Thread by @AnnaBower

Good morning ☀️ from The Line at 100 Centre Street, where Day 7 (or Day 11, depending on who you ask) of Trump’s criminal trial is set to resume.

I’m here to cover the trial for @lawfare.

Follow this thread for live updates 🧵👇

When we left off yesterday, Doug Daus—a forensics expert with the Manhattan DA's office—was on the stand, testifying about evidence recovered from Michael Cohen's phones.

Catch up on Daus's testimony thus far in @TylerMcBrien's excellent thread:

https://x.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1786114814810509322

On cross examination, Trump's defense attorney questioned Daus about the chain of custody of Cohen’s phones. He's seems to be implying that the data on the phones may be altered or compromised.

Ben Wittes, @TylerMcBrien, and I discussed that strategy:

Justice Merchan, our silver-haired and always timely presiding judge, sweeps into the room at 9:30 on the dot.

He begins with a clarification: Mr. Trump, you have an absolute right to testify at trial. The gag order does not restrict that right to testify, Merchan explains.

Merchan explains that the gag order only applies to extra-judicial statements — meaning statements made outside the courtroom.

Please let your attorney know if you have any lingering doubts, Merchan instructs the former President turned criminal defendant.

With that behind him, the parties discuss some lingering evidentiary issues.

Among them: Can the prosecution admit a Washington Post article and tweet about the Access Hollywood tape?

(Merchan previously ruled that the Hollywood tape couldn't come in, but the text could.)

Prosecutors want to introduce the WaPo exhibits to establish date/time of publication.

But at least 1 exhibit includes a picture of Trump. Merchan doesn't think that's necessary.

I don’t want those words to be associated w/ his face or voice, it’s powerful evidence, he says.

Prosecutors say that they'd be happy to stipulate to date/time of publication -- if defense counsel agree to stipulation.

Alternatively, they suggest blotting out the picture on the exhibit.

Merchan, anxious not to keep jurors waiting, says he'll let the parties work it out.

Now the witness, followed soon after by the jurors, file into the room.

The witness, Doug Daus, is wearing a tan suit and glasses.

Emil Bove, on behalf of Trump, rises to resume his cross examination of Daus.

Bove picks up with a line of questioning he ended on yesterday: The chain of custody for Michael Cohen's phones.

He's trying to sow doubt about the integrity of the recordings and messages extracted from Cohen's phone.

Among the recovered recordings: pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrum…

I will spare you the details of much of this cross examination, which involves highly technical inquiries about metadata and laptop syncing and forensic data extraction.

As my editor put it in our shared notes just now: THIS IS TEDIOUS!!!

Bove, reaching the end of his cross examination, gets to the point.

Cohen's phone has been synced multiple times, turned on and off, reset to factory settings...And the things I've showed you this morning raise some questions about how the phone was handled? Yes, Daus agrees.

In any case, we're just going to have to take Cohen's word for it? Bove asks.

Yes, Daus says.

The evidence extracted from this phone is only as credible as Cohen, the defense seems to be saying. And Cohen, they have suggested throughout the trial, is credibility compromised.

Chris Conroy responds to this line of questioning on re-direct for the prosecution.

Did you detect any evidence of tampering or manipulation on the extracted data?

The question elicits an objection from the prosecution, which Merchan overrules.

I did not, Daus says.

With that, Daus is done and the People call their next witness: Georgia Longstreet, a paralegal for the Manhattan district attorney's office who has worked on the People v. Donald Trump case.

Longstreet is a young woman -- she appears to be in her 20s -- with light brown hair. She's wearing a navy suit.

On direct examination by the prosecution, Longstreet discusses her work on the Trump case.

Basically, Longstreet is the Trump social media monitor-in-chief for the Manhattan DA's office.

As a part of her work on the case, she reviewed Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and Truth Social multiple times a day. In some instances, she used Wayback Machine to recover old posts.

As Longstreet discusses her work reviewing thousands of social media posts by Donald Trump and his associates every single day, I think "God, what a weird job."

Then I realize that she is actually describing *my* job.

Anyway, it's clear that Longstreet is a documents witness. The prosecution needs her to testify about this in order to get certain social media posts into evidence.

And so Mangold, on behalf of the prosecution, wraps up her direct examination by moving to admit some exhibits.

Blanche objects to admitting the exhibits, citing hearsay.

We don't yet know exactly what the exhibits contain, but 1 appears to relate to the earlier discussion about the WaPo Access Hollywood tape article, which the prosecution wanted in to establish date/time of publication.

Justice Merchan instructs the jurors to take a morning break. He wants the parties to take a few minutes to discuss Blanche's objections and try to work out a stipulation.

The parties confer. When they return, the prosecution says that it will withdraw its motion to admit the Access Hollywood tape article. The defense has agreed to stipulate to the date and time of the tape's publication.

Mangold, for the prosecution, reads the stipulation into the record when the jurors return.

As for the other exhibits--many of which seem to be social media posts by Trump or others--Justice Merchan overrules Blanche's hearsay objections.

With the exhibits now admitted into evidence, Mangold instructs the witness to read the content of the exhibits.

The first exhibit is an apology video posted by Trump following the publication of the Access Hollywood tape.

"Anyone who knows me knows this doesn't reflect who I am," Trump says in the video.

"I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize."

Other social media posts admitted into evidence involve Trump denying certain allegations about his conduct w/ women: “Made up events that never happened." “Totally phoney stories.” “100% made up by women." “I did NOTHING wrong in the ‘horseface’ case.”

That kind of thing.

The final exhibit admitted into evidence is Trump's now-infamous post on Truth Social in which he declares "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU."

Blanche pops up for a brief cross examination.

You have no independent knowledge of who wrote a Truth or tweet? he asks. Right, Longstreet says, only whose account it was posted to.

And you have no independent knowledge about why a post was made? Right, Longstreet agrees.

Now Longstreet is done, and the People call their next witness: Hope Hicks, the former White House communications director.

Hicks is a potentially crucial witness for the prosecution. She was present at the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting in which Pecker, Cohen, and Trump allegedly hatched a scheme to influence the election by suppressing negative media stories about Trump.

Hicks is sworn in. At first, it's hard to her as she responds to basic biographical questions. She has to adjust the microphone.

She's apologetic. "I'm nervous," she explains.

Hicks says she's here under subpoena, and she is represented by counsel. She's paying for her legal representation herself.

Trump is not a current client for the crisis communications firm where she now works, she says. They have no current relationship.

Her last communications with Trump were in the summer or fall of 2022.

Hicks talks about her professional/personal relationship with the Trumps.

She began working for the Trump Organization in 2014. As director of communications, she worked on public relations, marketing. Eventually her work transitioned more into political work for Trump.

At Trump Org, Hicks spoke regularly with Trump, eventually every day.

She reported to Trump. Everyone who works there reported to Trump, she explains. It's a big and successful business but runs like a small family business. So people reported to the family members, including Don, Eric, and Ivanka.

Hicks eventually began to work for Trump's campaign for President. One day, Trump said "We're going to Iowa."

"I didn't really know why," Hicks says with a laugh.

But after Iowa, it became clear. And then in June of 2015 Trump announced his run for the presidency.

"Eventually, I just started spending so much time working on the campaign...I became a member of the campaign and I was the press secretary."

She did work around press releases, media interviews, planning events for the campaign.

Later, the campaign expanded its communications staff during the general election.

"I wasn't really managing them," Hicks says, explaining that she wasn't in the office because was on the road so much.

During the campaign, Hicks spoke to Trump every day.

Trump was "very involved" in media strategy. He was responsible for overall messaging, Hicks says.

"We were all just following his lead. He deserves the credit for the different messages that the campaign focused on."

During the campaign, Hicks traveled with Trump frequently.

Keith Schiller, Trump's bodyguard, also traveled with Trump. If someone wanted to reach Trump during the campaign, Schiller could be useful in facilitating access to Trump.

Hicks testifies that she knows David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer who testified last week.

She was introduced to him in a previous job before she joined the Trump Organization. She reconnected w/ him at some point as he was a "friend" of Trump.

Were you ever present for phone calls between Pecker and Trump during campaign? Yes, Hicks says.

She overheard a conversation between Pecker and Trump about an article National Enquirer published about Ben Carson related to medical malpractice.

"He was congratulating David about a great investigative piece," Hicks says.

She vaguely recalls him saying to Pecker: "This is Pulitzer worthy."

Big laughs in the press room.

A sample of the Enquirer's Pulitzer Prize-worthy Ben Carson coverage:

Colangelo asks Hicks if she recall ever being present for a meeting between Pecker and Trump at Trump Tower.

Hicks says she does not have a specific recollection of that.

Now Colangelo, on behalf of the prosecution, moves on to the events surrounding the publication of the Access Hollywood tape approximately one month before the 2016 election.

She learned about the tape on Oct. 7, 2016, when a WaPo reporter reached out to her for comment.

She received a request for comment email from WaPo that afternoon on Oct. 7. It included a transcript of the infamous Access Hollywood tape.

Her first reaction: “I was concerned. Very concerned. I was concerned about the contents of the email...There was a lot in play."

Hicks sent the WaPo request for comment to “other campaign leadership,” including Jason Miller, Dave Bossie, Kelleyanne Conway, and Steve Bannon.

She wrote “flagging, need to the hear the tape to be sure. Deny deny deny."

Hicks went to find campaign leadership, who were busy with debate prep on the 25th floor of Trump Tower.

She showed the email and transcript of the tape to Trump.

Trump said it "didn't sound like something he would say." He asked to hear the tape.

Hicks and the campaign got their hands on the actual tape.

Her first reaction when she heard it: "Stunned."

"I had a good sense that this was going to be a massive story and dominate the news cycle for the next several days..."

There was "consensus" among the campaign that the story would be "damaging."

Did you focus on impact on female voters?

Not initially, just trying to get bearings, but eventually that was something that was raised, Hicks says.

Mr. Trump felt like this wasn't good but it was just "locker room talk," Hicks says about Trump's reaction.

He thought it wasn't something "to get so upset over."

He thought it was "standard stuff" for two guys talking to each other.

The campaign put out a short statement in response. They were all working together on it. Trump had input.

Colangelo shows her the statement, which was placed on the campaign website. And he plays a video of the statement released by Trump (below).

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/784609194234306560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E784609194234306560%7Ctwgr%5Ea664318328348ddf70a13a6b9613c4295aa52fdc%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fvariety.com%2F2016%2Fbiz%2Fnews%2Fdonald-trump-access-hollywood-1201882204%2F

Colangelo asks Hicks about Republicans who distanced themselves from Trump following the release of the Access Hollywood tape. She ticks off a few: Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell...

He walks her through the reactions of each of these individuals.

McConnell called Trump's comments "repugnant and unacceptable."

Mitt Romney released a statement calling it "vile."

Clarification: I'll check the transcript when it's available, but Hicks said she shared the email w/ Trump "verbally," then handed him the email. It's unclear how much of the transcript Trump read before commenting "That doesn't sound like something I would say."

https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1786429012383764589

Hicks says she's heard of Karen McDougal. The first time she heard of her was in November of 2016, when she received an inquiry from a Wall Street Journal reporter about an article the paper was planning to publish regarding McDougal/AMI deal.

Hicks has also heard of Stormy Daniels. She says she first heard about Daniels when she was on a plane with Trump. Some of the security guys on the plane were telling a story about a celebrity golf tournament that Trump attended. Daniels also attended the tournament.

Back to the email Hicks received from the Wall Street Journal about the Karen McDougal/AMI story. When she received it in Nov. 2016, she had just landed with Trump in Ohio for a rally. She forwarded the email to Jared Kushner.

Why forward to Kushner? She knew that Kushner had a good relationship with Rupert Murdoch -- the publisher of the Wall Street Journal -- and was hoping to "buy a little time" to deal with this.

Kushner said he wouldn't be able to reach Murdoch and that the campaign should just focus on "dealing with it," according to Hicks.

Hicks also reached out to Cohen, who she knew had a relationship w/ Pecker.

Hicks also called Pecker to ask what was going on.

"He explained that McDougal was paid for magazine covers and fitness columns and that it was all very legitimate and that that's what the contract was for," Hicks says of her conversation with Pecker.

Hicks drafted a statement in response to the WSJ inquiry. She shared it w/ Trump and Cohen.

Cohen sent back suggestions for what he thought the statement should say. "These accusations are completely untrue," Cohen's draft read. It also blamed "liberal media" and the Clintons.

Hicks says she recalls speaking to Trump about the WSJ ordeal after his rally. They called Pecker to discuss.

Pecker, she says, confirmed his understanding of the legitimacy of the contract with McDougal -- basically repeating what he had earlier told Hicks on the phone.

With one minute to go before the usual 1 p.m. lunch break, Justice Merchan thinks this is a good place to stop.

Trump exits the courtroom. He does not respond to a pooler who asks "Did Hope Hicks betray you?"

We'll be back at 2:15 ET when Hope Hicks resumes her testimony.

Ben Wittes and I are on a quest to find a regular lunch spot near the courthouse.

Today's pick: Lafayette Deli & Convenience.

The chicken caesar wrap was very good. A contender!

But enough about lunch.

Hope Hicks is back on the witness stand.

Matthew Colangelo, for the prosecution, resumes his direct examination.

We're still on the subject of the campaign's media response to the WSJ story about the McDougal/AMI deal.

hicks says she observed a conversation between Cohen and Trump around the time the WSJ story published.

It was during a car ride in Pennsylvania for a campaign event on Nov. 4, 2016.

Hicks heard Trump’s side of the conversation, but she doesn't recall what was said.

The WSJ article published on Nov. 4, 2016. It included a comment from Hicks, in which she says that McDougal's claim of an affair was "totally untrue."

The prosecution displays the article for the jury.

documentcloud.org/documents/2461…

Of the AMI agreement w/ McDougal, the campaign told WSJ: "We have no knowledge of any of this."

The denial about the affair was from Trump directly, Hicks says. But she's unsure if he specifically directed her to say that the campaign had no knowledge of the deal.

"I just don't want to say something definitively that I can't remember as I sit here right now," Hicks says.

Hicks texted with Cohen during that time period. Text messages from Nov. 4 and Nov. 5 are displayed.

On the evening of Nov. 4, Cohen wrote: "Call me."

Then: "Any news?"

And a few minutes after that: "Any news???"

Around 9:30 that night, Hicks sent a link to the WSJ story to Cohen.

In response, he texted Hicks: "Lots go innuendo with little fact...Poorly written and I do not see it getting much play."

The next day, on Nov. 5, 2016, Cohen messaged Hicks: "So far I only see six stories..getting little to no traction."

"Keep praying!! It's working," Hicks said.

No one believes it and if necessary I have a statement from "Storm" denying everything and contradicting the other porn stars statement, Cohen replied. "I wouldn't use it now or even discuss it with him as no one is talking about this or care!"

"Agree!!" Hicks responded.

Hicks says she doesn't think she knew what Cohen was talking about in reference to the "Storm" statement. She thought it might relate to a denial about an affair. But the story wasn't consuming the news cycle, and she didn't need to be aware of every detail.

Later that day, Hicks texted Cohen and asked for Pecker's cell phone. He wanted to talk to Pecker. But Hicks wasn't present for that call, she says.

Hick discussed the story w/ Trump. He was concerned by it, she says. Concerned by how it was viewed by his wife.

Did he talk about how it would impact campaign? Everything was about the campaign. “How’s it playing” was something he asked all the time.

Now Hicks talks about her role in the White House.

At the beginning of her time in the WH, her desk was in the outer Oval Office. The person who sat at the second desk there was Madeline Westerhout, Trump's executive assistant at the White House.

There came a time in Hicks' WH employment that the McDougal/Daniels stories resurfaced. In early 2018, the Wall Street Journal published a story about Stormy Daniels...And at some point that year, McDougal sued AMI to be released form her confidentiality agreement.

McDougal sued AMI on March 20, 2018. Colangelo displays text messages between Hicks and Madeline Westerhout, Trump's executive assistant. It's from the same day McDougal filed suit.

Westerhout: “Hey, the president wants to know if you called David Pecker again?”

Hicks doesn't know if called Pecker that day or not.

Now Colangelo turns to the Stormy Daniels story published by the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 12, 2018. It revealed that Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 to keep her from discussing her Trump affair story.

documentcloud.org/documents/2461…

Hicks spoke to Cohen in the aftermath of the story. She remembers Cohen saying that it wasn't true, that no payment had been made, and that he had a statement from SD saying no payment had been made.

Sometime in the middle of February, Hicks spoke to Trump about a conversation Trump had w/ Cohen about the Daniels payment. It was after Cohen gave a statement saying he made the payment w/o TRump's knowledge.

Trump told Hicks that Cohen had paid this woman to "protect him" from a false allegation. Trump said Cohen did it out of the kindness of his own heart, to protect him. Trump said it was a "generous" thing for Cohen to do.

Was this idea that Cohen did it out of the kindness of his own heart consistent with what you knew about Cohen?

"I didn't know Michael to be an especially charitable person or selfless person. He's the kind of person who seeks credit."

Laughs in the press room.

With that, the direct examination is done.

Emil Bove jumps up for cross examination. When did you begin with the Trump Organization? he begins.

He doesn't get further than that, because Hicks breaks down crying on the stand. She can't continue.

We take a break.

Before Hicks broke down, Colangelo asked if Trump said anything else during their 2018 convo abt Cohen's payment to Daniels.

According to Hicks, Trump said he was glad Cohen made the payment & that it was better to be dealing w/ the story then (in 2018) than before election

Hicks returns to the witness stand once she collects herself.

She apologizes, and Bove resumes--or more accurately, begins--his cross examination.

You said the Trump Org was like a family business? Yes
You met the Trump family? Yes
Trump's children and wife? Yes
Engaged with Trump early on in your career there? Yes
You felt you had his trust and respect early in your career? Yes

We move on to the campaign and, as ever, return to the subject of Michael Cohen.

Cohen was not part of the campaign, right?

He would try to insert himself at moments but he wasn’t on the campaign in any official capacity, Hicks explains.

Cohen did some stuff in voluntary capacity, Hicks continues. He did some TV. He put together a diversity coalition at one point. But he had no official campaign role.

There were times when Cohen did things that frustrated campaign staff? Yes
Unauthorized stuff? Yes
Times when he went rogue? Yes

Cohen did things that were not helpful?

I used to say that he liked to call himself a fixer, Mr. Fix-it. And it was only because he broke it first that he needed to fix it, Hicks says.

Ouch!

Bove focuses his next line of inquiry on a core theme of the defense counter-narrative: That there’s nothing unusual about a campaign coordinating with friendly media entities; and that what AMI did for Trump is not really different from normal campaign/media relationship.

It's not unusual for a campaign to amplify themes that are positive? And it's not unusual to amplify themes that are negative for your opponents? And to work with press to do that? That's totally normal and commonplace, right? Hicks concurs.

Bove turns to the Access Hollywood tape.

He was worried about how this was going to be perceived at home, Hicks says. He really values Melania's opinion. She doesn’t weigh in all the time, but when she does it’s very meaningful to him. He respects what she has to say. And he was just really concerned about what her reaction to this was going to be. It was weighing on him.

Bove moves to Trump and Hick's time in the White House.

The President was frequently multitasking? Yes
People were interrupting what he’s doing? Yes
And in 2017, you didn’t have anything to do with the business records of the Trump Organization 200 miles away? No, I didn't.

Bove is done, and the prosecution has no further questions for re-direct.

Hicks is dismissed, and so are the jurors.

"Have a good weekend," Justice Merchan says before we break.

And with that, the second week of the prosecution's case-in-chief against a former President of the United States concludes.

Ben Wittes, @TylerMcBrien, and I will discuss at 5 PM ET:

@TylerMcBrien Thanks to all who followed along this week.

And a very special thanks to those who have donated to support our non-profit, non-partisan coverage of the Trump trials. We couldn't do it without you!

givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…