Trump’s history-making hush-money trial begins ...(Mod Warning)

Karen McDougal
@karenmcdougal98
Follow

#Reflecting




6:55 PM · May 4, 2024
·
1.5M
Views914
Reposts
143
Quotes
6,569
Likes
101
Bookmarks




101

 

59 min ago

CNN updates:
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-06-24/index.html



A general view shows Judge Juan Merchan's courtroom at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York on March 12. Angela Weiss/AFP/Getty Images

 

The Guardian updates:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ing-tearful-hope-hicks-testimony-live-updates

 

Hick’s testimony did not achieve the gotcha moment the left was hoping for.

 

A desperate,mentally deranged, raging and ranting Trump on Saturday @ Mar a Lago also said lots of offensive things directed at his supporters.

 

From 5m ago
09.39 EDT
'Judge threatens Trump with jail over contempt'


'Judge Juan Merchan has found Donald Trump in contempt, again, for violating a gag order, and warned the former president that he will consider jail time for any subsequent infraction.

Trump was fined $9,000 last week, $1,000 for each of nine previous violations. Merchan said:

Mr Trump, as you know, the prosecution has filed three separate motions to find you in criminal contempt. It appears that the $1,000 fines are not a deterrent.

You are the former president of the United States and possibly the next president as well... but at the end of the day, I have a job to do and part of that job is to protect the dignity of the judicial system.

Merchan said Trump’s actions “constitute a direct attack on the rule of law [and] I cannot allow that to continue”:

So as much as I do not want to impose a jail sanction... I want you to understand that I will, if necessary, and appropriate.

Trump has posted repeated attacks to his Truth Social site on the jury and witnesses such as his former attorney and fixer Michael Cohen. The warning from Merchan is notable because prosecutors have not yet asked for a jail sanction.'

 

3m ago / 9:53 AM EDT
Jeff McConney is the next witness

+2
Gary Grumbach, Jillian Frankel and Summer Concepcion
Jeff McConney of JustSecurity.Org was sworn in and has taken the stand as the next witness. McConney was the longtime controller of the Trump Organization and worked directly under its former chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg.

McConney previously testified in both the Trump Corporation/Trump payroll trial in 2022 and the civil fraud trial against the former president at the end of last year.

He left the Trump Organization and was given a payout, saying he made the decision to leave the position because he was “worn out” from the legal problems the company is facing. He testified that Trump Org. is paying for his lawyer with him today.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...rial-day-12-live-updates-rcna150792#rcrd40916

 

HUH. I'm right again. @dixon76710 didn't read this

B. Preemption
Trump argues that the Indictment is preempted by the Federal Election Campaign
Act, 52 U.S.C. § 30143(a). Trump argues that the Act preempts two of the crimes that he is
charged with intending to commit or conceal by falsifying business records---crimes under New
York Election Law ("NYEL") § 17-152, and crimes under FECA, 52 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq.
(Notice ,r,r 22-24; Def.'s Br. 18-20.) Trump further asserts that the Indictment is preempted
because it alleges, essentially, that he intended to defraud "the voting public" during a federal
election. (Def.'s Br. 20-21.) Trump's arguments are without merit; there is no colorable basis to
them.
FECA' s general language, purporting to preempt "any provision of State law with
respect to election to Federal office," 52 U.S.C. § 30143(a), is defined by FECA's implementing
regulation, and the caselaw. Three specific categories of state law are preempted:
(1) State laws "concerning the ... [ o ]rganization and registration
of political committees supporting federal candidates;"
(2) State laws "concerning the ... [ d]isclosure of receipts and
expenditures by Federal candidates and political committees;
and"
17
Case 1:23-cv-03773-AKH Document 43 Filed 07/19/23 Page 17 of 25
(3) State laws "concerning the ... [!]imitation on contributions and
expenditures regarding Federal candidates and political
committees."
11 C.F.R. § 108.7(b); see also WinRed, Inc. v. Ellison, 59 F.4th 934, 942 (8th Cir. 2023) ("[The]
FEC regulation defines the statute's scope."). The regulations provide that FECA does not
preempt state laws concerning the "[m]anner of qualifying as a candidate or political party
organization"; "[ d]ates and places of elections"; "[ v ]oter registration"; "[p ]rohibition of false
registration, voting fraud, theft of ballots, and similar offenses"; "[c]andidate's personal financial
disclosure"; and "[ a ]pplication of State law to the funds used for the purchase or construction of
a State or local party office building to the extent described in 11 CFR 300.35." 11 C.F.R.
§ 108.7(c).
There is a "strong presumption against pre-emption" that applies with equal force
to FECA. Weber v. Heaney, 995 F.2d 872, 875 (8th Cir. 1993). Thus, "even with respect to
election-related activities, courts have given [FECA] a narrow preemptive effect .... " Stern v.
Gen. Elec. Co., 924 F.2d 472,475 n.3 (2d Cir. 1991) (citing Reeder v. Kansas City Bd. of Police
Comm 'rs, 733 F.2d 543, 546 (8th Cir. 1984)); see also WinRed, Inc., 59 F.4th at 943--44; Janvey
v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., Inc., 712 F.3d 185, 200-01 (5th Cir. 2013); Karl
Rove & Co. v. Thornburgh, 39 F.3d 1273, 1280 & n.18 (5th Cir. 1994) (collecting cases).
In Stern, for example the Second Circuit held that FECA did not preempt a
derivative action against corporate directors for using corporate funds to contribute to political
action committees in connection with a federal election. 924 F.2d at 474-76. The court of
appeals ruled that FECA' s preemption provision is read "narrow[ly]," even when a state law is
applied to "election-related activities," and that FECA "d[id] not preclude New York from
pursuing its independent interest in ensuring that corporate directors exercise sound judgment in
the expenditure of corporate funds." Id. at 475 & n.3.
18
Case 1:23-cv-03773-AKH Document 43 Filed 07/19/23 Page 18 of 25
In WinRed, a political action committee focused on electing federal legislators
sought to enjoin state Attorneys General from investigating potential violations of state consumer
protection laws in its fundraising activities. The investigations were centered on WinRed's use
of pre-checked boxes, in fine print, to "steer[] supporters into unwitting [recurring] donations."
59 F.4th at 936-37. WinRed argued that because it was engaged only in federal elections, FECA
preempted the application of state consumer-protection law to WinRed's federal fundraising
conduct. Id. at 938-39. The Eight Circuit denied WinRed's motion for injunction. The court of
appeals held that FECA is to be narrowly construed, and that the states' investigation in
furtherance of consumer protection is not preempted even if solicitations for a federal election
are involved. Id. at 943-44. Furthermore, the court of appeals ruled that Minnesota's consumerprotection
law, which became the focus of the case, was covered by FECA's regulations
providing that state "prohibition on fraudulent voting, registration, and 'similar offenses'" are
not preempted. Id. at 942-43. The court of appeals added that WinRed's argument, if upheld,
would result in an improper "immuniz[ ation] ... from many generally applicable state laws." Id.
at 944.
The Fifth Circuit also has held that state laws of general applicability are not
preempted, even when applied to cases involving contributions to a federal election campaign.
In Janvey, the perpetrators of a Ponzi scheme could be prosecuted under Texas law, even though
they contributed a portion of their fraudulently-obtained funds to political campaigns. 712 F.3d
at 188, 200-02. Citing authority from several circuits-including the Second Circuit's decision
in Stern-the court of appeals ruled that FECA was "construed ... narrowly" in the context of
"general state law[ s] that happen[] to apply to federal [elections] in [ a given] case." Id. at 200-
01. The court of appeals then concluded that the Texas statute was such a general law, not one
19
Case 1:23-cv-03773-AKH Document 43 Filed 07/19/23 Page 19 of 25
that "specifically regulate federal campaign finance," and that it therefore was not preempted
by FECA. Id.; see also Dewald v. Wriggelsworth, 748 F.3d 295, 301-03 (6th Cir. 2014)
(holding that state-law fraud claims concerning election-related activity were not preempted
under clearly established law); Thornburgh, 39 F.3d at 1280 (holding that FECA did not preempt
state law as to a candidate's liability for campaign debts); Teper, 82 F.3d at 995 (collecting cases
in which courts concluded that FECA did not preempt "state laws that are more tangential to the
regulation of federal elections").
Cases holding that FECA preempts state law typically involve statutes that
regulate conduct specifically covered by FECA. In Teper v. Miller, for example, a state statute
barred state legislators from accepting campaign contributions during the legislative session,
including when done in connection with a federal election. 82 F .3d 989 (11 th Cir. 1996). The
court of appeals held that FECA does not permit such limitations, which "intru[ ded]" on the
domain covered by FECA's substantive provisions. Id. at 993-99. The state statute at issue in
Republican Party of New Mexico v. King similarly imposed limitations on campaign
contributions and was therefore held preempted as applied to federal elections. 850 F.Supp. 2d
1206, 1215 (D.N.M. 2012), ajf'd on other grounds, 741 F.3d 1089 (10th Cir. 2013); see also
NH Att'y Gen. v. Bass Victory Comm., 166 N.H. 181 (2014) (holding that FECA preempted
state law requiring the disclosure of funding when conducting certain polls for a federal
election); Janvey, 712 F.3d at 201.
NYPL § 175.10 is a law of general applicability, prohibiting the falsification of
business records for a fraudulent purpose. Cf People v. Bloomfield, 844 N.E.2d 296,300 (N.Y.
2006). A violation is a misdemeanor. NYPL § 175.05. A violation with intent to commit, aid,
or conceal another crime is a felony. Id. § 17 5 .10. Any fraudulent falsification, along with an
20
Case 1:23-cv-03773-AKH Document 43 Filed 07/19/23 Page 20 of 25
intention to commit, conceal, or aid the commission of any other crime, proves the felony. The
law does not target, or make an exception for, election-related activities. There is no mention of
disclosures of campaign contributions or spending, elections, or election laws, state or federal.
Trump concedes that PECA does not preempt§ 175.10 on its face. He argues that
the provision ofNYPL § 175.10 that raises falsification of business records to a felony if there is
an intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime is preempted if the crime involves federal
elections. But violations of PECA and NYEL § 17-152 are not elements of the crime charged.
The only elements are the falsification of business records, an intent to defraud, and an intent to
commit or conceal another crime. The People need not establish that Trump or any other person
actually violated NYEL § 17-152 or PECA. People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21, 27 (2009)
(holding that the only "relevant actus reus [ under § 17 5 .1 OJ is the creation of a false entry in a
business record," which is "elevated to a first-degree offense on the basis of an enhanced intent
requirement .... "). Trump can be convicted of a felony even ifhe did not commit any crime
beyond the falsification, so long as he intended to do so or to conceal such a crime. People v.
Houghtaling, 79 A.D.3d 1155, 1157-58 (3d Dep't 2010) (upholding conviction under§ 175.10
even where the defendant was acquitted of the secondary crime); People v. Holley, 198 A.D.3d
1351 (4th Dep't 2021) (same); People v. Dove, 2007 WL 1376283, at *6 n.6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr.
27, 2007) (holding that a defendant can be convicted under § 17 5 .10 when a jury concludes that
he falsified business records "with the intent to cover up a crime committed by somebody else.").
The Indictment does not intrude on PECA' s domain. NYPL § 175 .10 is a general
law, not one that "specifically regulate" federal elections. Janvey, 712 P.3d at 201. And the
People's theory of intent under that law does not have the effect of limiting or otherwise
21
Case 1:23-cv-03773-AKH Document 43 Filed 07/19/23 Page 21 of 25
interfering with federal regulation of elections. FECA preemption does not apply. See, e.g.,
Stern, 924 F.2d at 475 & n.3; WinRed, 59 F.4th at 942-44; Janvey, 712 F.3d at 200-01.
Next, Trump asserts a preemption defense stemming from the People's reliance
on NYEL § 17-152 as one of the crimes that Trump intended to commit, aid, or conceal by his
falsifications of business records. Trump argues that this allegation amounts to a charge of
"conspiracy to promote or prevent a presidential election," and that the charge "is simply not a
crime" because NYEL § 17-152 is preempted when applied to federal elections. (Def.'s Br. 19-
20.) Trump adds, "there can be no ... intent to commit a non-existent crime." (Def.'s Br. 20.)
Again, Trump's argument is without merit.
NYEL § 17-152 makes it a misdemeanor to conspire to "promote or prevent the
election of any person to a public office by unlawful means" if at least one conspirator acts upon
the conspiracy. The statute makes no distinction between state and federal elections and does not
define the range of "unlawful means" that can be the object of the conspiracy. NYEL § 17-152
does not fit into any of the three categories of state law that FECA preempts: "law[ s] concerning
the ... [ o ]rganization and registration of political committees supporting federal candidates;"
"law[ s] concerning the ... [ d]isclosure of receipts and expenditures by Federal candidates and
political committees;" and "law concerning the ... [!]imitation on contributions and
expenditures regarding Federal candidates and political committees." 11 C.F.R. § 108.7(b); see
also WinRed, Inc., 59 F.4th at 942 ("[The] FEC regulation defines the statute's scope."). Nor is
the conduct prohibited by NYEL § 17-152 covered by any other provision of FECA. See 52
U.S.C. §§ 30104 (reporting requirements); id. § 30114 (uses of campaign contributions); id. §§
30116, 30118-19, 30121-23, 30126 (caps and other restrictions on campaign contributions and
22
Case 1:23-cv-03773-AKH Document 43 Filed 07/19/23 Page 22 of 25
expenditures); id. §§ 30120, 30124 (election communications); id. § 30125 (soft money
solicitations and expenditures).
NYEL § 17-152 is distinct from other provisions of New York's election law that
directly target campaign contributions and expenditures, and which, therefore, are preempted. In
Seltzer v. New York State Democratic Comm., for example, the New York Appellate Division
held that FECA preempted the provision of NYEL that limited the expenditure of party funds as
applied to federal elections, since FECA already "regulates the conduct and financing of
campaigns for Federal elective office." 743 N.Y.S.2d 565, 568 (2d Dep't 2002) (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Kermani v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 487 F. Supp. 2d
101, 104 n.4 (N.D.N.Y. 2006) (collecting cases and FEC advisory opinions regarding other
preempted provisions ofNYEL). FECA "occupies the field" with respect to regulations of
federal campaign contributions and expenditures. F.E.C. Advis. Op. 1995-41 (Dec. 7, 1995).
But FECA has not preempted state law entirely regarding elections, and "does not affect the
States' rights" to pass laws generally concerning "other areas" of federal elections, "such as
voter fraud and ballot theft." F.E.C. Advis. Op. 1995--41 (Dec. 7, 1995) (quoting H.R. Rep. No.
93-1438, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 69 (1974)); see also WinRed, Inc., 59 F.4th at 942--43; Reeder, 733
F.2d at 546; Dewald, 748 F.3d at 301-03. NYEL § 17-152 is thus not preempted by FECA.
Finally, Trump argues that FECA preempts any "misdemeanor or felony
[falsification] charges" brought against him because the Indictment requires the People to prove
that Trump had an intent to defraud "the voting public" during a federal election. (Def.' s Br. 20
(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hr'g Tr. 81:4-87:21.) Trump's argument is not part
of his Notice, see ,r,r 21-24; it arose only in his brief and at oral argument. Although all grounds
ofremoval must be stated in the notice of removal, and Trump's argument is therefore
23
Case 1:23-cv-03773-AKH Document 43 Filed 07/19/23 Page 23 of 25
susceptible to statutory waiver, 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(2), it is preferable to address Trump's
argument substantively, rather than to parse his Notice. And, substantively, Trump's additional
argument for preemption fails for the same reasons discussed previously: FECA does not
preempt the application of a general state law to conduct related to a federal election except if the
law, or its application, constitutes a specific regulation of conduct covered by FECA. Janvey,
712 F.3d at 200-01; WinRed, 59 F.4th at 942-43. The mere fact that Trump is alleged to have
engaged in fraudulent conduct with respect to a federal election is not a basis for preemption.
There is no colorable basis to support a federal preemption defense.
IV. Protective Jurisdiction
Trump argues that the indictment "is politically motivated" and is the product of
"state hostility," and is removable under "protective jurisdiction." Notice ,r 31. No case supports
Trump's argument; none has been cited and none has been found. Indeed, a unanimous Supreme
Court in Mesa-addressing the government's argument that a federal officer could remove a
case from state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 irrespective of whether he raised a colorable
feder

 

'George Conway: Hope Hicks ‘absolutely’ corroborates Cohen story on Trump'

snip:

“She put in Donald Trump’s mouth, the fact that he understood that those payments were made on his behalf before the election by Michael Cohen,”

“And that’s just… that’s devastating testimony. It absolutely corroborates Michael Cohen’s story, which has been corroborated in numerous respects, and it shows that he knew that when he was signing those checks with the backup that said… he was doing this at the Resolute Desk for goodness sake, that he, when he saw the backup, and the backup said ‘legal retainers,’ he knew that wasn’t true.”

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...absolutely-corroborates-cohen-story-on-trump/

 

The constant diarrhea of denial by trump supporters becomes ever more hysterical as their orange messiah swirls down the drain.
Most of their posts have become as incoherent and delusional as trump’s own demented rants.

 

While what is recounted in this video is believable and totally in character with the Orange Stain, I'd really like some corroboration, for instance, from someone who was actually there.

 

3 min ago
Question about Michael Cohen's job at Trump Org. draws laughs from courtroom


Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo is asking Jeffrey McConney about Michael Cohen.

"Are you familiar with someone named Michael Cohen?" Colangelo asks.

Colangelo follows up and asks what position Cohen had at Trump Org. "He said he was a lawyer," McConney says.

"Did he work in the legal department?" Colangelo asks. McConney paused and shrugged. "I guess so," he says, drawing laughs from courtroom.



4 min ago
Prosecutor walks McConney through business records and emails


Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo is walking Jeffery McConney through a host of exhibits, including business records and emails.

Colangelo offers the exhibits into evidence, and defense lawyer Emil Bove objects to several of them.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-n...l-05-06-24/h_22ecd2e6e04b9778592712d10e160ac4

 

2 min ago
Trump is watching McConney's testimony much more closely than many others


Donald Trump has not turned away from witness Jeffrey McConney since he took the stand.

He's leaned back in his chair but is facing McConney and watching the testimony much more closely than many others.


https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-n...l-05-06-24/h_22ecd2e6e04b9778592712d10e160ac4

 

He said it was “to avoid embarrassment”. LOL!

 

3 min ago
Jury shown McConney's notes on his conversation about Cohen's payments


The jury is now being shown the notes Jeffrey McConney took on the conversation about Michael Cohen's payments on a Trump Organization notepad.

Trump looked forward at the screen in front of him to look at the note.



2 min ago
Judge's threat to incarcerate former president is "authoritarian," says Trump's campaign spokesperson
From CNN's Paula Reid

Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Donald Trump's reelection campaign, called Judge Juan Merchan’s threat to incarcerate the former president a “Third World authoritarian tactic.”

Cheung also said the gag order imposed on Trump is “unconstitutional and un-American.”

Judge Merchan found Trump in contempt of his gag order for the 10th time Monday morning, and said he'd consider jail time, moving forward.

8 min ago
Jurors shown bank statement with Weisselberg's writing
Jurors are now being shown the bank statement with Allen Weisselberg's writing as well as a documents with the notes he took.

It is a First Republic Bank account statement for Essential Consultants LLC.

The statement lists the $130,000 wire transfer to the Keith Davidson trust made in October 2016.

The statement shows the $130,000 wire to Keith M Davidson Associates.



10 min ago
The court is reviewing an exhibit with Weisselberg’s writing
The court is now reviewing an exhibit with Allen Weisselberg’s writing. He was the former CFO of the Trump Organization.

“Did Mr. Weisselberg sometime take acute notes to record financial decisions?” the prosecutor asked.

“Yes,” McConney said.

"How do you know it’s his handwriting?" Colagnelo asked.

“I’ve been looking at his handwriting for 35 years,” McConney said.

"I kept it in the payroll book I kept in a locked drawer in my office," McConney said.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-n...l-05-06-24/h_22ecd2e6e04b9778592712d10e160ac4

 

3 min ago
Here's what's included in the bank statement with Weisselberg's handwriting


The bank statement shows the calculation of $180,000 grossed up, with an additional $60,000 bonus added together and divided by 12 months. It's in Allen Weisselberg's handwriting.

The total amount Weisselberg wrote on the document was $420,000 — the $180,000, grossed up to $360,000, along with a $60,000 bonus.

Here's more on what's included in that total:

• $50,000 to "Red Finch": The total includes the $50,000 owed to Michael Cohen for Red Finch, a line item that is for tech services, McConney testifies.
• $130,000 reimbursement: The $180,000 total is to reimburse Cohen for the $130,000 sent to Keith Davidson and the $50,000.
• $60,000 bonus: The $60,000 bonus to Cohen was "what Allen told me," McConney says. "Michael was complaining" that his previous bonus wasn't large enough, and so this was to make up for what he thought he was owed, he says.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-n...l-05-06-24/h_22ecd2e6e04b9778592712d10e160ac4

 

1 min ago
Michael Cohen had to send an invoice to get paid, McConney says


Jeffrey McConney's notes included "wire monthly from DJT," which McConney confirms meant it would be sent out of the former president's personal account.

The notes indicate that Cohen would need to send an invoice to get paid.

"If Michael wanted to get paid, he needed to send us an invoice," McConney testifies.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-n...l-05-06-24/h_22ecd2e6e04b9778592712d10e160ac4



2 min ago
Monthly wire to Michael Cohen was to be sent from Trump's personal account, McConney testifies
Jeffrey McConney said the $35,000 was to be wired to Michael Cohen monthly beginning February 1, 2017.

The wire was to be sent from Donald Trump's personal account, McConney testified.

McConney explained the corresponding handwritten note says "wired monthly from DJT."

 

2 min ago
Lawyers are at the bench after defense objects to document


Trump attorney Emil Bove is objecting to the document.

Lawyers are now at the judge's bench.

Defense attorney Susan Necheles is speaking with Trump at the defendant's table while lawyers are at the bench.

2 min ago
February 2017 email between McConney and Cohen about invoice shown in court
Witness Jeffrey McConney said it was a typical practice for employees to submit an invoice for an expense reimbursement.

The witness is now being shown an email he sent to Cohen in February 2017 reminding Trump's then personal attorney to send an invoice.

The email read:

Subject line: $$
Mike,
Just a reminder to get me the invoices you spoke to Allen about.
Thanks,
Jeff
Trump's attorney objected to the document.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-06-24/index.html

 

This testimony is bad news for the Orange Malfeasance. It demonstrates that Trump knew what Cohen’s payments were.

 

IDK?
Where did Maggie get all her info from?
Was she there?
Was the media let in?
All the major news outlets are reporting it.

The New York Times
At Donor Retreat, Trump Calls Biden Administration the 'Gestapo'
1 day ago


Politico
Trump accuses Biden of 'running a Gestapo administration' during private donor retreat
17 hours ago





https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/04/us/politics/trump-donors.html

 

min ago
Cohen submitted invoices every month for 2017, McConney testifies


The jury is now shown Michael Cohen's invoice for March 2017.

"After submitting and getting approval on this invoice request for payment...did Mr. Cohen submit other invoices?" Colangelo asks. “Yes," Jeffrey McConney says, adding that he submitted an invoice every month in 2017.



1 min ago
McConney says he asked accounts payable supervisor to pay Cohen invoice from the trust
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo is asking Jeffery McConney if he sent an invoice to the legal department following Allen Weisselberg's email saying it was "Ok to pay" Michael Cohen's invoice.

McConney says he did not.

McConney says he sent an email to Deb Tarasoff, the accounts payable supervisor in the accounting department, a few minutes later.

McConney says he forwarded the email chain to Tarasoff and instructed her, "Please pay from the trust. Post to legal expenses put retainer for the months January and February 2017 in the description."

8 min ago
Weisselberg said it was "Ok to pay" Cohen based on "agreement with Don and Eric," email shows
In a February 14, 2017, email that's being shown, Michael Cohen writes, "Dear Allen, pursuant to a retainer agreement kindly remit payment...."

Jeffery McConney testifies that he never saw a retainer agreement. He says he emailed Allen Weisselberg asking him to approve the invoice.

“Ok to pay as per agreement with Don and Eric," Weisselberg wrote back to McConney.

10 min ago
Judge allows exhibits into evidence
The objection is noted and has been overruled. Judge Juan Merchan is accepting the exhibits into evidence.

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo is now walking Jeffrey McConney through a series of emails, including Michael Cohen telling McConney "thank you for the reminder" to send invoices. McConney responded asking for an invoice so they could send him a check.

Cohen then asked for a reminder of the amount. McConney responded with $35,000, and Cohen sent in the body of the email with an invoice dated February 14, 2017.

McConney says this was sufficient as an invoice. “As long as it got approved, yes," McConney says.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-06-24/index.html

 

When is Trump gonna try and make a plea deal?

 

7m ago / 11:02 AM EDT
Former comptroller says invoice for Cohen payment wasn't sent to legal department for approval


Lisa Rubin and Summer Concepcion

Although it was typical practice for the legal department to review invoices for legal services, McConney said he did not send the invoice of the payment to Cohen to the legal department.

Upon approval from Weisselberg, McConney instead sent the invoices to Deb Tarasoff, the accounts payable supervisor, for payment from the company rather than from Trump’s personal account.

 

Never. Remember, if the jury returns even one count "guilty" he's going to appeal. A plea deal would close the appeal option permanently.

 

3m ago11.08 EDT

Colangelo is asking McConney about emails that detail Cohen’s invoicing, and his reimbursement. Cohen invoiced McConney, who checked in with Weisselberg about handling payment.

“Please pay as per agreement with Don and Eric,” Weisselberg wrote to McConney, referring to Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump, Donald Trump’s adult sons who were running the company in February 2017 after he became president.

While the invoice was cast as a “retainer for the months of January and February 2017” in these exchanges, Colangelo’s questioning revealed that this seemed like anything but. McConney testified he had never seen a see a retainer agreement or sent any invoice to the legal department.

Donald Trump’s express knowledge of the alleged illicit repayment plan to Cohen is crucial here. Starting around March 2017, for example, repayments were going to come from Trump’s personal account, not a trust that held his assets.

That month, Cohen asked McConney about the status of his latest invoice. “Yes, I’ll check status tomorrow. DJT needs to sign check,” McConney wrote.

Colangelo asked who was DJT, to which McConney said, “Donald Trump”. They “had to get it to the White House” because Trump himself had to sign checks from his personal account, McConney said.