Thread by @meghanncuniff

Stormy Daniels is to take the witness stand again at 9 am for continued cross-exam from Michael Avenatti in Avenatti’s wire fraud and ID theft trial over her book deal money. The trial is speeding along here at the Moynihan courthouse; prosecutors expect to rest by Monday. ⚖️🧵⚖️

Regarding the end of testimony from Sean Macias, the lawyer who introduced Stormy to Avenatti, I’m wondering if @RonaldRichards’ ears were ringing about 6:25 a.m. California time yesterday, because Macias told Avenatti the only trial-related tweet he’s seen is one of Ron’s. 👀

The jury was already late being called in because of legal talk, then we were waiting on Macias. Furman was not having it. “I would like the witness,” the judge said. 
“Your honor, I understand he has just gone to the restroom,” an AUSA said. Fortunately Macias soon returned.

Here in the Southern District of New York or at least Furman’s court, there’s a smacking sound like the clerk smacking the door or something like that, then a “JURY ENTERING!” shout and in files the jury.

Avenatti’s first question to Macias was if he’d seen press reports about the trial overnight, and he said he hadn’t. Avenatti asked about social media, and Macias said he saw a post “with my name on it from Ron Richards.”
“Did you read it?” Avenatti asked.

“Yes,” Macias said. He said he saw several he hasn’t read. Avenatti asked how, and Macias, who’s a character, answered, “I guess I just looked on my phone and they were there. I can’t explain it any more than that. That’s pretty detailed.”

Macias said someone sent him @RonaldRichards’ tweet, “and it had a letter from Dalack to the court.”
“The post with Richards was Friday,” Macias testified.

At one point Macias spoke of the stress of his situation: “I have to face my old friend. I have to be here. There’s a lot going on.” He kept on going after a sustained objection which Judge Furman did not appreciate. “Mr. Macias! Mr. Macias!”

Avenatti then tried to start hammering Macias, his old friend and the current divorce lawyer for his second ex wife, about whether his home or office had ever been raided by the feds. A seemingly offended Macias was adamant: “Absolutely not.”

For some unstated reason, there was no objection, but a scorned Macias would pause and look at Furman after the question: “Can I answer?” The judge is just like, uh, yeah, of course you can, and Macias retorts to Avenatti: “Absolutely not.”

Avenatti: “Is it your testimony that your locations have never been searched…” And Furman called a sidebar, which means the attorneys and the court reporter go up with the judge to a corner in the courtroom and talk.

At least in the SDNY (and superior court in Spokane County, Washington), white noise plays in the courtroom so they don’t have to whisper yet no one in court can hear them.

Avenatti then gets back to the clear plastic-enclosed HEPA filtered. Mr. Macias, he says, “What is a legal malpractice lawsuit?” Furman sustains an objection to Avenatti asking if he’s ever been a defendant in a legal malpractice lawsuit.

Then Avenatti asks Macias what an expert witness is, and if he’s careful when eh selects them, and the point ends up being that Macias once hired Avenatti as an expert witness in late 2018. “ISN’T IT TRUE?”

Avenatti then asks Macias: “Who is Mel B?” And Macias is just so dramatic in his answer, like he just cares for Mel so much and doesn’t want to be talking about her like this. Oh, he’s not sure he can…Furman tells him just answer the question. She’s a Spice Girl.

An iconic rockstar. Beautiful lady. And he says it just so dramatically and wistfully. The courtroom was loving it (though maybe not Judge Furman). One thing Macias would say: “You gotta give me a beat” if Avenatti was pushing him too much on answers.

Later, in cross of SDNY USA investigative analyst Enrique Santos, there was a moment that really harkened back to the California trial and Avenatti having the client victims do math on the stand, sometimes with the aid of the calculator on the court clerk’s iPhone.

Avenatti asked Santos, “Would you like a piece of paper maybe to write them down?” And Furman said, “Just ask your question, Mr. Avenatti.”

The judge continued sustaining all objections to any question about not being asked to look for certain things and other questions about the integrity of the investigation, and repeatedly told Avenatti to move on and that he’d covered the topic already.

Then the judge would start saying “sustained” when there was no objection. “Sustained. Next. Line. Of. Questioning. Please.” “A couple more questions, Mr. Avenatti.”

Avenatti was only about 15 (10?) minutes into cross of Stormy when court ended yesterday, and he’s had all night to prepare, so it should be an interesting morning.

Furman already got ticked at him for trying to ask Stormy something like, if someone were to tell this jury I told you I’d work for $1, that’d be untrue?

An obvious reference to Macias’ testimony, who actually said Avenatti told HIM that, not Stormy. There were multiple questions about it and Macias would not back down from his testimony, so there was kind of immediate courtroom outrage when Avenatti brought it up again.

If this were California, prosecutors would have said “misstates the testimony” when objection, but the prosecutors here don’t state a reason, they just say objection. And it was swiftly sustained.

Avenatti then asked Stormy if she prides herself as always telling the truth, and she said yes. He then launched into all the stuff about paranormal activity, asking her about talking to dead people and having X-Ray vision, and a doll named Susan that talks.

“Susan speaks to everyone on the show. She’s a character on Spooky Babes,” Stormy answered.

Prosecutors could very well rest today. If not, definitely Monday. Furman asked Avenatti at the end of the day yesterday about whether he’ll testify, and said something about maybe he could write down his questions for himself and have a standby counsel ask them from the lectern

…as he’s on the witness stand, which is quite a concept. But that’s not final yet, and Avenatti hasn’t yet said if he’ll testify.

Judge Furman noted at the end of yesterday, “I know there’s a storm coming, no pun intedned” and said he’s monitoring the forecast so everyone can get home, so I guess that means we could break early today.

Remember, as the sign on the courtroom door says, use of cellphones is “STRICKLY” prohibited, so I’ll be checking this lifeline with security in exchange for a numbered metal token once I head in. Look for updates later. ⚖️🧵⚖️

I’m going to have to share a bunch of updates at the end of the day because time is so tight right now, but Michael Cohen is in court today watching Avenatti cross-exam Stormy and Judge Furman has totally shut down the Tabs stuff, calling it a “red herring.”

Furman also gave Avenatti until tomorrow to comply prosecutors’ subpoena for
server data. He said Avenatti has had it since September, prosecutors still don’t have it and he needs to hand it over in whatever form he has. Furman indicated there will be consequences if he doesn’t

Alright they finally got out die the day, with St Martin’s Publishing’s Elizabeth Beier due back Monday at 9 to finish direct exam. Avenatti said he’s strongly leaning toward testifying, which means a standby counsel will be reading him questions that he wrote.

I’ll expand on this, but Avenatti is refusing to sign a stipulation regarding his @StateBarCA status and duties, so prosecutors are talking about entering the stipulation from the Nike case. They always want to question Avenatti about his Nike convictions if he testifies.

Prosecutors also say the California charges are fair game, so Avenatti told Judge Furman he’ll call the client victims in California as his own witnesses in this trial if prosecutors mention them at all in their cross of him.

Highlight today was AUSA Robert Sobelman’s first question to Stormy on re-direct. To set the scene, Sobelman is one of those glasses-wearing guys who should be described as “bespectacled.” Kinda science teacher like, with a clear, calm, concise approach.

Sobelman started by reminding Stormy of Avenatti asking her in cross-exam about all the people she thinks have fucked her over. Then his question to Stormy is, “That week, did you learn who was fucking you over?” Uh, wow.

Avenatti objected as argumentative and Judge Furman sustained, and Furman seemed at least a little annoyed that Sobelman went there. So Sobelman asked Stormy what she learned that week, and Stormy answered she learned Avenatti was lying and stealing from her.

Morning began with Michael Cohen, Trump's ex-fixer who paid Stormy the hush money, sitting in gallery chatting with reporters. Why was he there? "Everybody needs some entertainment," he said. Courtroom sketch artist Jane Rosenberg turned around to sketch him, which Cohen enjoyed.

"I should have worn my Mea Culpa sweatshirt," @MichaelCohen212 said as Rosenberg went to work, referring to his podcast. "Is my hair OK?" Cohen joked with Rosenberg that she shouldn't get paid as much because he's wearing a mask so she doesn't have to draw as much.

Cohen stood and walked over to see what Rosenberg was coming up with. "Ohhhh," he said approvingly. He also told reporters, "I've been working on my humor" and "this has been one hell of a journey," apparently referring to his disbarment, felony convictions and imprisonment.

The two sketch artists that have been here every day told me this is one of the only trials in which they haven't been able to sit in the front row. The front row is for the defense, and there are two women who sit there and talk to Avenatti during breaks.

When Avenatti got in this morning, a reporter point-blank asked him, "Mr. Avenatti, do you have two girlfriends here?" And he replied, "No, I don't have any girlfriends here." So it's unclear who these women are blocking the sketch artists' views.

Judge Furman got on the bench and addressed this filing from Avenatti regarding law firm server data he believes qualifies as possible exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland case law. Furman called the filing "frivolous." bit.ly/32GNeAR

It appears from the filing and a transcript request that was made in the bankruptcy case that Avenatti got the transcript from that subpoena hearing the other day with Judge Clarkson in Orange County, and he tried to lay out for Furman a dire situation in terms of Brady material.

Furman reminded Avenatti he's got an order coming out soon about how New York and California prosecutors aren't same unit, and he emphasized the SDNY prosecutors do not have the server data, but Avenatti has had it since September.
"The motion is deemed frivolous," Furman said.

As I said earlier, Furman also granted SDNY prosecutors' motion to compel Avenatti to comply with their subpoena for server data. There was a chance they'd rest today (they didn't), so Furman told them he'd keep it open for them to introduce the Tabs data from Avenatti on Monday.

Furman said he knows Tabs data caused Avenatti's mistrial in California, but he believes it's totally irrelevant here. "This action is totally different," the judge said. "This is a red herring. A distraction. Smoke and mirrors. I don't know what metaphor you want to use."

Furman repeatedly said it's not prosecution's job to "do the defendant's work for him" which makes me wish I could pick his brain about what happened in California because i'm betting he might say the same things regarding what happened with Tabs and the reopened search warrant.

More from Furman on the Tabs front: Avenatti disclosed to SDNY prosecutors a PDF this morning w/ 5,000 pages of PDFs in response to their subpoena, but they said today it wasn't everything, which prompted Furman's order that Avenatti has to release everything by 3 p.m. tomorrow.

"We don't have access to the data, your honor, and that's the problem," an AUSA said. Furman: "The bottom line is it's been three weeks," re: Avenatti's time to comply with the subpoena. "Frankly, I just don't understand why you haven't been able to," the judge said.

So, tomorrow by noon EST. "If you fail to do that, we'll discuss what the consequences are," Furman told Avenatti this morning. (AUSA Sobelman also briefed Furman on the situation in bankruptcy court with Judge Clarkson not letting the trustee comply with the subpoenas.)

The jury got in and Furman reminded them Avenatti is not testifying when he asks questions, then Avenatti resumed cross of Stormy, soon launching into a clench-jawed line of questioning about comments she made about wanting him to get raped in prison.

In a 2019 podcast, "You stated that I was quote fucking myself pretty nice and hard and when I go to prison there will be a long line of people to ass rape me." Furman overruled the objection, and Stormy answered: "I don't deny it. I don't remember."
It was profane stuff.

"What does it mean to drop the soap?" Avenatti asked.
Stormy called it a "gay" term regarding prison sex. Avenatti: "If they drop the soap another inmate may anally rape them?" Host said over and over and over. Stormy agreed, "didn't you?" Avenatti asked.
"I did" Stormy answered.

I'll spare you more of this, but Avenatti eventually shifted to asking to her about weird stuff she said happened in her New Orleans home. Unexplained sounds, voices that "invaded your life and your relationships." Stormy: "These are on the Spooky Babes website."

Avenatti asked if she's still obsessed with house and Stormy answered, "I want answers, yes."
"I want to take a minute to ask you about Susan who you claim is a haunted doll."
Stormy was not concerned when Avenatti listed the doll's purported abilities, saying it's all online.

This was a bit surreal after all the @MichaelCohen212 chatting this morning, (who btw said hi and he was glad to see me again after our chat outside the courthouse on opening morning.)
"You know who Michael Cohen is correct," Avenatti asked.
"Of course," Stormy answered.

"And Mr. Cohen is here today, isn't he?" Avenatti asked
"I saw him when I walked in," Stormy answered.
Furman sustained AUSA Sobelman's objection.
Avenatti asked if what she's said on @MichaelCohen212's podcast has been truthful. Stormy: "Absolutely, to the best of my knowledge."

One thing about Furman with Avenatti: He is picky about striking things from record. Avenatti is vigilant about asking judges to strike extra comments that go beyond the scope of the question, but Furman often says "Let's leave it as it is. Next question" if it feels too petty.

"Have you ever claimed that you didn't pick me and you had no choice but to hire me?" Avenatti asked.
"Yes," Stormy answered.
"Is that true?" Avenatti asked.
"Yes," Stormy answered.
Stormy said no other lawyer would take her case without a lot of money paid up front.

Avenatti asked her about his firm arranging for a lawsuit over her false arrest in Columbus, Ohio.
"It's a compound question, Mr. Avenatti. Break it up," Furman said.
He gets into how she got a $450k settlement, but Stormy answers it was Clark Brewster @cbrew1 who did that.

Stormy admitted to lying about not taking any money person from the online legal account fundraising Avenatti had, after she got $20K, which she insisted she didn't buy a truck with.

Avenatti asked about $100k paid for what he said today are actually TWO videos of Stormy on eve of @60Minutes appearance. One from Bubba the Love Sponge (radio host) and another from a polygraph examiner in Vegas.
"No. This is the first time I've seen this accounting."

The sustained objections increased as cross continued, and Stormy got in some retorts like saying she wanted Avenatti to stop giving interviews "so that I could tell my story instead of you telling it for me."

Avenatti revealed through questioning he's been "trying to find Mr. Nicks" aka serve him with a subpoena, but questions like "where is Mr. Nicks" just kept getting sustained.

Furman did instruct Stormy several times to just answer the question. But sustained objections with Avenatti were the judge's most visible move, or more so him saying "sustained" w/o an objection. Once, Avenatti was mid-question and Furman cut him off by saying "sustained."

Lots about Avenatti ghostwriting statements. "Didn't you tell the New York Times that watching me work was like watching the Sistine Chapel painted?" "That's that you told me to say," Stormy answered. Also, Avenatti slipping his way into Stormy's @voguemagazine photo shoot.

During break, Avenatti complained to Furman about sustained objections over Stormy's experience of other fee contracts, which judge replied was dealt w/ in a pretrial ruling. This prompted Furman telling Avenatti how issue here is *not* Stormy's state of mind regarding contract.

"It's your state of mind that matters. Not Ms. Daniels," Judge Furman told Avenatti. Doesn't matter what she thought contract meant, or how she interpreted it. It's all about him. "Full stop," the judge said.

There was line from Stormy about "it was NOT romantic" when Avenatti asked her about a romantic relationship w/ Trump, and her emphatically denying any relationship or affair.
"I don't consider getting concerned when I come out of a bathroom ton be having an affair," Stormy said.

After the lunch break, things got a little edgier with Furman's requests to move on, once specifying that moving on to a new question meant moving to a new topic. There was also this, "Let's get to the point, Mr. Avenatti."

"Ms. Daniels, do you stand behind your testimony so far?"
Sustained objection
"What percentage is reasonable for all the work I did for you."
Sustained objection
"Ms. Daniels, when you do work, do you get paid?"
Sustained objection
"Are you coming to a close soon, Mr. Avenatti?"

The final question of cross: "After you left here yesterday, were you able to locate anything that proves I agreed to never take a portion of your book deal?"
Objection sustained.
Avenatti has no further questions for Stormy.
It was 2:10 p.m. at 500 Pearl St. in Manhattan.

That's when we got to AUSA Robert Sobelman and his epic "that week did you learn who was fucking you over" question that prompted bit of outrage from Furman. Stormy later said she learned Avenatti filed defamation lawsuit against Trump through Twitter, after she told him not to.

Sobelman established that Stormy blames Avenatti for $300k fee award against her in the Trump defamation lawsuit. He went over messages from February 2019 when shit was really hitting the fan between Stormy and Avenatti, showing how long she'd been waiting for third payment.

He asked if Stormy ever told her he'd taken the payment, and no, of course he hadn't, and re-direct was over at 2:15 p.m., aka five minutes after it started, following what by my math was about 5 1/2 hours of cross by Avenatti. Furman specified re-cross would be very brief...

Avenatti asked as his last question ever to Stormy: "If you never wanted to pursue the defamation case" why did she keep pursuing it? (@cbrew1 has it on appeal to 9th Circuit)
Objection sustained.
"Thank you, Mr. Avenatti. You can have a seat," Judge Furman said.

Elizabeth Beier of St Martin's testimony prompted Avenatti to tell Furman: "I can state unequivocally" he's going to need to recall Luke Janklow of @JanklowNesbit to the stand to refute some of what she said, but Furman hasn't decided on that yet.

Judge did immediately shoot down Avenatti's request to get his rejected expert about messages search on the stand. Stuff about Avenatti refusing to stipulate to @StateBarCA basics is interesting because of Nike case in there's a similar stip in that case prosecutors want to use.

Judge said Avenatti is better off stipulating "so there's no other suggestion that you were a participant in another proceeding." That reminded me of what happened in the California trial last summer and the "another matter" talk. bit.ly/3yf4lo1

Avenatti said he doesn't want this to be a bar hearing, and Furman assured him it isn't.
"You are not being tried criminally for your violations of the California bar rules," Furman said.

Avenatti said @StateBarCA rules don't apply here, but Furman said requirements such as ethics and continuing legal education "are arguably relevant."
Regarding Avenatti quantum meruit contract argument, Furman noted he's more familiar with New York contract law than California.

Furman really doesn't think it applies here, but "the landscape could change dramatically if Mr. Avenatti testifies." He thinks briefing would be helpful. That's when the talked began about what will happen if Avenatti testifies regarding his @Nike extortion convictions.

Avenatti told Furman he assumes the judge doesn't want to turn this into a retrial of Nike, and Furman replied, "you're certainly right about that." But if prosecutors mention his convictions, he wants to mention his appeal.

Then Avenatti issued the ominous warning about calling the California victims if prosecutors say anything about that case. (He did not mention that @USAO_LosAngeles' Brett Sagel told Judge Selna the other month that victim client Geoff Johnson may have to testify from a gurney.)

"If they want to open the door to what happened in California...This trial is going to be much longer," Avenatti told Judge Furman.
(Furman didn't indicate whether he'd grant motions to quash those subpoenas if the California victims file them.)

Regarding Avenatti testifying, he said he'll probably have either Giwa or Dalack question him, not sure if they want to. Furman said he can probably order them to do i but Avenatti should ask first, and Avenatti said, "actually I'm thinking you have a better shot."

Which reminds me, Dalack wasn’t in court yesterday, but he was there today. He and Avenatti walked out of court together and Avenatti told reporters he’s a “helluva lawyer” and they palled around.

“How you do you feel about Me. Avenatti?”
“I feel very good about him,” Dalack said.

Regarding the 9-3 with one 45-minute break schedule, Judge Furman has lightened up after those two jurors made the mistake of needing go to the bathroom after sitting for 2 hours after lunch on Wednesday.

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/status/1486687712396689408

There was an afternoon break on Thursday, which was unexpected and made me wonder if he'd caught a juror about ready to fall asleep. They're all paying attention from what I can tell, but I've seen judges in California do the sudden "everyone get up and stretch!" to thwart naps.

Then today Furman got really soft and announced in morning we'd be taking a break at 11 a.m. for a few minutes. And it's a good thing he did, because even Stormy had to use the restroom. But he cut the lunch break by five minutes to make up for it because life is a zero-sum game.

Avenatti's reply brief in his 9th Circuit appeal in the California mistrial is due today, but his lawyer (Howard Srebnick from the Nike trial) filed this request to extend due date Feb. 7, citing his other work load and Avenatti's Stormy trial. bit.ly/3rctui9

"While short-staffed, undersigned was attending to other court hearings and fulfilling other professional obligations," Srebnick wrote. @USAO_LosAngeles prosecutors don't oppose the delay as long as oral argument still happens March 10 as scheduled, which Srebnick says it will.

I did a Zoom interview with @Nightline this evening about Avenatti’s cross-exam of Stormy that’s to air at 12:35 a.m. I will post the clip here.

Love this @BenWeiserNYT lede. Read the full story:
nyti.ms/3uaDKJx

@threadreaderapp Unroll, please. Thank you! 🚀