We recently traveled to New York City to visit a public defender friend and see plays that are relevant to politics in America today. Cabaret was about the insidious takeover of Germany by the autocratic Nazis, An Enemy of the People was about how money can trump truth-telling (when speaking an unpopular truth results in a scientist losing his job), and Patriot was about autocratic Putin’s “in-your-face” takeover of Russia.
Eager to participate in American history by attending the first criminal trial of a former president in U.S. history, I got up at 4 am (2 am Bozeman time) on May 3 and stood in line outside the Manhattan Criminal Court. Four hours of shivering in a cold wind later I was lucky enough to be one of nine people to be granted a ticket to sit in the main courtroom for a day of Trump’s felony falsifying business records/election interference/hush money trial.
Both the prosecution’s (the People’s) attorneys and Trump’s defense attorneys were very competent that day. The mostly middle-aged jurors and alternates were paying attention.
For Trump to be convicted of a felony, the prosecution must prove (beyond a reasonable doubt to all 12 jurors) that Trump made hush money payments at least in part to reduce the impact of news of his (legal but tawdry) affairs on his chances of winning the general election. The prosecution must also prove that the payments were falsely accounted for by Trump as “legal expenses” and not as campaign expenses that must be reported to the government, an element of the case in which Hope is not involved. The prosecution has to “connect the dots” for the jury between many, many documents and recordings to prove that the coverup of Trump’s affairs and falsification of business records occurred. So, much of the trial is a slog through digital versions of paperwork.
First, I heard the testimony of an expert witness confirming the authenticity of an audio recording of Trump’s conversation with Michael Cohen about a hush money payment. Next, I heard testimony from a young paralegal who was assigned to follow, verify, and download Trump’s social media postings for the prosecution. No surprises there.
Then, Hope Hicks testified. Hope’s testimony (excerpted quotes from the official transcript presented below) established many of the facts the prosecution must prove to the jury for Trump to be convicted of a felony. Much of the believable (and devastating to Trump) evidence Hope provided occurred when she did not comply with typical attorney instructions to a witness (even though she had her own attorney): “Answer only the question, do not volunteer any additional information.”
Hope volunteered far too much information, first about the impact on the election of Access Hollywood tape (for which no hush money had been paid, but which set the stage for Trump to want to quash subsequent reports of affairs) and then critically about Trump’s motivation for paying hush money to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. You will note that Hope answered many yes-or-no questions below with much more than yes or no, to the detriment of Trump. My takeaways from Hope’s testimony are presented at the end of this article.
Evidence That Hope Was Inexperienced and Naïve
Q. Will you please describe your educational background?
A. Sure, I have a I have a BA in English from Southern Methodist University, and that’s it. Very brief.
Q. You began working at The Trump Organization about four years after you finished college?
A. That’s right.
Evidence That She Was Not Testifying Willingly
Q. Are you here today in response to a subpoena from the District Attorney’s office?
A. I am.
Q. Are you represented by counsel here today?
A. I am.
Q. Who is paying for your lawyer?
A. I am.
Evidence That Hope Was a Key Player at the Center of the Trump Campaign
Q. Focusing on your role as Director of Communications, who did you report to at The Trump Organization?
A. Everybody that works there in some sense reports to Mr. Trump.
Q. You may already have answered this in your earlier discussion, who did you report to as Press Secretary in the campaign?
A. I reported to Mr. Trump.
Evidence that Trump Was Upset about the Impact of Access Hollywood Tape on the Election
Q. When did you first find out about the Access Hollywood tape?
A. It would have been in the afternoon of October 7th.
Q. Of 2016?
A. Yes.
Q. How long before the general election was that?
A. A month; maybe a little less than a month.
Q. What was your first reaction when you received this email?
A. I was concerned, very concerned; concerned about the contents of the email. Yeah, I was. I was concerned about the lack of time to respond. I was concerned that we had a transcript, but not a tape. There were a lot of–there was a lot at play.
Q. And in the email you forwarded, did you write, “Need to hear the tape, one, need to hear the tape to be sure; two, deny, deny, deny?”
A. It’s a reflex. I, obviously, was a little shocked and not realizing that the entirety of the transcript was in the email. difficult. So strategy number two was going to be a little more difficult. But, yes, that is an email that I sent.
Q. When you say “you shared the content verbally,” did you read Mr. Trump the email you received from Mr. Fahrenthold?
A. I read him the email and I have a vague recollection of starting to read the transcript. And then he finished reading it himself, I believe.
Q. Did you hand him the email for him to read?
A. Yes, that’s my recollection.
Q. And what, if anything, did he say?
A. He said that that didn’t sound like something he would say.
Q. So at some point you saw the video. Were you with Mr. Trump when at that happened?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Mr. Trump upset?
A. Yes. Yes, he was.
Q. In those initial conversations with Mr. Trump and other campaign staff, did anyone else in the group express concern that the tape would be damaging?
A. Yes, I think there was consensus among us all that the tape was damaging and this was a crisis.
Q. At some point, did the conversation turn to how the campaign should respond? Tell the jury a little bit more about that discussion?
A. I don’t really have a strong recollection of that conversation. But, you know, I know Mr. Trump felt like this wasn’t good. But it was also just like two guys talking privately, locker room talk. It wasn’t anything to get so upset over. Certainly he didn’t want to offend anybody, but I think he felt like this was like pretty standard stuff for two guys chatting with each other.
Q. And so, as you developed an initial campaign response, did Mr. Trump have thoughts on what that initial campaign response should be?
A. Yes. He did. He always liked to weigh in on responses.
Q. What was the immediate media response?
A. It was intense. It dominated coverage for, you know, I would say the 36 hours leading up to the debate. Um, there was a–at the time I got the email in the office at 1:30 in the afternoon on Friday, we were anticipating a Category 4 hurricane making landfall somewhere on the East Coast, and I don’t think anybody remembers where or when that hurricane made landfall. It was all Trump, all the time, for the next 36 hours.
Q. The Access Hollywood pushed the hurricane off the news?
A.Yes.
Q. Did any prominent Republicans condemn Mr. Trump’s behavior on the Access Hollywood tape?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you describe any of those statements that you remember?
A. Um, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, you know, sort of the usual. Anytime, if there was anything remotely controversial, the group that fel they had to weigh in would come out and give statements. Um, it’s pretty standard. But, these were particularly, um, you know, sharply-worded statements. [Some of the words mentioned were “sickened,” “repugnant,” “unacceptable,” and “vile.”]
[Out of hearing of the jury and the witness] MR . COLANGELO: Your Honor, public reaction to the Access Hollywood tape is a critical part of the evidence in the case. We not only briefed it, but it’s important to show the impact on the campaign.
THE COURT: I agree.
Q. What was the substance of your conversation with Mr. Cohen?
A. Um, I was calling to ask him to chase down a rumor I had heard with a contact he was familiar with in the media.
Q. And, without giving me any details at all, can you say, very generally, what that rumor was?
A. Um, just that there may be another tape that would be problematic for the campaign.
Evidence from Hope about Reports of the Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels Affairs
Q. Shortly after the Access Hollywood tape was published, and without elaborating or giving any details, did you become aware of reports regarding Mr. Trump’s behavior with women?
A. After the campaign–sorry. After the debate, I think it was the next evening, Monday evening, we were contacted by the New York Times. They were writing a story about–
Q. Let me interrupt you there. Sorry. Were there reports regarding Mr. Trump’s behavior?
A. After the debate, yes.
Q. Okay. And was this around the middle of October 2016?
A. Yes.
Q. So, how long before the election was that?
A. Two-and- a-half weeks, three weeks.
Q. Is it fair to say that in this period, Mr. Trump was concerned that these reports could hurt his standing with others?
A. Yes.
Q. Does this tweet read: ” The very foul mouthed Senator John McCain begged for my support during his primary–I gave, then dropped me over locker room remarks!”?
A. Yes.
Q. What does “then dropped me over locker room remarks” refer to?
A. I think it means he withdrew his endorsement after that Access Hollywood tape.
Q. Can you please read what Mr. Trump said in the tweet?
A. “Nothing ever happened with any of these women. Totally made up nonsense to steal the election. Nobody has more respect for women than me!”
Q. Can you please read what Mr. Trump said in this tweet?
A. “Polls close, but can you believe I lost large numbers of women voters based on made up events that never happened. Media rigging election!”
Q. Can you please read what Mr. Trump said in this tweet?
A. “Can’t believe these totally phony stories, 100 percent made up by women, many already proven false, and pushed big time by press, have impact!”
Q. Have you ever heard of someone named Karen McDougal?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you first hear the name Karen McDougal?
A. November 4, 2016.
Q. Have you ever heard of someone named Stormy Daniels?
A. Um, she was mentioned in the same story, the um, November 4, 2016 story. And I had heard of her one other time before that.
Q. What’s the other time before that that you had first heard Stormy Daniels?
A. A year prior, November 2015. Um, Mr. Trump and some security guys on the plane were telling a story about a celebrity golf tournament and some of the participants in the tournament, and her name came up. Um, she was there with one of the other participants that Mr. Trump had played with that day, was my understanding of the story.
Q. So, let’s take those in turn. When you called Mr. Pecker’s office, did you, ultimately, reach him?
A. I believe so.
Q. And what did you speak with him about?
A. Um, just asked what was going on; um, why was receiving this email. Um. And he explained that, um, Karen McDougal was paid for magazine covers and fitness columns, and that it was all very legitimate, that that’s what the contract was for.
Q. Can you go ahead and read that highlighted passage into evidence, please, into the record?
A. Sure. It says: “Hope Hicks, a Trump campaign spokeswoman, said of the agreement with Ms. McDougal, quote, We have no knowledge of any of this. She said that Ms. McDougal’s claim of an affair with Mr. Trump was totally untrue.”
Q. Do you see the passage that’s being displayed? Does that read: “Mr. Davidson also represented Stephanie Clifford, a former adult film star whose professional name is Stormy Daniels and who was in discussions with ABC’s Good Morning America in recent months publicly disclose what she said was a past relationship with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the talks. Ms. Clifford cut off contact with the network without telling her story. She didn’t respond to requests for comment. An ABC spokesperson declined to comment on Ms. McDougal or Ms. Clifford. The Trump spokeswoman, Ms. Hicks, said it was ‘absolutely, unequivocally untrue’ about that Stormy Daniels had a relationship with Mr. Trump.” Do you see that statement?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you say you didn’t know and you didn’t want to know, what do you mean by that?
A. The election was taking place in three days, and we were doing five or six rallies a day. There was a lot going on. And, you know, it wasn’t like this story was consuming the news cycle and that I needed to be, um, aware of every little detail. I just kind of was hoping at this point we were just gonna blow past it and keep going.
Q. Did he also ask you whether it was whether you thought it was likely to affect the campaign?
A. Um, everything we talked about in the context of, you know, this time period in this time period was about whether or not there was an impact on the campaign. So, certainly–I don’t recall, specifically, him saying that. But, everything was something that Mr. Trump said a lot is, “How” “How is it playing?” He wanted to know how things were playing, whether they were playing well or playing poorly. And that could have been a speech, an article, a tweet. So, I don’t want to speculate, but I’m almost certain he would have asked me, “How’s it playing?”, and wanted to know how I felt the next few days were gonna go and if this was going to be a big piece of the next few days.
Q. And can you describe the conversation that you had with him about the conversation he had with Mr. Cohen?
A. I believe it was the day after–Michael had given a statement to The New York Times, saying that he had, in fact, made this payment, um, without Mr. Trump’s knowledge. And, um so–Mr. Trump was saying that he had spoken to Michael, um–sorry. This–President Trump was saying he spoke to Michael, and that Michael had paid this woman to protect him from a false allegation, um, and that you know, Michael felt like it was his job to protect him, and that’s what he was doing. And he did it out of the kindness of his own heart. He never told anybody about it. You know. And he was continuing to try to protect him up until the point where he felt he had to state what was true.
Q. And this is what President Trump told you Michael Cohen said to him?
A. That’s right.
Q. How long had you known Michael Cohen by that point?
A. Three-and a half years.
Q. And did the idea that Mr. Cohen would have made a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels out of the kindness of his heart, was that consistent with your interactions with him up to that point?
A. I would say that would be out of character for Michael.
Q. Why would it be out of character for Michael?
A. I didn’t know Michael to be an especially charitable person, um, or selfless person. Um, he’s the kind of person who seeks credit.
Is Trump Now Saying “Et tu, Hope?”
Q. Did he [Trump] say anything about the timing of the news reporting regarding–
A. Oh, he yes. He wanted to know how it was playing, and just my thoughts and opinion about this story versus having the story a different kind of story before the campaign had Michael not made that payment. And I think Mr. Trump’s opinion was it was better to be dealing with it now [after the election], and that it would have been bad to have that story come out before the election.
The prosecution ended its questioning at this point, just after a very believable Hope “overshares” and testifies to exactly what needs to be proven to show that Trump was motivated to make hush money payments to interfere in the election. That evidence makes the hush money payments campaign contributions under New York law and not “legal fees.” Beyond Hope’s testimony, the prosecution must also prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Trump himself falsely claimed that the payments were “legal fees” as stated on on the checks he signed and in his financial records.
I think that Hope’s starting to cry when the defense began its questioning suggests that she has learned the lesson that every other Trump enabler and source of narcissistic supply eventually learns: only he benefits from his relationships. Parties to Trump’s transactional relationships pay a heavy price in money and reputation (and often lose their freedoms). Like they say: “MAGA means Making Attorneys Get Attorneys.” I guess it now adays also means “Make Assistants Get Attorneys.”