Exhibits 35 and 36
In this episode of Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News, key witness testimonies from the Trump investigation take center stage. Testimony from Hope Hicks corroborates Trump's awareness of hush money payments, while evidence from colleagues McConney and Tarasoff reveals the fraudulent nature of the invoices disguising these payments. The legal analysis examines whether Trump's mixed motives satisfy the intent for a campaign finance violation and how the testimony undercuts his defense of being unaware.
The episode also provides updates on two high-profile cases: the Mar-a-Lago documents case, where delays suggest no pre-election trial, and the civil case where a judge warned Trump about potential jail time for contempt. Both cases illustrate the ongoing legal battles surrounding the former president.
This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the May 8, 2024 episode of the Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News
Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
1-Page Summary
Key Witness Testimonies
Hope Hicks corroborated Trump's awareness of hush money payments
Weissmann considers Hope Hicks' testimony devastating for Trump. Hicks testified that Trump was aware of and intended to conceal the hush payments from his campaign, indicating his relief the story broke post-election. Her tears added credibility.
McConney and Tarasoff provided documentary evidence of fraudulent records
McConney and Tarasoff testified about the approval process and invoicing for the hush payments disguised as legal fees. Exhibits with handwritten notes from McConney and Weisselberg show payments were structured as reimbursements, not legitimate fees.
Legal Analysis of Evidence
Mixed motives may satisfy intent for campaign finance violation
Analysts debate whether Trump's dual motives - concealing payments from Melania and influencing the election - could satisfy legal intent for the violation. The jury can weigh both motives, as the law requires only one significant motive.
Testimony undercuts defense claim of Trump's unawareness
Evidence challenges the claim Trump didn't know about payments. His micromanaging nature, Hicks' testimony of his acknowledgment, and his public admissions cast doubt on the defense's stance.
Case Updates
Mar-a-Lago case delays suggest no pre-election trial
McCord notes Judge Cannon's rulings point to further delays, with deadlines extended due to defense claims of mishandled evidence, suggesting a drawn-out process before trial.
Judge warned Trump about potential jail time
Judge Mershon firmly warned Trump about possible jail time for further contempt, as fines haven't deterred violations of a gag order regarding jury comments.
1-Page Summary
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Weisselberg is a surname mentioned in the text as someone who provided handwritten notes related to hush payments. In the context of the text, Weisselberg's involvement suggests a connection to the fraudulent records and the structuring of payments as reimbursements. The notes from Weisselberg, along with testimony from other witnesses, contribute to the evidence challenging the legitimacy of the payments disguised as legal fees. The mention of Weisselberg implies a significant role in the financial aspects under scrutiny in the legal analysis.
Counterarguments
- Hope Hicks' emotional response could be seen as a human reaction to stress rather than an indicator of the truthfulness of her testimony.
- Documentary evidence provided by McConney and Tarasoff may be subject to interpretation, and the defense could argue that the handwritten notes do not conclusively prove intent to commit fraud.
- The concept of mixed motives in legal intent for campaign finance violations is complex, and it could be argued that personal motives may not necessarily equate to criminal intent.
- The defense might argue that Trump's public persona of micromanagement does not necessarily extend to all areas of his business dealings, and that lack of direct evidence of his knowledge of the payments could support his claim of unawareness.
- Delays in the Mar-a-Lago case could be due to legitimate legal concerns and procedural issues that need to be addressed, rather than strategic delay tactics.
- A warning from a judge about potential jail time is not an indication of guilt but rather a standard legal procedure to ensure compliance with court orders.
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Key witness testimonies and their impact on the case
The testimonies of key witnesses Hope Hicks, Jeff McConney, and Deb Tarasoff have provided crucial insights into the hush money payments and Trump's involvement, affecting the trajectory of the case.
Hope Hicks' testimony corroborates the prosecution's account of the hush money payments and Trump's involvement
Weissmann considers Hope Hicks a devastating witness for the state whose testimony corroborates the prosecution's narrative. Hicks, having spoken directly with Donald Trump after the Stormy Daniels story broke in early 2018, testified to Trump's awareness of the hush money payments and his intent to keep them concealed. She discussed the significance of the Access Hollywood tape and subsequent revelations about Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, particularly regarding their potential to devastate Trump’s campaign among female voters.
Hicks confirmed that when confronted with a Wall Street Journal inquiry about Karen McDougal, Trump had participated in creating false business records to conceal other crimes, highlighting Trump's early involvement in the "catch and kill" scheme. Hicks also indicated that Trump had expressed relief that the story broke after the election and acknowledged Michael Cohen's payments, thereby suggesting awareness and intention to conceal during the election.
Hicks' testimony also implies that by 2018, Trump was well aware of Cohen's role in the hush money payments and appreciated the concealment of these payments because it prevented the story from breaking before the election. Hicks' discomfort and tears during the trial added to her credibility as a witness.
Jeff McConney and Deb Tarasoff's testimonies provide documentary evidence of the alleged fraudulent business records
Jeff McConney and Deb Tarasoff have provided detailed testimony regarding the process of approving and recording the hush money payments, implicating the fraudulent manipulation of business records. McConney outlined the approval process for large invoices, which included high-level sign-offs from Trump or his sons. Tarasoff, as the accounts payable person, testified to the accompanying invoices that were labeled for legal services, indicating that payments were structured as reimbursements.
Exhibits 35 and 36, featuring handwritten notes from McConney and Allen Weisselberg, show that the payments were intentionally structured as reimbursements concealed as legal fees. Andrew Weissmann's knowledge of Weisselberg's handwriting bolsters the authenticity of these notes. The testimony underscores how payments were gr ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Key witness testimonies and their impact on the case
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Andrew Weissmann, a prominent figure in the legal field, views Hope Hicks as a highly impactful witness for the prosecution in the case. Weissmann's assessment suggests that Hicks' testimony is particularly damaging to the defense or supportive of the prosecution's arguments. This indicates that Weissmann believes Hicks' statements and insights significantly strengthen the prosecution's position in the legal proceedings.
- The Access Hollywood tape is a recording from 2005 where Donald Trump made lewd and offensive comments about women. This tape became highly publicized during the 2016 presidential campaign and caused significant controversy. Trump faced backlash for his remarks, which raised concerns about his character and treatment of women. The tape's release had a notable impact on public perception and discussions surrounding Trump's behavior and fitness for office.
- In the context of media and tabloid journalism, a "catch and kill" scheme involves a publication acquiring the rights to a story with the intention of never publishing it, effectively burying the potentially damaging information. This practice is often used to protect the reputation of a person or entity by preventing negative news from reaching the public eye. The term "catch and kill" highlights the dual purpose of obtaining (catching) and suppressing (killing) a story before it can become public knowledge. It can involve payments to sources or individuals to ensure their silence and prevent the story from being reported elsewhere.
- "Grossed up for tax purposes" means increasing the amount of a payment to account for the taxes that will need to be paid on that amount. This adjustment ensures that after taxes are deducted, the recipient receives the intended net amount. It is a common practice to ensure that the recipient receives the full intended payment even after taxes are taken into consideration.
- "Bolsters the authenticity of these notes" means that the knowledge of Weisselberg's handwriting by Andrew Weissmann adds credibility to the handwritten notes provided as evidence. This knowledge helps confirm that the notes were indeed written by Weisselberg, strengthening the trustworthiness and reliability of the information contained in those notes.
- Allen Weisselberg was the Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Organization. In the context of the text, the statement "orders typically came from Allen Weisselberg" suggests that he was often the one giving instructions or approvals related to financial matters within the organization, including the handling of payments like the hush money transactions. This indicates that Weisselberg played a significant role in decision-making processes regarding financial transactions and record-keeping practices within t ...
Counterarguments
- The credibility of Hope Hicks' testimony could be questioned if there were inconsistencies in her statements or if there were reasons to believe her memory or perception of events was flawed.
- The interpretation of Trump's relief that the story broke after the election could be seen as a natural reaction to avoid campaign turbulence rather than an admission of guilt.
- The testimonies of Jeff McConney and Deb Tarasoff might be challenged if there were standard business practices that could explain the recording of payments as legal fees.
- The exhibits and handwritten notes could be argued to be misinterpreted or taken out of context if alternative explanations for their content exist.
- The claim that the doubling of payment amounts was for tax liabilities could be countered if there were legitimate tax or accounting practices that justify such actions.
- McConney's lack of direct conversations with Trump about the payments could be used to argue that Trump was not awar ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Legal analysis of the evidence and legal standards
In a hypothetical examination of Donald Trump's involvement in the hush money payments, legal analysts delve into the multifaceted nature of intent and the complex interplay of potential motives vis-à-vis legal standards.
Mixed motives may be legally sufficient to establish intent for the campaign finance violation
Legal experts debate whether Donald Trump's dual motivations for the hush money payments could satisfy the legal threshold for intent in the context of a campaign finance violation. The jury, they stipulate, can weigh both his desire to conceal the payments from his wife, Melania, alongside the intent to influence the election. A crucial element in this legal parsing could be the judge's instructions to the jury, particularly on how to evaluate multiple motives.
The podcast posits that Trump’s anxieties over Melania’s discovery of the payments surfaced decidedly after the Access Hollywood tape's public circulation, altering the context of his previous reticence to make the payments until after the election. Despite these mixed motives, the government need only prove that one of the motives constituted a significant force in the commission of the crime, not the sole reason.
Testimony and documentary evidence undermine the defense's claim that Trump was unaware of the hush money payments
The plausibility of the defense's claim that Donald Trump was oblivious to the hush money payments is tested against the narrative that his long-time CFO, Allen Weisselberg, would consent to such an elaborate cover-up without his knowledge. Multiple strands of evidence challenge this defense narrative.
The prosecution articulates that Trump's nature as both a penny-pincher and a stickler for details makes it improbable that he would remain ignorant of hefty, anomalous reimbursements, such as monthly checks for $35,000 listed as legal services. Testimony from Hope Hicks, revealing that Trump not only was aware of but also acknowledged reimbursing the hush money payments, fu ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Legal analysis of the evidence and legal standards
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Hush money payments are secret payments made to silence or prevent someone from disclosing damaging or embarrassing information. In this case, the hush money payments were allegedly made by Donald Trump to keep information about his extramarital affairs from becoming public during the 2016 presidential campaign. These payments are at the center of a legal debate regarding potential campaign finance violations and Trump's knowledge and intent regarding them. The controversy surrounding these payments has led to investigations and legal scrutiny.
- The Access Hollywood tape incident occurred in 2016 when a recording surfaced of Donald Trump making lewd comments about women during a conversation with Billy Bush. Trump faced significant backlash for his remarks, with many condemning his language as disrespectful and inappropriate. The release of this tape had a notable impact on the 2016 presidential election campaign, influencing public perception of Trump's character and behavior. The incident is often cited in discussions about Trump's public image and controversies during his time as a public figure.
- Allen Weisselberg was the long-time Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of the Trump Organization. He was a key figure in the financial operations of Trump's businesses and was known for his close relationship with Donald Trump. Weisselberg's role in the context of the hush money payments investigation is significant because his testimony and actions are crucial in determining Trump's knowledge and involvement in the payments. His cooperation with investigators could potentially provide critical evidence against Trump.
- Hope Hicks, a former White House communications director and advisor to President Trump, provided testimony that indicated Trump was aware of and acknowledged reimbursing the hush mone ...
Counterarguments
- The existence of mixed motives does not necessarily establish intent for a campaign finance violation; the defense could argue that the non-election-related motive was the primary or sole driver of the action.
- The jury's interpretation of motives is subjective and can be influenced by various factors, including personal biases or the persuasiveness of the lawyers, which may not reflect the true intent.
- The judge's instructions to the jury, while crucial, are also subject to interpretation and may not provide clear guidance on how to evaluate multiple motives.
- The timing of Trump's anxieties related to the Access Hollywood tape could be coincidental and not necessarily indicative of a motive to influence the election.
- The government's burden to prove that one motive was a significant force in the crime may be difficult to meet if the defense successfully casts doubt on the relevance or weight of that motive.
- The defense could argue that the testimony and documentary evidence presented are not conclusive and may be subject to alternative interpretations or biases.
- Trump's nature as a penny-pincher and detail-oriented person could be unrelated to his awareness of specific financial transactions, which could be handled by subordinates without his ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Updates on related cases against Trump
Recent developments in legal cases involving former President Donald Trump hint at an increasingly complex and drawn-out series of proceedings.
Judge Cannon's recent ruling in the Mar-a-Lago case suggests further delays, making a pre-election trial unlikely
McCord indicates that recent events in the Mar-a-Lago case imply further delays, with no trial date set and a CIPA (Classified Information Procedures Act) filing deadline pushed back. The defense requested an extension because when attorney Nada examined the documents in question, they were not in the same order as they had been during the Mar-a-Lago search warrant execution. While the government argued that the variances should not affect the case, Trump's team claimed discovery violations and requested a stay of the CIPA filing deadline, leading Judge Cannon to temporarily halt the May 9th deadline as she considers Trump's motions. This stay hints that Judge Cannon is adopting a cautious approach, willing to give room for Trump's legal arguments, suggesting a long-haul process in this litigation.
Delays in CIPA filing deadlines and new allegations of discovery issues
The shifting of CIPA filing deadlines and the defense's allegations of spoliation imply further complications. Trump's attorneys argued that some documents may have been destroyed or mishandled during their seizure, utilizing this claim as leverage to postpone the CIPA filing deadline and to prepare motions against what they allege is government misconduct—a strategy that leads to procedural delays.
Judge Mershon's warning to Trump about potential jail time for further contempt violations
Judge Mershon made headlines by issuing a firm warning to Trump about the possibility of jail time if fines don't curtail further contempt of court. This judge found Trump in violation of a gag order related to jury comments and directly communicated to Trump the reluctance ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Updates on related cases against Trump
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) filing deadline is a deadline set for the submission of motions and procedures related to the handling of classified information in a legal case. It is crucial in cases where classified information is involved to ensure that sensitive materials are appropriately protected and disclosed during the legal proceedings. The CIPA process aims to balance the need for national security with the defendant's right to a fair trial by establishing procedures for handling classified information in court. Missing or delayed CIPA filings can lead to procedural delays and impact the timeline of the legal case.
- Spoliation is the intentional destruction or alteration of evidence that may be relevant in a legal proceeding. It can lead to serious consequences as it hampers the ability to uncover the truth in a case. Parties involved in litigation have a duty to preserve evidence once they are aware or should be aware that the evidence is relevant to the dispute. Failure to preserve evidence can result in sanctions by the court.
- A gag order related to jury comments typically restricts parties involved in a legal case from making public statements that could influence potential jurors or the outcome of the trial. In this context, it seems that former President Trump was warned about violating such an order by making comments that could impact the impartiality of the jury or the fairness of the legal proceedings. Violating a gag order can lead to consequences such as fines or, as mentioned in the text, potential jail time if the violations persist.
- The mechanics of potentially jailing a former president involve navigating legal and logistical challenges unique to such a high-profile individual. This includes considerations like where the individual would be held, how ...
Counterarguments
- The complexity and duration of legal proceedings are not unique to Trump's cases and can be typical in high-profile litigation involving extensive evidence and procedural motions.
- Delays in legal cases, especially those involving classified information, may be necessary to ensure due process and the protection of sensitive materials, rather than being indicative of any particular strategy by the defense or the court.
- Allegations of discovery issues are a common defense tactic in legal proceedings and do not necessarily imply misconduct by the government or the prosecution.
- Judges often issue warnings about potential jail time as a standard procedure to enf ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Create Summaries for anything on the web
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser
