#Susan Hoffinger

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Sara Boboltz and Ryan Grenoble at HuffPost:

Michael Cohen, former personal attorney to Donald Trump, testified against the ex-president on Monday in his New York criminal hush money trial, corroborating claims of an extraordinary effort to silence stories that could be damaging to Trump in the days before the 2016 presidential election.

While Cohen has been cooperating with government prosecutors for several years, his appearance on the witness stand is an extraordinary moment in his long relationship with Trump — a man for whom Cohen once said he would “take a bullet.” Under questioning from prosecutor Susan Hoffinger, Cohen described how he cajoled, aggressively bullied and outright lied to do whatever Trump asked of him. “The only thing that was on my mind was to accomplish the task, to make him happy,” he said. “I did... what was needed in order to accomplish the task.” When Trump first hired him, Cohen earned $525,000 a year doing things like calling vendors and renegotiating bills to a fraction of their original cost, or threatening media outlets over negative stories about his boss. But as the 2016 election cycle progressed, Cohen’s role shifted. He started negotiating with National Enquirer executives, including publisher David Pecker, to conjure positive coverage for his boss.

At the same time, and with Trump’s explicit approval, Cohen bought the rights to negative stories through the Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc. The stories were then locked away in a scheme known as “catch and kill.” Cohen said he was closely involved with hush money payments that prosecutors say were made during Trump’s 2016 campaign, including a $150,000 sum to former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who says she had a yearlong affair with Trump in the mid-2000s. When he first heard about McDougal’s story, Cohen said he immediately went to Trump in person to warn him about the damage it could cause. “His response to me was, ‘She’s really beautiful,’” he recalled. “I said, ‘OK, but there’s a story that’s right now being shopped.’” Cohen said Trump told him to “make sure it doesn’t get released.”

The two bought the rights to McDougal’s life story for $150,000, prompting a scramble to repay Pecker. As Trump delayed furnishing the funds, Cohen recalled having lunch with a “very” upset Pecker, who told him the sum was “too much to hide” from his parent company. [...] Cohen also spoke at length about how he orchestrated a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, who maintains that she had an affair with Trump in 2006. Daniels’ desire to make her allegation public knowledge during Trump’s 2016 campaign for the presidency set into motion the chain of events that led New York prosecutors to charge Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records. “Trump told me that he was playing golf with ‘Big Ben’ Roethlisberger... and they had met Stormy Daniels and others there,” Cohen recalled, adding that Trump expressed the sentiment “that women prefer Trump even over someone like Big Ben.” (Multiple women have accused Roethlisberger of sexual assault.)

Michael Cohen's testimony in the People of New York v. Trump trial could be a fatal blow for Donald Trump. #TrumpTrial

[tomorrowusa]

When Stormy Daniels testifies at the Trump hush money trial she will be able to talk about sex with The Donald but she can't describe Toad.

With Stormy Daniels expected on the stand later today, Trump's defense team made a last-minute bid to block the porn star from offering up lurid details of her claimed sexual encounter with Trump — an encounter that Trump maintains never happened. Without getting specific, Trump lawyer Susan Necheles said such details would be “unduly prejudicial” to Trump. [ ... ] The prosecutor said Daniels could “omit certain details that might be too salacious,” while still offering “general details of what occurred.” “In terms of the sexual act, it will be just very basic. It’s not going to involve any descriptions of genitalia,” Hoffinger added.

[dertaglichedan]

BREAKING - JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT IN TRUMP’S VERDICT? In a letter, today, June 7, 2024, Judge Juan M. Merchan of the New York Supreme Court, alerted the involved parties in the case People v. Trump about a concerning comment posted on the Unified Court System's Facebook page a week ago.

NOTE: The comment, made by a user named "Michael Anderson," claims that his cousin, a juror in the trial, had already decided that Trump will be convicted.

NOTE: The notification is significant because it suggests potential juror bias or misconduct, which could impact the fairness of the trial.

NOTE: The judge brought the issue to the attention of both Trump’s defense attorney, Todd Blanche, and the prosecutor, ADA Joshua Steinglass.

NOTE: It’s unclear whether the allegation is true or the person truly connected to the juror. But it’s concerning enough the judge had to notify both parties.

Below is the letter:

CHAMBERS 100 CENTRE STREET NEW YORK, N.Y. 10013

JUDGE OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS SUPREME COURT, CRIMINAL TERM FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT**

Via Email June 7, 2024

Todd Blanche, Esq. 99 Wall Street Suite 4460 New York, NY 10005

ADA Joshua Steinglass New York County District Attorney’s Office One Hogan Place New York, NY 10013

Re: People v. Trump, Ind. No. 71543-2023

Dear Counsel:

Today, the Court became aware of a comment that was posted on the Unified Court System’s public Facebook page and which I now bring to your attention. In the comment, the user, “Michael Anderson,” states:

“My cousin is a juror and says Trump is getting convicted 🥳 Thank you folks for all your hard work!!!! 🖤.”

The comment, now labeled as one week old, responded to a routine UCS notice, posted on May 29, 2024, regarding oral arguments in the Fourth Department of the Appellate Division unrelated to this proceeding.

The posting, entitled “The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, will hear oral arguments this morning at 10,” and the comment are both viewable at https://facebook.com/NewYorkCourts/.

Very truly yours,

Juan M. Merchan Judge Court of Claims Acting Justice Supreme Court

cc: Susan Necheles, Esq. Counsel of record ADA Susan Hoffinger Assistant District Attorneys of record Court file

[bighermie]

Chief Investigator at Manhattan DA's Office Susan Hoffinger Previously Donated to Biden and Other Dems | The Gateway Pundit

[topstoryusa0]

[ad_1] Choose Juan Merchan presides over proceedings as Stormy Daniels, far proper, solutions questions on direct examination by assistant district lawyer Susan Hoffinger in Manhattan legal courtroom as former President Donald Trump and protection lawyer Todd Blanche look on on Could 7. Elizabeth Williams/AP conceal caption toggle caption Elizabeth Williams/AP Choose Juan Merchan presides over proceedings as Stormy Daniels, far proper, solutions questions on direct examination by assistant district lawyer Susan Hoffinger in Manhattan legal courtroom as former President Donald Trump and protection lawyer Todd Blanche look on on Could 7. Elizabeth Williams/AP NEW YORK — Grownup movie actor Stormy Daniels took the stand for a second day within the legal trial towards Donald Trump on Thursday morning. Her testimony adopted a graphic day on the stand on Tuesday the place she detailed an alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Trump in a resort suite in addition to their contact between 2006 and 2008. Trump has denied the affair. Daniels, also called Stephanie Clifford, is one in every of two ladies the prosecution is alleging Trump paid off to guard his electoral prospects the primary time he ran for the White Home. The previous president faces 34 felony counts alleging that he falsified New York enterprise data to hide damaging info to affect the 2016 presidential election. Trump, who pleaded not responsible, claims the trial itself is "election interference" due to how it's disrupting his 2024 bid for president. He should be current in courtroom day-after-day and thus, is not in a position to marketing campaign when he's. Stormy Daniels arrives at Manhattan legal courtroom on Could 9 in New York Metropolis. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Photographs conceal caption toggle caption Michael M. Santiago/Getty Photographs Stormy Daniels arrives at Manhattan legal courtroom on Could 9 in New York Metropolis. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Photographs Prosecutors argued the small print Daniels gave up to now in testimony have been aimed toward establishing her credibility and likewise assist clarify what precisely Trump needed to silence with a nondisclosure settlement and $130,000 settlement from his then-lawyer Michael Cohen. The protection did not need her to speak in any respect about intercourse, arguing it is a case about books and data and referred to as for a mistrial, a transfer the choose denied. On Tuesday Choose Juan Merchan advised prosecutors to instruct her to not give pointless particulars and be extra succinct in her solutions. The previous president sat within the courtroom for her testimony, as he's required to by New York legal legislation, and has been accompanied by one in every of his sons, Eric Trump, although he was not current at the beginning of testimony on Thursday. [ad_2] https://topstoryusa.com/us/stormy-daniels-testifies-against-donald-trump-in-new-york-hush-money-trial-npr-tsu/?feed_id=1874&_unique_id=6644597e301ec

[dankusner]

Stormy Daniels Takes the Stand

Testimony from the adult-film actor moved the ex-President’s lawyers to call for a mistrial.

This morning, at Donald Trump’s criminal trial, an Assistant District Attorney rose and said the words everyone had been waiting to hear: “The people call Stormy Daniels.”

This case has always been surreal; it concerns hush money that was paid to Daniels, an adult-film actor, in 2016.

But, until Daniels strolled jauntily into the courtroom today, the improbable, grubby reality of the whole affair had yet to come into focus.

For several hours, Daniels took the court through her story, from her childhood in Louisiana to her ventures in the adult-film industry.

Then she recounted the fateful day, in 2006, when she met the future President at a celebrity golf tournament.

At the time, Daniels was under contract with a company called Wicked Pictures.

“Wicked sponsored one of the holes on the golf course,” Daniels said. “It was funny, one of the adult-film companies sponsoring one of the holes.”

Some reporters in the gallery chuckled, but no one else in the courtroom smiled—not the judge, not the prosecutors, not the defendant, nor his lawyers.

The members of the jury seemed to behold Daniels with curiosity, and to take her words seriously.

Daniels answered the prosecutor Susan Hoffinger’s questions gamely, and sometimes in more detail than Judge Juan Merchan wanted, which repeatedly prompted Trump’s lawyer Susan Necheles to object.

Daniels gave an elaborate description of the hotel suite she said Trump invited her to, down to the black-and-white tile floor in the foyer.

She detailed the nearly two hours of conversation that she and Trump shared in the dining room of the suite.

She said that Trump asked her about the adult-film industry, but that, unlike most people, he was less interested in the sordid details than the practicalities.

“Are there any unions? Do you get residuals?” she recalled him asking.

What about testing, he wanted to know.

Was she worried about S.T.D.s?

When Daniels talked about spanking Trump with a magazine, some of the jurors finally cracked.

At Merchan’s urging, Hoffinger asked Daniels to be as brief as possible in describing sex between the two.

Daniels said they had been in the “missionary position.”

Necheles objected, again.

Merchan sustained the objection.

Later, Daniels testified that Trump did not wear a condom.

“Was that concerning to you?” Hoffinger asked, to which Daniels replied, “Yes.” When Hoffinger asked why Daniels didn’t say anything about it, Daniels told her, “I didn’t say anything at all.”

For much of Daniels’s testimony, Trump sat looking away from her.

Before lunch, Hoffinger asked Daniels to discuss the details of the hush-money payment she received from Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen a few days before the 2016 election.

In her telling, she accepted a hundred and thirty thousand dollars in exchange for her silence mostly because she didn’t want her then partner to find out about the encounter.

“I didn’t care about the amount—it was just to get it done,” Daniels said. “The number didn’t matter to me.”

After the lunch break, Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche requested a mistrial.

He said that Daniels’s testimony had been extremely embarrassing to Trump.

“How can we come back from this in a way that is fair for President Trump?” he asked Merchan.

The judge allowed that Daniels had said some things on the stand that would have been better left “unsaid.”

“In fairness to the people, I think the witness was a little difficult to control,” Merchan noted.

But he did not grant the mistrial.

“The remedy,” he said, “is on cross-examination.” Daniels is expected to testify through Thursday.

Stormy Daniels’s American Dream

Donald Trump’s lawyers tried to portray the scrappy adult-film actress as a lying profiteer. Instead, she emerged as an intelligent, credible witness who is also very good at making money.

By Naomi Fry

A photo of Stormy Daniels leaving a Manhattan court in May 2024.

The publicity that has come with the revelation of Stormy Daniels’s alleged affair with Trump has been both a boon and a burden for her.

Donald Trump seemed to be in an impish mood, on Thursday morning, as he walked into his criminal trial in lower Manhattan.

He wore a light-blue shirt and a cerulean tie underneath his navy suit jacket, looking not unlike a clear spring day, and when he passed by the reporters in the courtroom gallery, he cocked a finger gun at Greg Kelly, the conservative Newsmax host, who responded with a reassuring smile.

This air of playfulness, however, was replaced by a rigid sobriety as the adult-film star Stormy Daniels approached the witness stand for her second day of testimony, her heels clicking loudly on the courtroom floor.

The former President jutted his chin forward and trained his gaze on Daniels, who was dressed in a form-fitting green dress underneath a loose black jacket, her eyeglasses set on top of her long blonde hair.

She looked like a no-nonsense administrative manager of, say, a C.P.A.’s office—attractive, bright, can-do.

Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, is a blunt and gregarious blonde, who has famously dubbed her triple-D silicon breasts “Thunder” and “Lightning.”

She has alleged that, during a 2006 celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, she met the future President, had less-than-mediocre sex with him, and, a decade later, in the lead-up to the 2016 Presidential election, was paid a hundred and thirty thousand dollars to keep quiet about it.

Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer and fixer at the time, transferred the money to Daniels and was then allegedly repaid by the Trump Organization, which identified the sum as a “retainer” for “services rendered.”

Trump is accused of thirty-four felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up the hush-money payment and conceal damaging information before the election; he has pleaded not guilty.

One of the markers of the Trump era, since its onset, has been its comic vulgarity.

Like shiny objects waved in a toddler’s face, the former President’s sillier antics—serving fast food at a White House reception, suggesting to a seven-year-old that Santa isn’t real, staring head-on at the solar eclipse—have been a welcome distraction from the more sinister political realities of his Administration.

Eventually, Trump will go on trial for the serious crimes with which he’s been charged: his alleged illegal attempts to overturn the 2020 Presidential election, his role in the January 6th insurrection, and his possible mishandling of classified documents.

But, until then, we have his hush-money trial in Manhattan, which has felt like a lurid parody of twenty-first-century Americana.

The trial has given us Trump’s former aide Hope Hicks bursting into tears on the witness stand and the ex-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker telling the court how hard it was to get Trump to pay him back when he caught and killed potentially damaging tabloid stories about him.

And yet this seeming diversion of a trial might also lead to the first guilty verdict of a former President in American history, with Stormy Daniels as the implement who gets us there. Who would have thought?

Born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to parents who divorced when she was very young, Daniels, who is now forty-five, began performing at a local strip club when she was seventeen.

She became a pornographic actress in her early twenties, and, soon thereafter, became a screenwriter and director of adult films—a rarity for a woman at the time.

In her 2018 memoir, “Full Disclosure,” Daniels, who has been wed four times and is a mother to a teen daughter, describes her peripatetic life, moving between homes and marriages, from Louisiana to Los Angeles to Florida to Vegas to Texas.

In one memorable section, she recounts meeting the heavy-metal band Pantera at a club in Florida in the early two-thousands and spontaneously joining them on their tour bus for two weeks.

(“We were this new circus family,” she writes.)

But despite Daniels’s seeming flightiness, when I recently read “Full Disclosure,” what I was most struck by was her steadfastness and gumption.

Raised in squalor by an unloving and neglectful mother—her father was largely out of the picture—Daniels was sexually abused as a child by a neighbor, and managed to find what solace she could in horseback riding and doing well at school.

Her resources, however, were nil, and she knew that a good life was also an expensive one.

(“Part of the American dream is making money,” she writes in the book. “I am a firm believer in capitalism.”)

Her salvation was work.

“I was a machine and got up to working six nights a week, with at least five of them being doubles,” she writes, about an early gig at a strip club.

She was canny about leveraging her looks and sexuality to maximize her earning potential, which helped her achieve a financial security that had eluded her from birth.

She was nothing if not pragmatic: a natural brunette, she recalls how she dyed her hair red, and then blond, in a quest to earn higher rates.

(“The more blonde I got, the more work I got.”)

And then there were the boobs:

“I noticed that the girls at the Gold Club who invested in breast implants got more tips.”

Her decision to follow in their footsteps proved immediately remunerative.

(“I got a lot more tips. Instantly.”)

In order to make yet more money as a stripper, she transitioned to doing nude pictorials, and then, finally, movies.

(“The only way to bump your rate up after you top out is to do films.”)

In 2002, she started performing in Wicked Pictures productions, becoming one of the studio’s contract stars, and later expanded her reach by writing and directing films for the company.

By the time Daniels met Trump, in Lake Tahoe, she was twenty-seven, and one of her industry’s leading stars.

This past Tuesday, when she began testifying in Trump’s criminal trial, she told Susan Hoffinger, one of the prosecutors, that she believes Trump was drawn to her business acumen.

After they met at the golf tournament (Wicked Pictures was sponsoring one of the holes), Trump invited Daniels to meet with him at his suite, where he asked her about her work in the adult-film industry.

“He was very interested in a lot of the business aspects of it, which I thought was very cool,” she told the court. “He asked questions like, ‘Are there any unions? Do you get residuals?’”

As my colleague Eric Lach, who has been reporting on the trial for The New Yorker, told me, this was the moment in which “game recognized game.” No one, after all, is a firmer believer in capitalism than Donald Trump.

At the time, Trump was the host of the NBC program “The Apprentice,” then in its fifth season, and he suggested to Daniels that she appear on his television show, to prove, as she said on the stand, that she is “not just a dumb bimbo.”

Daniels, disbelieving at first, was nonetheless intrigued, and eager to pursue possibilities outside of the adult-film industry. “It would have been great for my career,” she told Hoffinger on Tuesday.

But professional discussion turned into something quite different when, as Daniels alleges, she emerged from the bathroom at the suite and Trump was waiting for her on the bed, in boxer shorts and a T-shirt.

“Oh, my God, what did I misread to get here?” she recalled thinking, in court.

The sexual encounter (which Trump denies took place) was consensual but entirely joyless.

(“I was staring at the ceiling,” Daniels testified.)

After she left the suite, Daniels, hoping that “The Apprentice” gig would still pan out, continued to be in touch with Trump, although she never had sex with him again.

When Trump finally told her, some time later, that he wasn’t able to include her as a contestant on the show, she stopped taking his calls and went on with her life.

In 2011, Daniels got word that the story of her encounter with Trump had been leaked to the press, and she decided to take control of the situation so that she could at least benefit monetarily from it and make sure the story was accurate.

She gave an account of her evening with Trump to the gossip magazine In Touch Weekly, which it ended up not publishing until 2018.

(It was later reported that, in 2011, Michael Cohen demanded to have the story dropped and threatened legal action if it were published; in Daniels’s memoir, she also claims that, around the same time, she was carrying her then infant daughter in a parking lot in Las Vegas when she was approached and threatened by a man who told her to “leave Mr. Trump alone.”)

Years later, in the run-up to the 2016 Presidential election, Daniels contacted the National Enquirer and attempted to sell her story again.

Trump didn’t need more bad publicity in the wake of the “Access Hollywood”-tape scandal, and Cohen paid her to sign a nondisclosure agreement.

But in 2018, Cohen himself began shopping around his account of the Trump Presidency, including the Daniels hush-money tale, at which point Daniels figured the N.D.A. was null and void.

(“This dim bulb Cohen was out there selling a book on my name, but I was the only person taking this N.D.A. seriously?” she writes in her memoir. “I can’t comment, profit, or defend myself?”) She began to talk.

The publicity that has come with the revelation of the alleged affair has been both a boon and a burden for Daniels.

On the upside, she secured a lucrative book deal, participated in more than one reality show (most recently, as the host of the queer dating program “For the Love of DILFs”), was made the subject of a documentary (“Stormy”), and has successfully toured strip clubs under the tagline “Make America Horny Again.”

On the downside, she split up with her husband and the father of her child, whom she says she didn’t tell about the Trump affair until it became public.

(She has since married another man.)

She’s received many death threats online, and she had to pull her daughter out of school and retain costly security personnel.

She has been defrauded by her publicity-loving onetime attorney, Michael Avenatti, and is in debt thanks to her legal bills, including hundreds of thousands of dollars that she owes Trump, for his attorney’s fees, after her failed defamation suit against him in 2018.

She has become a focus of a President’s ire—not something that anyone would wish for, especially when that President is Trump.

The first day of Daniels’s testimony will likely go down in history as a highly embarrassing one for Trump.

(On the stand, she told the court how she spanked the former President with a magazine, and that they had sex in the missionary position without a condom.)

Afterward, Todd Blanche, one of Trump’s lawyers, expressed concern that there was no way for his client to recover from such a blow.

“How can we come back from this in a way that is fair for President Trump?” Blanche asked Judge Juan Merchan, to which the judge responded that the only remedy was “cross-examination.”

That cross-examination, conducted by Susan Necheles, another Trump lawyer, was ruthless.

And yet Daniels was more than capable of rising to the occasion. Intelligent and exacting, she struck me as eminently credible.

(As I watched her, I thought that she could have handily won “The Apprentice.”)

She was also quite funny.

At one point, Necheles questioned her about a tweet in which she called herself “the perfect person to flush the orange turd down,” claiming that Daniels was positioning herself as “instrumental in putting Trump in jail.”

The witness clarified that she was responding to a Trump supporter who had called her a “human toilet.”

“I’m pretty sure this is hyperbole,” Daniels said, of her own tweet, before adding: “I’m also not a toilet, so . . .”

The defense’s strategy, seemingly, was to try to convince the jury that Daniels had made up the whole story of having sex with Trump.

And so much of the cross-examination was Necheles belaboring, in a kind of petty gotcha mode, seemingly minor differences between the account of the encounter with Trump that Daniels gave to In Touch back in 2011 and the way she described it on Tuesday, under direct questioning from the prosecution.

(Necheles spent endless, mind-numbing minutes litigating whether Daniels and Trump had eaten dinner at Harrah’s Lake Tahoe or whether food was skipped.)

The defense also didn’t hesitate to revert to a spot of slut-shaming in its attempt to brand Daniels as a liar.

“Your career for over twenty years [was] writing, acting, and directing sex films, right?” Necheles asked. “So, you have a lot of experience in making phony stories about sex appear to be real, right?”

Daniels appeared taken aback for a moment, but she recovered quickly.

“Wow,” she said, with a slight laugh. “The sex in the films, it’s very much real. Just like what happened to me in that room.”

Necheles, however, was undeterred.

She harped on Daniels’s financial motivations, in an attempt to argue that Daniels had fabricated a sexual encounter and then, essentially, extorted Trump.

Under questioning from the prosecution, on Tuesday, Daniels had explained that she didn’t bother trying to negotiate up the amount of her hundred-and-thirty-thousand-dollar N.D.A.

“I didn’t care about the amount,” she said. “It was just to get it done. The number didn’t matter to me.”

This sentiment might seem contradictory to the way in which Daniels portrays herself in “Full Disclosure,” as a go-getter who went to great lengths to make money.

But, then again, she had likely never been threatened by such powerful people before, and the N.D.A. was seemingly a way to get them to stop.

As she writes in the book, her coping mechanism has always been to “keep moving.”

This is what she did when she was a kid, what she did when a man allegedly menaced her and her child, and what she seemed to be doing now.

She was not a victim but, rather, as pragmatic as she had always been.

On Thursday, Daniels responded in the affirmative when the prosecutor Susan Hoffinger, in her redirect examination, asked her if part of her reasoning to enter into an N.D.A. was to make sure she had a paper trail to keep her safe.

“And you were also happy to take the money—you are not saying that you were not happy to take the money, right?” Hoffinger continued. “No, we are all happy to take money,” Daniels answered.

Daniels never denied that making a living was part of her motivation, even as Necheles tried to argue that, in recent years, she has been peddling her presumptive hatred of the President to resistance liberals for financial gain.

“You continued this strip tour in 2018 and 2019, right?” Necheles asked, of the “Make America Horny Again” run, and Daniels replied, calmly, “Yes. I continued doing my job, dancing at clubs, which I’ve done since 2001.”

If Daniels’s post-Trump-scandal life was a cash grab, as Necheles implied, then her entire working life up to that point had also been a cash grab, and what was wrong with that?

Later, Necheles brought up as evidence a “Stormy, Saint of Indictment” candle that Daniels sells on her online store. (“You make forty dollars on each of them,” Necheles said. “No, I’m actually making about seven dollars,” Daniels corrected her.)

When the defense attorney suggested that Daniels was “celebrating” Trump’s indictment “by selling things,” the witness was quick to reply: “Not unlike Mr. Trump!”

It was a good reminder that absolutely no one has profited more from all of this than the President himself.

[justiceheartwatcher]

Chief Investigator at Manhattan DA's Office Susan Hoffinger Previously Donated to Biden and Other Dems | The Gateway Pundit

[truck-fump]

Trump Organization Criminal Trial Begins In New York

New Post has been published on https://truckfump.life/2022/10/31/trump-organization-criminal-trial-begins_n_636014ade4b045895a95a789/

Trump Organization Criminal Trial Begins In New York

“This case is about greed and cheating,” lead prosecutor Susan Hoffinger said in opening statements accusing the ex-president’s company of tax fraud.

[insideusnet]

Trump Org. trial begins as prosecutors outline alleged fraud and defense blames CFO Allen Weisselberg | CNN Politics : Inside US

Trump Org. trial begins as prosecutors outline alleged fraud and defense blames CFO Allen Weisselberg | CNN Politics : Inside US

New York CNN  —  New York prosecutors set the table for the criminal tax fraud trial against the Trump Organization Monday, telling jurors the case is about “greed and cheating.” Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger laid out an alleged 15-year scheme within the Trump Org. to pay high-level executives in perks like luxury cars and apartments without paying taxes on them. Two Trump Organization entities…

[ivankahasbeentreatedsounfairly]

[irvinenewshq]

Trump Groups Legal Tax Fraud Trial Begins In New York State Court docket: Jury Chosen

The July choice started Monday for the trial in opposition to the Trump Group for tax fraud, and it took three days for the panel to be finalized. The panel took three days to be finalized and can decide if the group has dedicated tax fraud. 25% of the jury has brazenly displayed their dislike for the previous American president with one jury member for the prison trial branding Trump a ‘narcissist.’ A possible panelist had earlier admitted that they might not be neutral. The trial of the Trump Group was linked to his real-estate enterprise and can be heard on the NY Supreme Court docket, Decrease Manhattan. Of the 12 individuals who had been chosen for the panel, 4 are girls. Of the jurors picked to serve within the Trump Group case, three have expressed throughout questioning by protection attorneys and prosecutors that they’ve issues with both the presidency or the character of the disgraced president. The panel was finalized days after a possible juror excused herself from the Trump Group trial after she admitted that she might by no means be neutral at Trump’s trial. Trump Group On Trial For Tax Evasion The trial prosecutors contend that the group connived for 15 years in order that its topmost executives didn’t need to pay taxes. A conviction might result in Trump’s group going through tax penalties and fines that would complete as much as over one million {dollars}. Over 500 company entities are a part of the Trump Group. No less than two of those entities have been accused by the District Legal professional’s workplace of being concerned in awarding advantages equivalent to leased luxurious autos and rent-free flats and avoiding paying taxes on these perks. One of many jurors has stated that she didn’t vote for Trump within the presidential elections and admitted to having an antagonistic opinion about him. One of many chosen jurors admitted that he discovered him loopy and narcissistic. Protection Lawyer for the Trump Group Michael van der Veen says the tax fraud case was a ‘witch hunt,’ and requested for the elimination of the juror. However lead prosecutor Susan Hoffinger has stated that if all jurors who harbored destructive emotions in direction of Donald Trump had been to be eliminated it might not be doable to type a jury. Originally published at Irvine News HQ

[innocentamit]

New Prosecutor Will Lead Trump Probe After Lawyers Resign: Manhattan DA

New Prosecutor Will Lead Trump Probe After Lawyers Resign: Manhattan DA

A new prosecutor has been chosen to spearhead the criminal probe into Trump’s businesses after two lawyers quit earlier this week, the Manhattan DA’s office announced on Friday. “Susan Hoffinger will now lead the probe into Trump and the practices of his family business, the Trump Organization, according to Danielle Filson, a spokeswoman for Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney.” –…

[maswartz]

How did it take them more than an hour after that news broke to say something like this?

[ivankahasbeentreatedsounfairly]