The BBC Live Updates are here: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-67288390 I’m going to insert some of this thread because it’s a way better account of what’s going on. I’ll mark it if it’s from that one. After lunch and tomorrow, I’ll just switch to BBC.
The headlines of the updates from the link so far:
Pre-testimony
- Ivanka Trump’s testimony comes after court fight
- Ivanka Trump has arrived at the courthouse to protests
- Highlights from the testimony of Trump’s sons
- What to watch for in Ivanka Trump’s testimony
- James says she expects Ivanka Trump to ‘distance herself’ from Trump Organization in her testimony
- Court much more relaxed than during Trump’s testimony
- What comes next after Ivanka Trump’s testimony? (Note: Should last through to tomorrow with defense up on Monday)
- Details from Ivanka Trump’s deposition
- Highlights from Trump’s testimony
- Trump posts ahead of his daughter’s testimony
- Ivanka Trump’s apartment likely to come up during today’s proceedings
Ivanka takes the stand
- Trump family dynamics on display today
- Ivanka starts off explaining how she rose through the ranks of family business (BBC thread)
- A little louder: Judge asks soft-spoken Ivanka Trump to speak up
- Ivanka Trump is becoming more evasive on the stand
- What has Ivanka’s family said so far? (BBC thread)
- Ivanka doesn’t recall emails (BBC thread)
- Donald Trump’s financial statements and a Miami golf course (BBC thread)
- Trump lawyer gripes about Ivanka Trump being ‘dragged’ to court
- Ivanka Trump says she didn’t know much about financial statements
- Ivanka Trump shown golf course loan proposal (BBC thread)
- Trump and his net worth in question (BBC thread)
- Ivanka can’t ‘recall’ working on key finance documents (BBC thread)
Break
Court resumes
- On to Chicago properties after a short break (BBC thread)
- What we’ve learnt so far (BBC thread)
- Sketch: A glimpse into Ivanka’s testimony (BBC thread)
- Trump Organization got lower loan rate after meeting (BBC thread)
- Ivanka leaves courtroom as lawyers meet with judge (BBC thread)
- ‘You’re starting to sound like your client,’ judge tells Trump lawyer
- Prosecution is angry at Ivanka’s lack of recollection (BBC thread)
Lunch Break
- Despite being shown evidence, Ivanka ‘can’t recall’ (BBC thread discusses)
- Insight into the attorney general’s strategy (BBC thread discusses)
- Why Ivanka’s ‘I don’t recall’ tactic isn’t unusual (BBC thread discusses)
From now on, it will be from the BBC Live Coverage.
Court is back in Session
- Ivanka called back to the stand
- Judge denies spousal privilege claim on Jared Kushner emails (NBC thread)
- Attention turns to DC hotel project
- Prosecution wraps up questioning Ivanka (goes to defense)
Defense begins their case
-
Ivanka is the first member of the Trump family to be cross examined
-
AG seeks to bar some Trump experts from testifying (NBC thread)
-
Cross examination starts with Deutsche Bank questions
-
Ivanka Trump distances herself from financial statements (NBC thread)
-
What was Ivanka’s role in the Trump Organization?
-
Who is Rosemary Vrablic? (at Deutsche Bank)
-
Judge checks watch as Ivanka speaks at length about hotel
-
Trump lawyer erupts at attorney general’s office (NBC thread)
-
Ivanka Trump finishes testifying
Court Adjourned
Separate Case:
- Judge rules that Trump must disclose whether he will use an advice-of-counsel defense in D.C. trial (NBC thread)
If you watch the videos at the bottom of the BBC live coverage, they show Ivanka walking into the court house with protestors (not too many tbf), yelling “Crime Family.” She looks genuinely surprised.
I love that the best defense they’ve got in some of these cases is hiding behind the statute of limitations. Because saying “you can’t ask me about that because I already ran out the clock” is never going to come off as a good way of proclaiming your innocence, especially in a civil trial where a judge and/or jury is allowed to take negative inferences from his statements.
I didn’t understand what you meant, but that makes sense as to why they’re not going after her, maybe. I missed that info.
Lawyers for the former Trump Organization executive and White House adviser had challenged her subpoena, arguing she should be spared from testifying because an appeals court ruled earlier this year that she be removed as a defendant in the case over statute-of-limitations issues.
Trump also used the same “statute of limitations” defense during some of his incoherent ramblings yesterday as justification for why he wasn’t answering certain questions.
I mean, technically, they’re correct. But in a case where a judge is allowed to make negative inferences from your statements and use them against you, refusing to answer questions solely based on a technicality is probably not the best way to proclaim your innocence.
Did you watch the trial in person? The coverage is kind of spotty on this one, I’d love to see it in person. Although, I watched one of his depositions and had popcorn ready, it just made me angry and exasperated that he was our president.
Yesssssss…
Trump lawyer Chris Kise had argued the emails were protected by spousal privilege, and that “the witness cannot be compelled to speak about communications with her spouse.” The judge sided with the AG’s office, which contended the emails were sent from work email addresses on work topics.
“It is not privileged,” the judge said.
The married mother had unsuccessfully fought the AG’s subpoena for her to testify, arguing that she’s no longer a Trump Organization employee and doesn’t live in New York, and that her testimony was scheduled in the middle of a school week.
Srsly? Weak.
Also known as the work week to normal people who need jobs.
If regular old blue/white collar working class stiffs have to deal with jury duty then somebody like her can certainly pay her nanny (Nannies?) a little extra to deal with the inconvenience of her testifying.
From the BBC link (I think it’s a better play by play):
We’re still going over the terms of the Deutsche Bank loan to the Trumps for their Doral golf course and the emails that went back and forth at the Trump Organization about it.
The bank had proposed a covenant that required Donald Trump to maintain a minimum net worth of $3bn (£2.4bn) to get the loan.
Prosecutors are showing emails from within the Trump Organization, that Ivanka Trump was involved in, discussing what net worth terms they could accept.
One Trump Organization lawyer voiced a concern that the $3bn number was a “problem”.
The prosecution’s Lou Solomon asks whether Ivanka was aware that Trump’s 2011 statements of financial condition said he was worth $4bn.
She responds, no.
The Trump Organization ultimately proposed a $2bn net worth covenant; the final loan turned out to hold Donald Trump to $2.5bn.
I really don’t know what Trump sees in her, she’s not at all interesting in any way.
She doesn’t sue him.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The married mother had unsuccessfully fought the AG’s subpoena for her to testify, arguing that she’s no longer a Trump Organization employee and doesn’t live in New York, and that her testimony was scheduled in the middle of a school week.
She smiles and speaks softly, responding politely, but has started to repeat the phrase, “I don’t recall,” in response to documents being shown to her, including letters and emails she wrote herself.
“It is Letitia James and the Judge who are Fraudulent for setting such LOW VALUATIONS in order to undermine and discredit my Financial Statements, thereby making me look bad — Election Interference,” he wrote.
The former president testified Monday and quickly went off the rails in his answers, using his time on the stand to lash out at Engoron and James’ office for what he said was their “unfair” treatment.
Lawyers for the former Trump Organization executive and White House adviser had challenged her subpoena, arguing she should be spared from testifying because an appeals court ruled earlier this year that she be removed as a defendant in the case over statute-of-limitations issues.
The attorney general’s office was trying “to continue to harass and burden President Trump’s daughter long after” the appeals court “mandated she be dismissed from the case,” her lawyers argued.
The original article contains 1,338 words, the summary contains 216 words. Saved 84%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
deleted by creator