her testimony was taken out of context. That won't work in the trial.

On the other hand, we should keep in mind that she deserves no sympathy. She worked with Trump to hide his crimes. Now she risks going to prison for being part of the conspiracy.

 

Funny because two news agencies covered it and both reported the opposite .

Fox - Hicks testimony destroyed states case
Cnn- Hicks testimony made Trump look really bad!

 

Hick's testimony made Trump look good and Cohen look like the lying idiot he is... Your OP is disingenuous and not to be believed...
" he knew his then-fixer Michael Cohen had paid Daniels, that Trump attempted to blame Cohen and that Hicks did not believe him." is not what she said...

 

When telling the truth inadvertenly or otherwise hurts the indicted/defendant, you really have to wonder why some want that "person" to be given a pass above all the difference they have already been shown.

The jury will have the final say sans all the spin. He only needs one sympathetic ear on the jury but they have their judgement to rely on.

 

That's what happens when you listen to news agencies instead of following what they actually SAID.

The fact that Fox has been JUDICIALLY sanctioned for repeatedly and knowingly lying to favor Trump, should have provided a clue.

 

You guys live on a completely different planet and continue to sink lower and lower in polls and popularity. You guys have the credibility of big foot hunters with only the wackos believing at this point.

 

That's the problem. Because if the jurors understand that the witness who wanted to make Trump look good ADMITS that it was "the boss" who was in charge... that means Cohen is telling the truth.

 

Us "guys" don't matter. What matters is that Trump gets closer and closer to going to prison.

Attacking us "guys" is not going to help him avoid that. But it does signal that the MAGA side is becoming more and more aware of the inevitability.

 

Go to prison for what? It’s not a crime to pay hush money to someone, remember when Bill Clinton did it?

 

He's not being charged with paying hush money. If you want to start understanding what the case is about, you probably won't by watching right wingnut media. You'll have to shift to REAL news media. Or you can look for the indictment of the convicted criminal. It's online... somewhere....

Oh... and Bill Clinton DIDN'T do it!

Actually, never mind that. What I wanted to ask is... who's Bill Clinton?

 

I understand what the case is about. This case is taking bookkeeping entries that may have been misdemeanors and which are also expired, and not charging them as one ultimate crime, they're being charged individually to stack up the crimes. Then Bragg is saying this is some kind of election violation. Oh, and this case was looked at by the feds and Bragg's predecessor and none of them did anything with it.

But since you're saying Trump is not being charged with paying hush money, then what purpose was served by ALL the testimony so far? What was the point of the National Inquirer testimony?

 

NY election law interference is a felony when combined with NY State fraud.

 

You just said you thought it was about paying hush money. So clearly you don't!

They ARE misdemeanors. A misdemeanor is a crime. Depending on the ulterior motive, they might even be a felony. That will be up to the jury. What Bragg says is irrelevant. Only thing that is relevant is what he PROVES. And YOU have just acknowledged that he committed a crime. So that's all we need to put him in prison...

To establish motive. The crime of altering records has already been established, but the motive might be relevant to the length of the sentence.

Bottom line: you're defending a criminal. I guess in your mind Biden is (somehow) worse than a criminal. So maybe you can somehow justify to yourself voting for him. But defending him is like... descending to his level. Which reminds us of the phrase "everything Trump touches dies". And that includes his supporters.

 

The best question of the day for Hicks was the final one, and the one the jury will continue to ponder over the weekend.

Remember, the Grand Jury Indictment is supposed to spell out what Trump is being tried for.

'On cross-examination, the Times reports, Trump lawyer Emil Bove asked, “While you were focused on your job at the White House, you didn’t have anything to do with the business records of the Trump organization 200-plus miles away in New York City, did you?” Of course, Hicks did not. Bove’s rhetorical purpose was to send the jury home for the weekend with the realization that this criminal trial has now been going on in earnest for two weeks, yet that was the first time a witness has been asked about the business records — you know, what the trial is actually supposed to be about, at least according to the indictment.'

The entire case is a desperate farce to fix the election and keep Trump off the campaign trail.

'Most criminal cases in the United States do not take two weeks to try. To get to this stage of the proceedings and still have the subject matter of the case unaddressed is . . . highly unusual.'

Corrupt 'Judge Merchan has helped prosecutors frame the trial as a “conspiracy” case – specifically, a conspiracy to steal the 2016 election by suppressing politically damaging information (allegations of extramarital affairs), supposedly in violation of federal campaign-finance law.'

• 'There is no conspiracy charge in the indictment,
• There is no such conspiracy statute in New York law,
• Bragg has no authority to enforce federal campaign law,
• The statute actually charged in the indictment gives him no such authority under New York constitutional law,
• Even if Bragg arguably had jurisdiction to enforce federal campaign law – the so-called hush-money payments charged (based on lawful non-disclosure agreements (NDAs)) were not campaign expenditures for which that law mandated disclosure.'

'These points may end up being more germane on appeal – which, if Trump gets convicted, could take a year or more to process.'

https://archive.ph/ws5rv#selection-849.64-889.165

And that's the rigged game here. Get a conviction in the hopes that by endlessly referring to Trump as a "Convicted Felon' in a fixed trial before a biased jury, they can shift the election toward Biden a few points, and rig two in a row for FJB.

If Americans perceive these proceedings as unjust, an unjust conviction will have less impact.



57 to 43 Crucial Independents, who will pick the winner of the presidential race, see this as Dems using the legal system in a biased manner to take out an opponent.

More interestingly, Dems have yet to pick up on the fact that this isn't a good reflection on them.

 

Stormy's lawyer says it is neither hush money or a payoff...

Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniels lawyer: "It was not a payoff. It was not hush money. It was consideration."..... A fundamental aspect of contract law. Also "bargained-for exchange." This means that both parties are getting something that they've agreed to.

It would be Merchan's responsibility to make sure the jury understood that neither payoff, hush money, or consideration are not illegal in the first place.

 

He's not on trial for the paying Stormy, he's on trial for potentially having used campaign funds to do it. THAT'S what is illegal. Whether he did or not, I have no idea, I don't follow this particular case as honestly, it's kind of trivial. This nothing compared to what he tried to do in Georgia or his role in instigating Jan 6th with all his lies and fantasies.

 

New York STATE DA Bragg has no jurisdiction over federal campaign laws.... ask the FEC if it is illegal, the federal government agency that does have that responsibility, and they have already declined prosecution... so, Trump was never indicted nor convicted of federal campaign laws in the first place......

 

He's on trial for NY state business expense fraud and combined with/in furtherance NY state election fraud which bumps it up to a high crime.

 

Opinion: Hope Hicks’ testimony was a nightmare for Trump

Pretty much any honest recounting of Don's criminal activities would be.

 

And, for what feels like the 1,000th time, Trump is not on trial for paying "hush money". He's on trial for paying hush money that helped his campaign and thus should have been categorized as campaign funding but instead tried to hide it as a "retainer" to Cohen when it wasn't that either.

The charge is falsifying business records.

 

How so?

 

She probably won it for him, nothing you posted is of any merit.

She said he was worried about Melania and his family. For this to even begin to be an election finance violation, over which Bragg has no jurisdiction, it would have had to have been SOLELY to for the campaign. Not mostly, SOLELY. THAT is the KEY take away and it was devastating to the prosecution.

 

How do 2017 documents have anything to do with the 2016 election? It was consideration...... Also "bargained-for exchange." This means that both parties are getting something that they've agreed to.

 

Hint it didn't do any such thing. In fact it painted cohen as a lying asshat he is.