Call Melania as witness?

[Peter]

No Trump can't dictate who the prosecution calls...however why doesn't the prosecutor call witnesses that are relevant to their case. What does the Hollywood tapes have to do with his business practices or hush money paid to a whore.
People can see this trial is a sham and the polls about this trial prove it. This trial and others are totally political and actually election inference.

It shows his character and that he's willing to break rhe law.

 

[Rogue Valley]

No Trump can't dictate who the prosecution calls...however why doesn't the prosecutor call witnesses that are relevant to their case. What does the Hollywood tapes have to do with his business practices or hush money paid to a whore.
People can see this trial is a sham and the polls about this trial prove it. This trial and others are totally political and actually election inference.

Close to the 2016 election, the "Access Hollywood" tapes featuring Donald Trump resurfaced and Trump was having major problems with women voters. Trump and his campaign realized they had to muzzle Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Hence the hush-money payments and NDA's. Since this affected the outcome of the 2016 election, they were campaign expenses. However, Trump and Cohen disguised the $130,000 payment to Ms. Daniels as 8 separate checks signed by Trump to Michael Cohen for "legal expenses". If Trump had been honest about what this $130,000 was actually for, he wouldn't be facing felony charges in New York. But then again, Trump being honest about the true nature of the $130,000 payment would have defeated the overarching purpose of keeping his affair with this pornstar a secret for election purposes.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I suppose she could be called to testify as to her independent knowledge, if there is anything that isn't a "communication" between husband and wife. Like, she could testify if she was aware of the allegations from other sources, perhaps. Not sure how helpful that would be for the prosecution, though.

If she were to testify, under oath, that she was aware of the Daniels sex episode (I can't call it an affair as an affair implies romance and passion) from media reports that had surfaced in 2011, either directly from the media or being told about it from others. Testimony about her knowing about media reports or what others informed her of wouldn't be "spousal communications". [But I don't think either the prosecution or defense will call her.]

Then that undercuts the "protect Melania" defense about keeping her from finding out, because she already knew.

The Melania defense seems pretty solid. The case rests upon the prosecution's claim that the sole reason for the Stormy and McDougall payments was to influence the election. There seems to be quite a bit of reasonable doubt, since Hope Hicks very clearly testified that Trump's expressed concern as to keep his wife and family from finding out. I.e., no campaign finance violation, and therefore no felony under NY State law.

Disagree about it "being solid". If following the testimony, you should know that a couple of others have already testified that FPOTUS#45 was interested in stiffing (pun intended) the porn star. Delaying payments until after the election, not paying her and letting the story come out after the election.

Which again undercuts the "protect Melania" defense, what she didn't need the same protection after the election that she did 11-days before the election? No, doesn't flush.

NOTE: I have a gut feeling this will come up in Cohen's testimony and it will be interesting if there are contemporaneous notes, texts, emails, or audio tapes that confirm this in support of the spoken testimony. We should find that out next week. I don't think the prosecution will call Cohen this week ending up with cross on Monday. I think they will hold him for the start of a fresh week for maximum impact and not give the defense two days (Sat/Sun) to prep for cross.

It's rather interesting how the anti-Trump media didn't report on what Hope Hicks actually testified about, but only portrayed her as upset and crying at having to testify, and about how she didn't look at Trump, etc. They focused on everything but the elephant in the room, whichi s what was Trump's intent. There is now testimonial evidence about his intent. If they aren't discrediting Hope Hicks, then how do they get around reasonable doubt on this?

She (Hicks) did say something about picking up the morning papers so that Melania didn't see them. What she * * DID NOT * * say was that his intent with the request was to prevent Melania from ever finding out. Given his proclivities for cheating on his wife(ies) and his focus on the campaign aspect, the more reasonable determination would be he wanted to be able to keep Melania on the campaign trail in the final days and not have her possibly walk out and publicly denounce him.

WW

 

[Tbird19482]

In which case? The New York criminal case? Or the Federal criminal case in Florida?

Because both Federal Law and New York Law prevents spouses from being compelled to testify against their wife or husband in criminal cases.*

*As to confidential communications they have between one another.

the Prosecution can NOT force her to testify but if she wants to and feels she has something important to say , then I think she should.
IT is all up to her and nobody else.
of course if she does and her testimony goes against him I am sure she will be looking for a place to live.
Have a nice day

 

[Risky Thicket]

Melania can't stand the guy, though I'd like to hear arguments to the contrary.

She remains married to the odiferous serial philanderer for financial reasons. Melania won't testify against Trump unless she has no other choice. She is not going to relinquish her lifestyle and privilege simply for vengeance.

The clock is ticking in Melania's favor. If she can gut it out a short while Trump will be manned off to prison or the drool farm or will self-exile or he will permanently time out from progressive health issues.

 

[NewfieMom]

Who would have wanted Melania to testify anyway, even if she could? What could she say? What would she say? Would she be truthful? What would be the point? And I echo the question of another poster: in which trial? This is a very bad poll. Given what a bad poll it is, the answer given by @TheDoctorWasIn was a great answer. It explained lots of things that should have been asked in the poll. Kudos to you, @TheDoctorWasIn!

 

[MrNiceGuy]

If she were to testify, under oath, that she was aware of the Daniels sex episode (I can't call it an affair as an affair implies romance and passion) from media reports that had surfaced in 2011, either directly from the media or being told about it from others. Testimony about her knowing about media reports or what others informed her of wouldn't be "spousal communications". [But I don't think either the prosecution or defense will call her.]

Then that undercuts the "protect Melania" defense about keeping her from finding out, because she already knew.



Disagree about it "being solid". If following the testimony, you should know that a couple of others have already testified that FPOTUS#45 was interested in stiffing (pun intended) the porn star. Delaying payments until after the election, not paying her and letting the story come out after the election.

That doesn't defeat the argument at all. It's certainly something that might be the case, but all that is required for the jury to acquit is "reasonable doubt," so even if there are multiple reasonable intents and purposes, since the one Trump is offering is still reasonable, then there is reasonable doubt. It would only be if the jury is not going to do their duty that they will acquit in the face of reasonable doubt.

Which again undercuts the "protect Melania" defense, what she didn't need the same protection after the election that she did 11-days before the election? No, doesn't flush.

It doesn't have to be "protect" Melania, it's just "keep it from Melania" and thereby protect Donald himself, and also the rest of his family - keep it from them. Keeping embarrassing sexual excapades that threatens one's marriage and family life is an old motivation, as old as sexual excapades themselves.

NOTE: I have a gut feeling this will come up in Cohen's testimony and it will be interesting if there are contemporaneous notes, texts, emails, or audio tapes that confirm this in support of the spoken testimony. We should find that out next week. I don't think the prosecution will call Cohen this week ending up with cross on Monday. I think they will hold him for the start of a fresh week for maximum impact and not give the defense two days (Sat/Sun) to prep for cross.

Gut feeling? Of course it will. Cohen bought a plea bargain by agreeing to say that Trump's purpose was to influence the election. that's the ONLY way the prosecution, by its own theory, gets a felony here. If the Defense destroys Cohen, the case should be done.

She (Hicks) did say something about picking up the morning papers so that Melania didn't see them. What she * * DID NOT * * say was that his intent with the request was to prevent Melania from ever finding out.

She didn't have to say that. She did say his intent in these bimbo eruption payments was to keep it from Melania.

Given his proclivities for cheating on his wife(ies) and his focus on the campaign aspect, the more reasonable determination would be he wanted to be able to keep Melania on the campaign trail in the final days and not have her possibly walk out and publicly denounce him.

WW

Or he wanted to keep from her feeling humiliated and embarrassed in public, and finding out that his denials of the excapades were total lies to her face, when she thought, despite his prior infidelities, that he wasn't going to do that to her. And also, he was motivated to keep the info from the rest of his family, as they would think less of him, again. They may have other reasons to think less of him -all humans have foibles and peccadillos, and most of us have done stuff that we are not proud of and would be embarrassing if published in the news, and that is embarrassing and humiliating to spouses and families regardless of whether they already know about it.

It's already a stretch to say that the payment is a "campaign expense" even if it was "for the purpose of influencing the election" by hiding it from voters. That's never been found before anywhere in any context, and not even by the FEC. But even if we accept the prosecution's argument that it is a campaign expense if it is for that purpose, there are other reasonable purposes, and just because there is conflicting testimony and just because Cohen copped a plea and agreed to say that as part of his plea, doesn't mean there isn't reasonable doubt.

 

[Aries]

Close to the 2016 election, the "Access Hollywood" tapes featuring Donald Trump resurfaced and Trump was having major problems with women voters. Trump and his campaign realized they had to muzzle Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Hence the hush-money payments and NDA's. Since this affected the outcome of the 2016 election, they were campaign expenses. However, Trump and Cohen disguised the $130,000 payment to Ms. Daniels as 8 separate checks signed by Trump to Michael Cohen for "legal expenses". If Trump had been honest about what this $130,000 was actually for, he wouldn't be facing felony charges in New York. But then again, Trump being honest about the true nature of the $130,000 payment would have defeated the overarching purpose of keeping his affair with this pornstar a secret for election purposes.

Also Ms. Daniels testified that Trump was on the bed of his hotel room in his underwear after she came out of the bathroom pretty much expecting sex. So that corroborates his attitude toward women.

But not as much as being found guilty of sexual abuse by a Jury of his peers in his E Jean Carrol trial where he did just go ahead and 'grab it'.

I think they should call Billy Bush, the other guy on the tape, he was destroyed by it but somehow Trump's particular brand of slime isn't as sticky.

Also I remember that during his divorce trial from Ivana, his first wife, she accused him of raping her. To which his lawyer stated "you can't rape your wife" which is a popular view in the Christian Nationalist world.

Trump paid her too and she dropped it.

Trump makes all of his women prostitutes probably including Milania.

 

[zincwarrior]

It is a loveless marriage don’t you think? Would she feel compelled to lie for him.. on the stand?

Spouses cannot be made to testify against spouses.

If she is called by the Defense (voluntarily) that makes her subject to cross examination. Not going to happen.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Close to the 2016 election, the "Access Hollywood" tapes featuring Donald Trump resurfaced and Trump was having major problems with women voters. Trump and his campaign realized they had to muzzle Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Hence the hush-money payments and NDA's. Since this affected the outcome of the 2016 election, they were campaign expenses.

That's not the test for "campaign expenses." Also, it's not clear it impacted the "outcome" of the election. There is no evidence that anyone has presented that had voters known about Stormy and McDougall they would have voted another way. He already had a problem with some women voters, and those that were voting for him already knew him as a womanizer and adulterer. So, there is plenty of reasonable doubt as to whether it would have impacted the outcome of the election.

However, Trump and Cohen disguised the $130,000 payment to Ms. Daniels as 8 separate checks signed by Trump to Michael Cohen for "legal expenses".

Which itself is not illegal. An attorney and client are free to have a lawyer front some expense or payment and then say, "ok, in reimbursement, you'll just pay me extra legal fees to cover that." That's not a crime. That's no different than saying the lawyer can front a payment owed by a client to a creditor, and then the client will repay the lawyer by "sending the lawyer more business referrals..." or "delivering a priceless painting to the lawyer as compensation..." or "the lawyer will waive it as a courtesy to the client who paid millions in fees to the lawyer already..." or the lawyer might say "I tell you what, don't pay me back for those fronted expenses, and you just pay me a monthly retainer to keep me on as your lawyer."

If Trump had been honest about what this $130,000 was actually for, he wouldn't be facing felony charges in New York. But then again, Trump being honest about the true nature of the $130,000 payment would have defeated the overarching purpose of keeping his affair with this pornstar a secret for election purposes.

Well, right, becasue it also would defeat the purpose of keeping it secret from his wife and family, and under the "irrespective test" through the FEC, an expense that would be paid irrespective of its effect on the campaign is not a campaign expense. Therefore, even if there are two purposes for the payments, one election related and one family/spouse related, then it's not a campaign expense. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/

It's kinda like why Clothing is not a campaign expense. It certainly helps the campaign for a candidate to dress well, and be well-groomed and be cleaned and showered - and if a candidate was dressed in poor clothing, unwashed and with shaggy hair and unshaven and unkempt, it could and would impact the outcome of a close election. But, those are also personal expenses, and people need to buy clothes and pay for water for their showers, and buy soap and shave cream and razors and combs and go to barbers and such, but those are not "campaign expenses."

Clothing​

The campaign cannot pay for attire for political functions (for example, a new tuxedo or dress), but it can pay for clothing of de minimis value that is used in the campaign, such as T-shirts or caps imprinted with a campaign slogan.

So, dressing in nice suits with new and cleaned and pressed ties and shirts makes a candidate look better and is clearly part of what markets a candidate to the public. But it's not a campaign expense, no matter how much it benefits the campaign - UNLESS - unless what? It's got campaign slogans and logos on it, becasue then it IS solely -- solely - a campaign expense, as the candidate would not have campaign slogans and logos on normal clothes. It's specifically and only for the campaign.

Another example is a vehicle -

Vehicle expenses​

Campaign funds may be used to pay for a vehicle that is used for campaign-related purposes, assuming that the costs related to the personal use of the vehicle are de minimis, that is, such costs are insignificant in relation to the overall vehicle use.

So a dual use vehicle - for both campaign purposes AND personal purposes is not a campaign expense. But if you exclusively use a vehicle for the campaign, then it is a campaign expense (allowable for something "de minimus" -- which is an allowable incidental, minor or insignificant personal use).

So, a campaign bus is a campaign expense, but a candidate's Prius that he or she uses to get around town and go to the supermarket is not (even if he or she also uses it for the campaign).

 

[WorldWatcher]

the Prosecution can NOT force her to testify but if she wants to and feels she has something important to say , then I think she should.
IT is all up to her and nobody else.
of course if she does and her testimony goes against him I am sure she will be looking for a place to live.
Have a nice day

Given all the dirt she has, I'm sure she would just keep Mar-A-Lago. FPOTUS#45 would be the one looking to move.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

That doesn't defeat the argument at all. It's certainly something that might be the case, but all that is required for the jury to acquit is "reasonable doubt," so even if there are multiple reasonable intents and purposes, since the one Trump is offering is still reasonable, then there is reasonable doubt. It would only be if the jury is not going to do their duty that they will acquit in the face of reasonable doubt.

But it's not reasonable.

Disagree about it "being solid". If following the testimony, you should know that a couple of others have already testified that FPOTUS#45 was interested in stiffing (pun intended) the porn star. Delaying payments until after the election, not paying her and letting the story come out after the election.

Which again undercuts the "protect Melania" defense, what she didn't need the same protection after the election that she did 11-days before the election? No, doesn't flush.

If it were reasonable their wouldn't have been an attempt to hold payment until after the election and then allow the story to come out after the election. If it was to "protect Melania", "protect his kids", or to "protect the brand". Then the 11-days before the election would have made no difference.

WW

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23741707/new-york-v-trump-statement-of-facts.pdf

Supporting documents and testimony for the above have already been presented in court.

W

 

[CaughtInThe]

I think the Melania defense has been blown completely out of the water.

 

[zincwarrior]

Again, in criminal trials, spouses cannot be forced to testify against spouses.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Again, in criminal trials, spouses cannot be forced to testify against spouses.

"Forced" is the operative word.

Voluntary is a different matter.

[NOTE: IIRC - in some states a defendant spouse can block a spouses voluntary testimony pertaining to spousal privileged information. Not sure if a spouse volunteers and will be testifying pertaining to non-spousal communications if that applies.]

WW

 

[Cardinal]

She can't be called to testify, even if she wanted to.

Anything Trump told her would be privileged, and he would hold that privilege (meaning only he could waive it).

https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/civil-practice-law-and-rules/cvp-sect-4502/

So let's take a really unlikely scenario. Let's say the defense wants her to testify and she wants to. Still no go?

Yeah, I know. That wouldn't happen for a slew of reasons. I'm just curious about the legality of it, nothing more.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

Dumb idea. How does calling Trump's wife to the stand help prosecute Trump? It doesn't. The lady's life is a ****ing nightmare as it is. Leave her alone.

 

[Pound4abrown]

I don't care for her, but unless there is evidentiary evidence she has, there is no reason to call her to testify about her husband's adultery.

 

[Pound4abrown]

I don’t think the prosecution should call her as a witness. If the defense calls her as a witness, the prosecution should have an opportunity to cross-examine her.

Now, this I agree with. If DJT and company open the door, the prosecution should be able to walk right in.

 

[zincwarrior]

So let's take a really unlikely scenario. Let's say the defense wants her to testify and she wants to. Still no go?

Yeah, I know. That wouldn't happen for a slew of reasons. I'm just curious about the legality of it, nothing more.

She can testify, but then she is subject to cross examination. That would be horrific methinks.

 

[Cardinal]

She can testify, but then she is subject to cross examination. That would be horrific methinks.

That falls under "wouldn't happen for a slew of reasons."

 

[Cardinal]

Dumb idea. How does calling Trump's wife to the stand help prosecute Trump? It doesn't. The lady's life is a ****ing nightmare as it is. Leave her alone.

She's in a loveless marriage with a gigantic asshole...and she's rich. Tell me how that's not better than the countless millions of people that describes in the world who aren't rich.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

She's in a loveless marriage with a gigantic asshole...and she's rich. Tell me how that's not better than the countless millions of people that describes in the world who aren't rich.

I can assure you this lady is one miserable person. A perfect example of how money doesn't buy happiness.

 

[Cardinal]

I can assure you this lady is one miserable person. A perfect example of how money doesn't buy happiness.

She's rich and can leave any time she wants.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

She's rich and can leave any time she wants.

I don't think she can leave anytime she wants. And you and I don't know a thing about the prenup agreement either. I guarantee you underneath it all she is a miserable person. She would have to be married to someone like Trump. I have never seen the woman smile, have you?