Thread by @TylerMcBrien

Good morning from 100 Centre St for DAY 14 of Trump’s NY criminal trial and the second day of Stormy Daniels’ testimony.

It’ll be a packed house today. I’ve never seen this many reporters line up this early.

I’m here for @lawfare (if I get in!) 🧵⚖️

If you’re in line to report the first ever criminal trial of a former U.S. president, stay in line!

While I build suspense about whether I’ll make it in or not, catch up on everything you missed from Days 12 and 13 in my dispatch with @AnnaBower, @katherinepomps, and Ben Wittes: lawfaremedia.org/article/stormy…

I got the golden ticket!

Thanks for your concerns — I’ll make it inside shortly.

There are many, many new faces here today, and it was dog eat dog trying to get a seat in the press overflow room.

I'm sure everyone just wants to experience the pristine, modern facilities of 100 Centre St.

Just kidding, it's Stormy, duh.

To give you a sense of just how hard it was to get in today — a member of the public who sat down behind me in the press overflow room personally hired a line sitter who got here at 3am.

This morning, defense counsel Susan Necheles is set to resume cross-examination of witness Stormy Daniels.

We left off on Tuesday with some texts between Dylan Howard and Gina Rodriguez—but Daniels was careful in her answers, saying she didn't know who this Dylan guy was.

Yesterday, the cross was tense—even adversarial—from the start.

Merchan also grew impatient at the level of detail and digressions in Daniels' testimony. He even objected once sua sponte when the defense did not.

And though he denied the mistrial motion, he took it seriously.

At 9:17 a.m., the prosecution arrives. Assistant DA Susan Hoffinger rifles through documents on the table, with Rebecca Mangold to her right. Joshua Steinglass, Matthew Colangelo, and Christopher Conroy are here too, rounding out the bunch.

There was a tense moment a few minutes ago when the sound of a camera phone shutter rang out.

"Who was that?" a court officer demanded angrily.

But the reporter was spared. It was only the sound of a laptop screenshot.

"There he is," a member of the public says as Trump appears on screen in his navy suit and blue tie.

He chats with Necheles, seated to his right, as Todd Blanche and Emil Bove take their seats at the defense table as well.

Hoffinger and Necheles chat briefly, both with papers in hand. The two women performed the direct examination and cross-examination, resptively, of Daniels on Tuesday.

Necheles then turns to talk to another member of the defense team, Gedalia Stern.

Trump seems in surprisingly good spirits, a stark contrast from his gloomy mood on Tuesday.

He seems to crack a few jokes with Blanche to his left.

At 9:29 a.m., all rise for Justice Merchan.

"Good morning Mr Trump," Merchan says.

Hoffinger discusses an exhibit J26, an arrest record for Danielis from 2009, something regarding her ex-husband, for which there was no conviction.

"Anyone can be arrested...that doesn't prove a thing," Merchan says. It doesn't seem like he's going to permit it as evidence, much to Necheles' dismay.

"It's not probative of anything," he says conclusively.

We turn to the request for limiting instruction.

Necheles says it depends on where we end with the cross, and Merchan agrees.

"Let's get the witness please," the judge says.

Daniels strolls in, again in a black garment, but this time it's over a turquoise dress.

She takes the stand as the video feed is cut for the jury to enter the courtroom.

Some interesting people seated behind Trump in his row, including Florida Senator Rick Scott.

"We have Rick Scott here, we have other politicians here," Trump told pool reporters, but it's unclear who other politicians are besides Scott.

Necheles picks the narrative back up in 2016, shortly before the election.

She displays texts again between Gina Rodriguez and Dylan Howard.

GR: I have her
DH: Is she ready to talk?

—but there's an objection, and Merchan asks counsel to approach. Sidebar.

For some reason, there were no photographers here today to snap pics of Trump before the proceedings.

It's the first time this whole trial that photographers haven't snapped away at Trump, as far as I know.

Q: You were asking for money, right?
A: I never asked for money from anyone in particular...I was asking to sell my story to publications to get the truth out.
Q: But you entered an NDA?
A: My attorneys did.
Q: That was your choice right?
...

A: Not necessarily, I wanted to do a press conference.
Q: You wanted to do that and make no money?

The tense atmosphere has already resumed, as Necheles and Daniels dig in for what will likely be a long cross.

You could've had Slate publish the story, but they weren't going to give you money, Necheles asks.

Daniels remains firm — her message is consistent: she wanted to get her story out, and the money was secondary.

Necheles: Isn't it correct that you told Jacob Weisberg [at Slate] that as an alternative to be paid for your silence, you wanted to be paid for your story?

Daniels: Yes, I wanted the truth to be printed with a paper trail of some sort, whether a video, interview, money.

Necheles is also consistent — Daniels wanted money for the story.

You also told Weisberg that another motive was your anger about Trump's opposition to abortion and gay marriage? Necheles asks.

I don't remember saying that, Daniels laughs.

Necheles displays evidence for Daniels, presumably of Daniels saying that her motive was also anger, but Daniels reiterates: she doesn't remember saying it.

Necheles asks if Daniels was furious when Cohen kept delaying payment for the agreement. (Yes.)

Didn't you scream at your lawyer Keith Davidson, and call him a pussy? (At this Daniels just smirks.)

Can you show me where I said that? Daniels says.

Necheles displays a transcript

We see a transcript from 4/4/18 of a conversation btwn Davidson and Cohen, and begin to hear a clip of Cohen, but Necheles cuts it off. A mistake.

We hear a another voice now—Davidsons—begin to speak the words on the transcript, but Hoffinger quickly objects. Sustained. Sidebar.

Can you look at the transcript first before you play the tape, Merchan directs Necheles.

Necheles clarifies it's F17E. Behind her glasses, Daniels narrows her eyes as the clip begins again.

It's Davidson's voice, on 4/4/18.

KD: ...in the weeks prior to the election was basically yelling and screaming, and calling me a pussy.

Michael Cohen's voice cuts in: Can I ask you a question?

But Davidson barrels onward.

I never yelled at Keith Davidson on the phone, Daniels says, and further says the transcript says that Gina Rodriguez's boyfriend was the one who was going to tell the story in the media.

But you got $130k, right? asks Necheles.

I didn't. That was the payment, Daniels quips.

So far today, Daniels seems to be taking a page out of Davidson's book, playing "lawyer games" with Necheles. Exploiting technicalities, being ultra precise, not giving an inch.

You understand that a contract is a legal agreement? Necheles asks as she displays the NDA signed by "Peggy Peterson" (aka Daniels) and "David Dennison" (aka Trump).

Well I'm not an attorney, but yes, Daniels says.

We work our way through a few sections of the agreement, as Necheles asks Daniels about some of the legal language contained within.

Like I said, I am not an attorney, so I'm reading this quickly, but I signed this based on my attorney's advice, Daniels says.

Q: What you've been saying here is you're not a lawyer and these were legal terms you don't feel comfortable discussing?
A: Not without speaking to my attorney, no.
Q: And this is a legal contract?
A: Yes.

Ok, we get it, it's legal, it's a contract.

Finally, we move on from law to media.

We see the 1/12/18 WSJ article about Daniels displayed on the screen, and then go back in time two days as Necheles displays Daniels' 1/10/18 denial statement.
wsj.com/articles/trump…

Recall, this is the denial statement to which Davidson attested its "truthfulness."

Necheles then reads the 1/30/18 follow up denial statement, the day of Daniels' Kimmel appearance, the one she signed in an abnormal way.

We now hear as Necheles begins a new line of attack—Trump's denial in 2018 couldn't have been about election interference, bc there was no election.

Wasn't he concerned about his family, and about his brand? Necheles asks.

Q: After you received a lot of money, you wanted to publicly say you had sex with Trump right?
A: No, I wanted to publicly defend myself.
Q: You wanted to make more money?
A: No, that's why I did 60 minutes for free.

That's around when you hired Michael Avenatti? Necheles asks.

Yes, Daniels says, a bit disgruntled, with very noticeable disdain in her voice.

Q: After Anderson Cooper appearnance, you got a $800k book deal to sell your story, right?
A: Sold my life story, yes.
Q: Wasn't sex with Trump the centerpiece?
A: No

Necheles asks whether Daniels thought people would just buy her book to read about sex with Trump, in fact, Chapter 3 starts with a joke about whether the reader skipped right there to just read about that sexual encounter.

We see a flyer for a Daniels book event at a strip club, with the golf club photo and caption: January 20th Making America Horny Again!

Daniels clarifies she never used that tagline, in fact she hated it, and she had no control over how clubs promoted the book.

Necheles has seemingly abandoned for now the "Daniels owes Trump legal fees" narrative she started the cross with, and is now pursuing a related narrative of a money-hungry Daniels, looking to make a quick buck off of her salacious Trump story and the #Resistance crowd.

We turn to the Daniels documentary (for which she was paid to use the rights of her book).

You were having an affair during the filming right? asks Necheles.

Daniels was involved with a cameraman but clarifies that she was separated from her husband at the time.

"You're trying to trick me into saying something that's not entirely true," Daniels fires at Necheles, who is asking her about the amount of money she received for selling the rights of her book to the documentary.

Necheles asks about documentary promotion events: You have become a hero at those parties for Trump haters?
A: I don't know, I don't speak for them.
Q: You are continuing to this day to make money off a story that you promised would put President Trump in jail?
A: No.

Necheles displays a response tweet by Daniels, who is responding to someone calling her a human toilet: "Exactly! Making me the best person to flush the orange turd down"

When Necheles says this is about Trump, Daniels jokes that that's her interpretation, getting a good laugh.

Necheles was showing the exhibit to refresh Daniels' memory in which she says she would be "instrumental" in putting Trump in jail, but neither "instrumental" nor "jail" featured in the "orange turd" tweet.

At the end of Tuesday, I think Necheles emerged with a slight edge over Daniels.

Today, I'd say they're in a deadlock.

But of course, my opinion doesn't matter. It's all about the jury.

"I respond to hundreds of tweets like this calling me names," Daniels says about her orange turd response.

It's a good reminder that "hundreds" is likely not an exaggeration. Daniels has probably experienced years of constant online harassment, regardless of who started it.

After a sidebar, Necheles resumes.

Q: When Trump was indicted, you celebrated on Twitter by pushing merchandise from your store?
A: I tweeted that he was indicted, yes, and people asked how they could support me, so I added the link to my store.

We see some of Daniels' said tweets: "Thank you to everyone for your support and love...don't want to spill my champagne 😜 #Teamstory merch/autograph orders are pouring in"

Q: That's you shilling your merchandise, right?
A: That's me doing my job.

Q: In much of the merchandise, you're bragging about how you got Trump indicted?

I got Trump indicted? Daniels asks comically.

Necheles displays a "Stormy Saint of Indictments" candle from her store.

"Oh my god," a member of the public says.

As we see #TeamStormy shirts, Stormy Daniels comicbooks, and more, I wonder if Daniels is getting a bump in sales this very moment.

"Keep in mind I did not write this comic book," Daniels says, as she also clarifies that she didn't make the candle either.

ANecheles asks about two forthcoming books—the autobiographical Rockstar Pornstar and a novel—as well as a TV show fka Spooky Babes, about the paranormal, and she was on a podcast in which she claimed to be able to speak to dead people.

Daniels jokes that a lot of the "paranormal activity" was debunked, in one instance it was just a possum under the house, and the press laughs as Necheles moves to strike and instruct the witness to answer the questions—overruled.

As Daniels answers questions about tarot cards, paranormal possums, and communing with the dead, I wonder if the jury is beginning to lose the plot.

I sure am.

Necheles asks Daniels about her extensive experience in the adult film industry—

Q: You have a lot of experience in making phony stories about sex appear to be real right?
A: Wow. The sex in the films is very much real, just like what happened to me in that room.

Q: You bragged about being good at writing dialogue and sex scenes in adult films, right?

"If that story [with Trump] was untrue, I would have written it to be a lot better," Daniels quips, delivering it like a punchline.

We're back to the hotel suite—the black-and-white tile of the floor—and Necheles asks whether that was part of her prep, that she was coached to include details.

A: There's nothing wrong with preparing a witness.
Q: That wasn't my question.

Necheles continues to search for chinks in Daniels' armor, the inconsistencies between small details in her testimony and her book, saying that she was coached to "match" the details.

I don't need to match details to my book, because that's the story, Daniels says.

We're jumping around in time, now back to the 2006 Lake Tahoe golf tournament, and Necheles asks whether Daniels met other celebrities, name-checking more athletes: Aaron Rodgers. Drew Brees. Charles Barkely. Big Ben again.

Daniels isn't sure. She's met a lot of celebrities.

Necheles begins to retrace the steps that led to the hotel suite.
Q: Trump's bodyguard (Keith Schiller) invited you to dinner right, not Trump?
A: Yes.
Q: Your testimony was that you said "fuck no," but you gave Schiller your phone # anyway.
A: Yes.

Necheles seizes on more inconsistencies: isn't this is a totally different story from the one you told in 2011? I believe this is about the InTouch magazine phone interview.

This has been a constant strategy in the cross—pinpoint each time Daniels' story changed, and exploit it.

"Please allow the witness to answer," Merchan cuts in, as Necheles peppers Daniels with question after question, each picking a different nit in her seemingly conflicting stories.

Two differences: in 2011, Daniels said Trump personally invited her and she said yes, but later, she said it was his bodyguard and said "fuck no."

It was a frivolous interview, an entertaining retelling of events, Daniels says, and Necheles sees an opening: So you were lying?

Now to another inconsistency: dinner vs no dinner.

Necheles reads Daniels' statement on Kimmel, in which she said "I'm very food motivated," and Daniels just giggles to herself and her food-driven actions.

But Necheles says that Daniels said she had eaten at the hotel in 2011.

Apparently in 2011, Daniels had said "during dinner" which she now says meant "during dinner time," though much to her chagrin, dinner was never served.

I would like to object to this line of questioning, because I am now getting hungry.

Even 18 years later, Daniels still seems genuinely annoyed that she never got to eat dinner that night.

We had "dinner time" in the room but not "dinner," Daniels says.

Your words don't mean what you said, Necheles says bitingly.

Objection—sustained.

Back in time again, to Daniels' method of transportation to the hotel suite: first on foot (in heels), then car, but in 2011 Daniels said only on foot.

Another seeming inconsistency, but I wonder how this is playing with the jury. Memories can be fuzzy for traumatic events.

Necheles goes back to her dinner vs. no dinner line of attack, and Daniels repeats the same answer, this time more exhaustedly.

The defense strategy seems clear: Daniels is an unreliable witness at best—and a vindictive, money-motivated liar at worst.

Necheles' sole reliance right now on the 2011 InTouch interview seems to suggest that it's the outlier, while Daniels' retelling of that night ever since has remained consistent.

Q: You acted and had sex in over 200 porn movies..with naked men and women...but seeing a man sitting on a bed in tshirt and boxer shorts was so upsetting that you became light-headed and almost fainted?
A: Yes, when you're not expecting a man twice your age

Daniels talks about the power shift, and Necheles asks: But in your book you wrote that you made him "your bitch"?

A: That was earlier.
Q: But now that he was in tshirt and boxer shorts, you got so upset that you can't speak up and say no?

You understand there's no question-bending? Necheles asks Daniels, now for the second time during cross, and Merchan sustains the objection again.

Daniels is answering more quietly now, and more coldly.

"Like I said, there were parts in the middle I didn't remember," Daniels says, as Necheles continues to pick at inconsistencies btwn the 2011 InTouch interview and now, though the tenor of this is much different given the subject matter: the sexual encounter with Trump.

In testimony Daniels says he stood up, but to InTouch, there was no mention of standing.
Daniels maintains it was an abbreviated interview.

The two continue to talk at the same time and Merchan asks for only one person to speak at a time. Both agree, and apologize.

They left out a lot of stuff because they couldn't fact check it, Daniels remembers about the 2011 InTouch interview.
Q: Nothing about a trailer park?
A: No.
Q: So you made all this up?
A: No.
Q: You weren't drinking anything that night, but supposedly blacked out right?

Now back to Weisberg's 1/16/18 Slate piece: didn't you tell Weisberg there was no abuse, and you weren't the victim?
A: Yes.
Q: You said the worst Trump had done was break promises he never believed he would fill?
A: Yes.

Q: Trump offered to buy you a condo in FL and promised you to put you on the Celebrity Apprentice? Nothing about a power imbalance, or blacking out?

Necheles continues her litany of questions, and Hoffinger cuts in to ask Justice Merchan to allow Daniels to finish.

Q: You testified that he made you feel that you had to have sex with him?
A: My own insecurities made me feel that way. I maintain that he did not put his hands on me or give me any sort of drugs or alcohol or threaten me with an item.

Daniels repeats herself: My own insecurities in that moment kept me from saying no.

Your story has completely changed hasn't it? asks Necheles.

No, you're trying to make me say that it changed, but it hasn't changed, Daniels fires back.

Fast forward to the brief hotel lobby nightclub meeting with Trump and Ben Roethlisberger.

Q: At that point, you really believed Trump wanted to put you on Celeb Apprentice?
A: Yes.

We jump around again, to various phone calls with Trump and Daniels.

Merchan calls for a break, as several reporters make a run for the door.

Either we have a bladder emergency, or they're racing to file stories. Or both.

We're back.

"Let's bring in the witness," Justice Merchan says.

As Daniels picks at something caught in her eye, Necheles resumes with the "Make America Horny Again" tagline, which Daniels says she hated, nor made—in fact she fired someone for posting one once.

Daniels is calm and polite, she says "yes ma'am," to one of the questions.

Necheles displays an Instagram post of Daniels'—it's from 2/2/18, a flyer for an event with that same tagline, "Make America Horny Again 2018 Tour, but Daniels clarifies that it's not on her personal Instagram, it's her business Instagram.

Another post on Daniels' "public instagram," shortly after, with a slight variation of the tagline "Making America Horny Again Tour."

Q: You were making money off of that right?
A: That's what you do with tours.

Q: President Trump was the biggest celebrity at that golf tournament right?
A: It depends on what you're a fan of.
Q: But a lot of people recognized him, followed him around?
A: Yeah, a lot of them were paid to follow him around, I don't know.

Daniels is quick, funny.

As we jump around in time and topic, I again wonder if the jury is following. It's a bit difficult to resituate onself in the narrative every time we skip from one event to another, and the relevance of many of Necheles' questions is not immediately clear.

Like many other times in the trial, I have to remind myself to look at Trump for some reaction, as he has blended into the furniture once again.

He's in a familiar pose: eyes closed, head tilted slightly upward, his hands in his lap.

Now back to something very relevant: the NDA.

Q: You have no personal knowledge about his involvement in that transaction or what he did or didn't do?
A: Not directly, no.
Q: You didn't negotiate the NDA with Trump?
A: No, through my attorney.
Q: Cohen paid you, not Trump?

Q: You understand that in this case, Trump is charged with a crime for how a payment reimbursing Cohen is "labeled" on Trump's books?
A: I'm not an attorney.
Q: Even though you tweeted and celebrated about his indictment?
A: There were a lot of indictments. (Another big laugh)

Necheles goes in for the kill: "Isn't the reason you changed your story many times is because you never had an affair with President Trump, and that you've been making money off that story for 12 years?"

Objection—sustained. Sidebar.

I, for one, will be very much looking forward to reading this sidebar in the transcript later.

And we're back.

Hoffinger begins redirect: Defense counsel asked you quite a lot of questions yesterday and today as well about whether fear played into you signing the NDA?

Objection—overruled.

Your attorney friend advised you about "hiding in plain view," can you explain that? Hoffinger asks.

A: it just means that hiding in the open, nothing will happen to you if everyone is watching.
Q: So part of entering into the NDA was to make sure it was all documented?
A: Yes

Hoffinger goes on to clarify why then she also took the money? Well, everyone is happy to take money, Daniels responds, in a relatable tone.

Now we see the texts between Rodriguez and Howard (whom Daniels says she doesn't know) once again.

Q: You indicated the InTouch article was a "very light article" for entertainment purposes?
A: Yes.

Hoffinger shows the article to the witness and counsel, especially the very bottom of it, which says: "This interview has been lightly edited."

Necheles asked you a lot of things that you did and didn't say in 2018, Hoffinger says, you didn't tell every single detail to Anderson Cooper? (No) But you mentioned a lot of details?
Objection, leading—sustained.
Hoffinger tries to introduce an exhibit, but objection, sidebar.

We're back, and Merchan says, "Ms Hoffinger, you can clarify to the extent that we discussed, and to that extent only."

Q: Defense asked about certain things you didn't tell Anderson Cooper, but you told him a lot of things didn't you?
Objection—overruled.

Q: But you did tell him you had sex with Trump, and provide details about the room?
A: I did.
Q: And you said Trump never wanted to keep it confidential?
Objection—please approach.

"I'm so hungry," Daniels whispers, sounding bored at this stop-and-go redirect rhythm.

Q: So you did tell Anderson Cooper about your encounter and other encounters with Trump?
A: I did.

Hoffinger shows Daniels' tweet "I'll dance down the street when he's 'selected'"—a reply to a tweet from "Intergalactic Gurl" calling Daniels a "disgusting degenerate prostitute"

The initial tweet to Daniels said: "Good luck walking down the streets after this"—which Daniels took to be a threat.

It also went on to say that no wonder the father of Daniels' daughter had left her.

Hoffinger points out that for each of these tweets, Necheles never asked about the initial tweet, only Daniels' replies.

In another tweet someone calls Daniels and "aging harlet"—these are actually two "tame" examples of the harassment, according to Daniels.

We see Trump's post on Truth Social: "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU"

Daniels understood it to be about her, because it was around the time of Trump prevailing in the FL defamation case involving Daniels.

Q: You had nothing to do with the charges in this case, you did not testify to the grand jury?
A: I did not.

So far it's been an unfussy, tidy, effective redirect from Hoffinger.

Hoffinger asks Daniels to clarify why this whole ordeal has cost her a lot of money: I've had to hire security, take extra precautions for my daughter, move her to a safe place to live, had to move a couple of times, lost judgment on NDA case and owe attorney's fees

Hoffinger: Has your public telling the truth about Trump been net positive or net negative in your life?

Objection—overruled.

Daniels: Negative.

"Nothing further," says Hoffinger.

Necheles is back up immediately.

We see the Intergalactic Gurl tweet again, and asks Daniels whether this kind of thing happens a lot on twitter.

We see another Daniels reply: "you sound even dumber than he does..."
Q: That's you being nasty also right?
A: Yes.
Q: Someone you don't even know, you're calling them names? You prided yourself in your witty answers? You were attacking them right back?
A: I was defending myself

As Necheles displays more tweets of public sparring between Daniels and strangers on the internet, I'm once again reminded of the great lesson in digital permanence that has continued to be prominent in this trial since jury selection.

Back to "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU"
Q: This doesn't say your name, does it?
A: No.
Q: Do you realize at the time there was a Republican PAC coming after him?
A: No.

No further questions, and Hoffinger is back at the lectern.

Hoffinger displays a splitscreen: People's 408A, Trump's Truth Social post calling Daniels "horseface" and "sleazebag" next to Exhibit J2, a tweet of Daniels.
Both within six days of each other.

Nothing further, and Daniels steps down.

NEWS: Stormy Daniels has finished her testimony.

"People, please call your next witness," says Justice Merchan.

"The People call Rebecca Manochio."

Mangold begins her direct examination.

Manochio is a junior bookkeeper at the Trump Organization, and she was compelled to testify by subpoena.

She began at Trump Org August 2013 as an administrative assistant, then executive assistant., both for Allen Weisselberg and Jeff McConney.

Manochio began her testimony speaking softly, and Merchan asked her to speak a bit more loudly please.

As Weisselberg's assistant for 8 years, Manochio sat right outside his office, and Weisselberg would interact with Trump every day. Manochio had a role in processing expenses: she put checks with their backup together, and gave them to Weisselberg to sign.

Q: Do you know if Trump's personal expenses were processed by the Trump Org?
A: Yes
Q: Do you know how Trump paid his expenses?
A: By check.

Q: Did Trump get a new job in 2017?
A: What was that new job, and did he have to move for it?
Q: President of the United States, and to Washington, D.C.
After the drama and strange turns of the morning and Tuesday, it's almost refreshing to be talking about checks and invoices

As Manochio began her testimony, one reporter packed up and headed for the door. For him, I guess the show was over.

Manochio recounts how she would prepare and FedEx checks to DC for Trump to sign. She sent them unsigned, and received them back signed.

Recall that most of the Cohen payments came from Trump's account, of which he had the sole signatory authority.

Manochio says she would speak to Madeleine Westerhout, Trump's WH executive assistant at the beginning of his term, on the phone when checks were missing, or other confusion.

Perhaps a clue as to the prosecution's next witness.

Mangold displays a FedEx invoice, dated 5/29/17, an example of the types of FedEx invoices Manochio would regularly see.

We're following the checks' journey from where we last left them off with Deb Tarasoff.

The 5/23/17 FedEx invoice, from Manochio to Keith Schiller (Trump's bodyguard), is for unsigned checks bound for Trump.

I hope for everyone's sake we don't go through this process again for all 12 months of payments to Cohen.

She sends the FedEx, she receives the FedEx. The checks go to DC unsigned, and come back to New York signed.

Easy come, easy go.

There, I saved you from reading dozens of transcript pages.

Around Sept 2017, Manochio's point of contact changed to John McEntee (personal aide to the president). In an email he asked Rhona Graff to put him in touch with "Rebecca that works for Mr. Weisleberg [sic]," bc he "will need the bosses personal checks mailed to me."

We break for lunch, and not a minute too soon. Caffeine levels are dangerously low.

We'll see you soon.

I'm back in the courtroom at 100 Centre St, having tagged out with @AnnaBower now in overflow. There are certainly trade offs between being in the room, and being in the more relaxed, and, let's face it, more fun overflow courtroom.

After Merchan dismissed the jury but before we broke for lunch, @AnnaBower caught a few more things from Blanche: a renewed mistrial motion, an attempt to block McDougal's testimony, and a more cryptic matter related to the gag order:

https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1788615336524185926

At 2:14 p.m., Trump walks in, entourage in tow.

Boris Epshteyn just handed a piece of paper with a photo on it to Kaitlan Collins.

I thought he maybe said "Conway" to her, but I'm not exactly sure.

Two minutes later, the prosecution enters through the side door.

Once and future witness Longstreet had arrived a bit earlier with another paralegal to set up a few documents.

Merchan enters and retakes the bench.

"Witness entering," a court officer announces, as he holds the door open for Rebecca Manochio.

She retakes her seat on the stand, and Justice Merchan calls in the jury.

The jurors are back, and Merchan gives a scheduling update: We're going to break today around 4pm, a bit earlier.

Necheles begins the cross. Manochio's aunt works at the Trump Org as well, and says it's a nice place to work.

Q Was Trump the only person who could sign his personal checks?
A Correct.
Q All the checks for all his personal expenses were the ones being FedExed? No business expenses?
A Correct.
Necheles wants to make a point that Trump was uninvolved in running the business once president.

Q: You testified that you got return envelopes after a few days?
A: Yes
Q: These were bills that needed to be paid promptly, so getting them back promptly was important to you?
A: Yes
Q: Was it the practice for legal expenses to be booked in his personal account ledger?
A: Idk.

It was a very quick cross — Manochio is already off the stand.

"The People call Tracy"—but I didn't catch the last name. She'll be up momentarily and will spell it out once on the stand.

Mangold is back at the lectern, so I assume it's another records custodian witness.

The side door cracks open, then shuts, then opens...then shuts.

"Witness entering," we hear, and a woman in black jacket and pants walks up to the stand and takes the oath.

Her name is Tracy Menzies, from Monmouth Co. NJ.

Menzies works at HarperCollins book publishing, as SVP of Production and Creative Operations. First time ever testifying in a legal proceeding. She's a custodian of records for HarperCollins, which was compelled to testify pursuant to a subpoena.

Q: How involved are authors in the publication of their books?
A: At HC, authors have a partner who works with them to approve cover designs, etc.
Q: There are multiple points authors have input in their books, including content and cover design?
A: Yes, they are very involved.

Q: What about when there's more than one author, do all authors have to sign off on the content?
A: Yes

Mangold asks her about the book, "Think Big, Make It Happen in Business and In Life."

We see People's 415: it's the cover of "Think Big" with TRUMP emblazoned across the top, and Trump pointing straight at the viewer with his mouth open as if mid-sentence.

He wrote it with a man named Bill Zanker (not pictured on the cover).

We see the title page, and Trump's name is just as big, if not bigger, than the title itself.

Think Big was originally published in 2007, but the version we're looking at is from 2021.

In Think Big, Zanker and Trump have distinct voices, distinguished by different fonts (serif for Trump, non-serif for Zanker) and dedicated sections. From Trump's section, a sub-hed: DO NOT TRUST ANYONE "hire the best people and don't trust them" Trump advises.

Pg 160: "I value loyalty above everything else—more than brains, more than drive, more than energy."
Two pages later: "the reason we have so many loyal people is that we reward loyalty...It has become part of the corporate culture of The Trump Org...people like Weisselberg"

Another excerpt now, along the same theme: loyalty.

"This woman was very disloyal, and now I go out of my way to make her life miserable."

Another: "When somebody screws you, screw them back in spades."

No further questions from Mangold, and Blanche steps up to inquire.

Q: Were you part of the publishing of this book?
A: No I was not.

Q: Is it fair to say that covers of book are designed in part for sales, to help sell the book?
A: Yes, but they're done very closely with the author.

Blanche points out that she was shown only 6 redacted pages out of over 300, chosen by the prosecution.

No further questions, no redirect, and the witness steps down.

"The People call Madeleine Westerhout."

Recall, Westerhout was Trump’s executive assistant at the beginning of his presidential term, and when Trump met with Cohen at the White House.

She is dressed in all white, and looks eerily similar to Rebecca Manochio.

Mangold begins her direct examination. Westerhout is the chief of staff to the chairman of a geopolitical consulting firm.

Q: Do you know former Pres Trump?
A: I do.

She was compelled to appear by subpoena, and this is her first time ever inside a courtroom.

Q: Are you nervous to testify today?
A: I am now yes, (she says as she laughs, well, nervously.)

Westerhout says her counsel "graciously agreed" to take her case on pro bono.

She began her career in DC at the Republican National Committee, working for the finance director.

Q: In 2016, did you become aware of what became known as the Access Hollywood tape?
A: Yes, and she describes it.

"At the time, I recall it rattling RNC leadership," she says.
She recalls conversations at the time. of how it would be possible to replace Trump as the candidate.

After the election, Westerhout says she worked out of Trump Tower, helping the "president-elect" coordinate cabinet interviews and other matters, even though she lived full-time in DC still.

Westerhout says she got a nickname in the media—"the greeter girl"—for her role scheduling high level meetings.

Mangold asks about Rhona Graff, with whom Westerhout worked between the election and inauguration.

"We worked seemlessly together," says Westerhout.

Q: Do you know someone by the name of Michael Cohen?
A: Yes, he was the president's former lawyer.
Q: How do you know him?
A: He was around...in Trump Tower.

At some point, my boss came to me and said do you have any interest in sitting outside of the Oval Office, Westerhout says, and she thought it would be a cool experience.

Titles were not discussed yet, but she said yes.

Westerhout says Trump moved from Trump Tower to the White House on 1/20/17—Inauguration Day.

She recounts that day, in the West Wing right outside of the Oval Office. She "technically" started her job right then that very day, she says.

Mangold displays a floor plan of the West Wing.

Q: Where is the Oval Office?
A: Um, it's the Oval Office, labeled 'Oval Office,' at the bottom.

(All the other rooms are square- or rectangle-shaped.)

Westerhout says she sat in the "outer Oval Office," and points out on the floor plan where her desk was—it's just about as close as you could get to the Oval Office without being in the Oval Office.

Also in the outer Oval Office: Hope Hicks, John McEntee, and Keith Schiller.

Dan Scavino was "one of the president's very trusted advisors," he did a lot of Trump's communications and to "get tweets out," says Westerhout.

Q: As Trump's special assistant and executive assistant, was the president your only focus?
A: I tried to have it be my only focus. (she laughs nervously)
Q: Did you have job training or orientation?
A: Not formally, no, she says she observed Hicks, Scavino, and others to learn

We progress in time through Westerhout's CV: eventually she became director of oval office operations, and her desk changed with her title.

Q: Did you develop an understnading of Trump's work habits and preferences?
A: I hope so
Q: His relationships and contacts?
A: Yes

His social media presence? The way he interacted with his family? Yes and yes.

Back to his work habits. Westerhout says he preferred speaking with people in person, or on the phone. He took "a lot" of phone calls in the day, starting as early as 6am and late into the night.

There's a "rather complicated process," to call the president, says Westerhout. One way is to call Westerhout's desk, and she would patch them through. But John Smith on the street calling 1-800-WHITEHOUSE wouldn't just be patched right through.

Q: Did Mr Trump use a computer?
A: Not to my knowledge.
Q: Did Mr Trump have an email account?
A: Not to my knowledge.

She says Trump liked hard-copy documents, and liked to read, in fact his job in 2017 required quite a lot of it.

Westerhout says Trump wanted to keep the Resolute Desk "pristine," and only for meetings, so he would do a lot of his reading and other work in the "dining room," just off the Oval Office.

Was he organized?

To my understanding, the president knew where things were, but he had a lot of papers he would take with him.

Did he have attention to detail? Yes.

Signing practices? By hand—he liked to use Sharpies or a Pentel felt tip pen, says Westerhout.

With the exception of the nervous laugh earlier, Westerhout is composed and clear, answering graciously and thoroughly, but never with excess detail.

Q: Did anyone else have access to the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account in 2017?
A: Only Dan Scavino and Trump.
Q: Did Scavino ever post a tweet without Trump's approval?
A: The president did like to see the tweets that went out (but she didn't see every tweet they posted).

Every now and then, Westerhout says Trump would dictate a tweet to him, which she would type up then print out (bc he couldn't read her handwriting), then he would review and edit the hard copy, sometimes a couple of times.

How the twitter sausage is made!

Westerhout says that there were certain words that he liked to capitalize, like "country," and he liked to use exclamation points.

"It's my recollection that he liked to use the Oxford Comma," she adds.

Q: Were there things he overlooked during that time?
A: He was attentive to things that were brought to his attention.

Westerhout says she would coordinate with the Trump Organization on occasion. In 2017, her main point of contact was Rona Ghraff.

Per the hallway pool reporter, when Trump re-entered the courtroom about an hour ago, he ignored the questions, "Why is Rick Scott here and not your wife?" and "Why don't you want Karen McDougal to testify?"

Mangold displays an email between from Westerhout's WH email address to Graff's Trump Org address, subject line "Contacts": Could you have the girls put together a list for me of people who he frequently speaks to? Westerhout had asked Graff.

The jury has been watching neutrally but attentively, and I don't see any of them taking notes during this testimony so far, or at least not many notes.

We see a reply: How's this for a start? Graff responded, with an excel file attachment of contacts for Westerhout.

It's accepted into evidence, and we see the (redacted) contact list—friends, family, other ppl Trump might want to speak to.

We see a few of the contact's, including Trump's sister, brother, and daughter, as well as Allen Weisselberg.

In row 41: David Pecker.

"At the time, I knew him to just be a tabloid person," Westerhout says.

In row 13: Michael Cohen.

Because of course he's in unlucky row 13. That explains everything.

Q: Did Trump and Cohen have a close relationship in 2017?
A: At that time yes.
Q: Did he ever visit the WH?
A: Yes.

We see People's 391, a 2/5/17 email from Westerhout to Cohen. Re: Wednesday meeting, "Michael, we're confirmed for 4:30pm on Wednesday."

Westerhout says she recalls a text she had sent to Hope Hicks in 2017 asking if she had called Pecker.

We see that text exchange (People's 319), the bottom text 3/20/17, from Westerhout: "Hey- the president wants to know. if you called David pecker again?"

Now we see an email from Westerhout to Graff on 1/27/17, re: Photo, attachment: NYT.pdf, "Can you please send this to Alan Weisselberg form the President?" It was a newspaper clipping of Trump boarding Air Force One that he wanted to send to Weisselberg and his family.

Q: This doesn't strike you as unusual?
Objection—overruled.
A: No.

We see the attachment: the cover of the NYT with a photo of Trump boarding Air Force One for the first time.

Q: How were Trump's personal expenses handled in 2017?
A: My understanding that they were handled by checks. They were sent by the Trump Org to Keith Schiller, then to me, and I brought them to Trump to sign.

She describes the FedEx package and the manila folder.

Westerhout says she received unsigned checks from the Trump Org—maybe twice a month—and the number of checks in each package varied, from one to a stack half an inch thick. She says she would sometimes see Trump sign checks in his office, each one by hand, to her knowledge.

After he signed the checks, Trump would hand the folder back to Westerhout, who would place it in a prelabeled envelope and back to the Trump Org.

Q: Was there ever a time Trump didn't send back every single check in a packet?
A: I don't recall.

A few times, Westerhout remembers that Trump would call Weisselberg or someone else at the Trump Org to ask for clarification about a check.

We see People's 73: a 4/6/17 email from Graff to Westerhout "here's the Fedex label you requested, hope it works ;)"

We see the FedEx label, which must have worked (winky face), and Mangold displays another exhibit, People's 76:

"R - can you have someone send me a fedex label to send back the checks the President just signed?" Westerhout had emailed Graff.

We're flying through exhibits, now People's 71, another email from Westerhout, from 2/21/17.
Re: Winged Foot Golf Club
"Rhona- can you help me with this? See attached.
Thanks! Let me know if I should call them directly."
The attachment is an invoice for Trump's dues to the course

Graff had written on the invoice asking whether Trump would like to suspend membership for 4-8 years, or continue to pay annual dues.

"PAY" Trump wrote. And at the bottom: "ASAP" with his shortened signature.

It's not quite clear what the heck that golf club invoice had to do with anything, but we continue plowing through exhibits anyway.

Next is an email about a photograph Trump wanted framed to display behind his desk in a credenza.

Graff says she doesn't have a frame on hand, but she can pop over to Tiffany's to get one, though the frames are on the pricey side.

This must be some of the most mundane correspondence for an early term presidency in U.S. history. A reporter in the gallery yawns.

As if the prosecution saw me tweet, now we're back to something interesting.

Do you remember Trump's reaction to a story about him and Stormy Daniels in early 2018?
I remember he was very upset.
Did he talk to Cohen around that time?
I believe so, yes.

How would you describe Trump and Melania's relationship?

It was one of mutual respect, he cared about her opinion, and there was no one else who could put him in his place. He was my boss, but she was in charge. Their relationship was really special, they laughed a lot.

Q: Did Trump's relationship with Melania change when the Stormy Daniels story came out?

A: Not to my knowledge, no.

Westerhout begins to break down and cry as she recounts the circumstances of her departure from the White House.

She learned a lot from her "indiscretions," she says.

She had said some things she wasn't supposed to during what she believed to be an off-the-record dinner with a reporter, she says.

She wipes her tears. She seems genuinely regretful about the whole episode.

She wrote a book about it, she says, her voice shakey and faultering, and we see the cover now displayed:
Off the Record: My Dream Job at the White House, How I Lost It, and What I Learned

She thought it was important to share with the American people that the man that I got to know. I don't think he was treated fairly, and I wanted to tell that story she says, through more tears.

Since publication, Westerhout says she spoke to Trump at a fundraiser in Orange County, but says that she did not discuss this case.

No further questions from Mangold.

Before she walks up to the lectern, Necheles asks whether Westerhout would like a break.

No, Merchan says, but we're going to stop at 4 o'clock.

Q: You were very young, and you made a mistake?
A: Yes.
Q: You thought he was great to work for, and a great president?
A: Yes, she says, more tears.

Back to the 2016 nomination, the transition, and the Access Hollywood tape.
Q: You testifed that it rattled the RNC leadership, and there were a couple days of consternation, but that happened all the time?
A: Yes.

Q: When Trump was running, there was always some event when—Necheles claps her hands and wipes them clean—there was total consternation.

She is familiar, friendly with Westerhout. Much friendlier than she was with Daniels, (of course).

Necheles reminds Westerhout of Trump's apology for "locker talk," and that he said he would see everyone at debates and Westerhout laughs, as if she remembers it fondly.

The Access Hollywood tape "blew over in a couple days," and after that Trump won the election right?
A: Yes.

The clock is ticking, we have 9 minutes left according to Merchan, and Merchan is always on time, if not early.

Necheles talks fast, getting more questions in. It was a busy time? Yes. You were called "the greeter girl," correct? Yes. Wasn't it a little belittling? Yeah.

I tried not to let it get to me, but people said I was unqualified, Westerhout says about the "greeter girl" nickname.

Trump was also transitioning his companies into a trust, Necheles asks, but Westerhout says, not to her knowledge. She wasn't involved in the business side.

Westerhout says Trump only had two and a half months to transition from running the Trump Organization to becoming president. Necheles keeps portraying it as a hectic, busy time, with lots of distractions.

It was amazing working with Trump, she says, smiling. I think—I—I hadn't spent any time with him, I don't know if anyone should feel like they deserve they should be in the West Wing, but Trump always made me feel like I belonged, especially in a place with a lot of older men.

We now get a portrait of Trump, the family man.

He had a close relationship with his children, and a lovely relationship with his wife? Yes, definitely, Westerhout says.

Westerhout paints a touching scene: Trump would be on the phone w/ his wife, & would tell her to come to the window in the residence, where she could look across and see Trump in the Oval Office. He would also call his wife to tell her he's boarding AF1, though he didn't have to

Right on schedule, Merchan stops it there.

We end with an image of Trump the family man from Westerhout's testimony, which couldn't be further from this morning's depiction of Trump the philanderer and bully of Daniels' testimony.

As the judge offers his pro forma instructions to the jury and bids them goodnight, I am obliged as always to thank those of you continue to support @lawfare's coverage of the Trump trials: givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…

Merchan says we'll take 10, then pick it back up with Mr. Blanche.

As Trump walks out, a member of the public says something to Trump. "Guys, we're not doing that," a court officers scolds them. After the parties leave, the officer takes out the two men who spoke to Trump.

At 4:09 p.m., Trump and co. walk back in, and Merchan walks back in as well, almost simultaneously.

NEWS: The People no longer intend to call Karen McDougal to testify.

So there are only two issues now, first the gag order.

Blanche asks that Trump be allowed to respond to Daniels' testimony, because of all the reporting about it, which tells a completely different story than Trump's. This will tie into the mistrial motion, he says.

Daniels was on a political TV show with "political commentators" last night, Blanche says, and Trump can't say this never happened, this is never true, to this "new version of events" which deals with a very different issue than a sexual event that took place in 2006.

We said repeatedly, and I'm not going to dwell on it, Blanche says, but Trump needs an opportunity to respond to the American people.

The only witness left subject to the gag order is Mr Cohen, Blanche says, but his argument is a bit garbled, hard to follow.

There are voters out there, asking questions, but Trump can't say anything, Blanche says. There are numberous articles about it in the news, and Daniels' testimony will be a feature on shows today, and it "cannot be" that he can't respond to it, says Blanche.

It's much different than the same story that's been going around for several years, so Blanche asks that Trump be released from the gag order.

Conroy up now: It seems the other side lives in almost an alternate reality.

Conroy wants to look back at why the order was an issue in the first place, and says that it has been somewhat successful thus far.

This is where facts are brought out, and if someone wants to respond to something someone said in this room, it should happen in this room, not out there, Conroy says.

We have been told repeatedly by witnesses—even in the courtroom, even on the stand—about their fear, Conroy says. Even with a witness today, there was something with her home address on it, and you could see the fear in her eyes.

He does it selfishly with no concern about the safety of the people he's attacking, and unfortunately we have seen the results, Conroy says.

Conroy brings up the NYPD's explosion in threat cases about the number of threats against the members of the DA's office and their families. I had a conversation with a custodial witness last night concerned about their safety, Conroy says.

Modifying this gag order now in the middle of trial would signal to future witnesses that they could be at risk as well, says Conroy.

He cites a DC circuit case about "hostile messages" that have an effect of "deterring, chilling, or altering the involvement" of witnesses.

The gag order is not just designed to protect the witness until they walk off the stand, or to protect the proceedings part of the way, Conroy says.

Modifying the gag order now is for Trump to attack Daniels—that's what he wants to do, let's not pretend he wants to engage in high-minded discourse, Conroy says.

Blanche is back now, and he says everything we just heard in different in kind from what they're requesting.

In this case, a narrowly tailored gag order, the court should be constantly making sure its terms remain in effect, Blanche says.

A completely different set of events, Merchan repeats, What exactly are you referring to?

For example, transcript pg 2610, Blanche cites, "at first I was just startled, jump-scare...room spin in slow motion...felt the blood leave my hands and my feet."

What she had previously said, Blanche says, hinting that he's now getting to the mistrial motion, was "ugh, here we go, we started kissing, I hope he doesn't try to pay me."

Merchan: Help me understand how it's different.
Blanche: One is about consent, and one is not.

Merchan wants to take the issues one-by-one, so we stay on the gag order.

It's interesting what Mr Conroy said, bc I wrote the same thing from the book down, Merchan says. My concern is protecting the integrity of these proceedings as a whole.

Other witnesses, including but not only Michael Cohen, will see your client doing whatever he intends to do, Merchan says. I can't take your word for it that this is going to be low key, this is going to be a response, because that's not the track record.

These were very real, very threatening attacks on witnesses, so I can't take your word for it, Merchan says, while saying he is still concerned by some witnesses using the gag order as a sword, not a shield.

Application to modify gag order is DENIED.

Merchan will now hear motion for a mistrial.

Blanche starts by saying he will put something together over the weekend explaining why this trial cannot go forward in light of Daniels' testimony.

Blanche cites Merchan's finding that Daniels' testimony not only completes the narrative of events, but is also probative of the defendant's intent, but says he alerted the court and the government of Daniels' contradicting previous claims.

Blanche says this new story is about how "this completely made up encounter with President Trump may have been nonconsensual," which they learned from the documentary, at which point they previously objected. Prosecution and court promised not to get into the details, then did.

Questions about whether the encounter brought up Daniels' difficult childhood, Daniels spanking Trump, it almost defies belief that we're here about a records case and the government is asking questions about an incident that happened in 2006, that we don't even believe happened

Blanche continues, This is extremely prejudicial testimony. This is not a case about sex. This is not about whether that encounter took place or didn't take place. Whether it happened or not has nothing to do with the charges in this case.

Blanche reads more of Daniels' testimony, calling it "extremely prejudicial" again, and testimony that has nothing to do with the motive of entering the NDA.

We didn't know these questions were coming, Blanche continues. We had a sense from the documentary that she was changing her story, and we alerted the court, but we were hearing this for the first time.

He's repeating himself, but Merchan lets him continue.

"There was an objection, and it was sustained," Merchan cuts in. "In fact after many of these anecdotes, there was an objection and it was sustained."

But it was still said, Blanche pleads, that's why this testimony is so dangerous, so prejudicial.

"It was so prejudicial—it was a dog whistle for rape," Blanche says.

Let's hear from the people, Merchan says.

"Ok so that was a lot, and most of it, just flat out untrue," Steinglass says.

The claim of ambush is just nonsense, says Steinglass. The claim of changing the story is also extraordinarily untrue. As any witness telling a story, there are details in one form and not in another form. And anyway, the defense has had access to all of this.

Moving on to the mistrial motion, Steinglass says, it has always been their contention that the details of the two-hour convo that Daniels and Trump had in the hotel suite corroborate her account that a) the fact that the sex happens (which increases motivation to silence her)...

These are the details that make her account more credible, and the defense has gone to great length to discredit her, Steinglass says with some force, some oomph in his voice.

They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. They're trying to discredit Daniels that her story is false, then preclude the prosecution from elliciting the details that would corroborate her story, Steinglass says.

Necheles was cherry-picking the details she thought were inconsistent and omitting the details that were consistent, Steinglass says. The overarching point here is the details are the tools the jury needs to assess her credibility.

Those messy details were Trump's motive to silence this woman in 2016, less than a month before the election, says Steinglass. The fact that the testimony is prejudicial and messy, according to Blanche, that's exactly why Trump tried to prevent the American ppl from hearing it.

There were lots of details about a lot of things, but not about the actual encounter. By Steinglass counts, there were only 8 questions about it.

There are other details I don't want to put on the record, but I'm happy to put in a sealed record the very salacious details we omitted out of a desire not to embarrass the defendant, Steinglass says.

"Please have a seat so I can render my decision," Merchan says to Blanche, who had stood up to argue.

Merchan says he went back to his previous decisions side-by-side with the transcript to make sure that everyone had followed his guidelines.

Your denial puts the jury in a decision of choosing who they believe: Donald Trump or Stormy Daniels. Prosecution doesn't have to prove a sexual encounter occured, they have a right to rehabilitate Daniels' credibility, which was immediately attacked in Blanches opening statement

Merchan sua sponte objected to the trailer park comment, and struck it from the record. Following the court's own objection, Merchan notes, Necheles began to object with some frequency, and virtually all were sustained.

On the blacking out comment, for some reason, I don't know why, you went into it ad nauseam on cross-examination, Merchan says, drilling it into the jury's ears over and over.

I had to run out for a radio interview, but continue to follow @AnnaBower for the remainder of the day, which shouldn't be too much longer!