It appears that Trump's legal team
are actively, as well as ABC News and others are
actively watching with us
and videotaping it and intending on potentially using it for
stories or for
or for a case. The case that's coming up where
I'll be testifying and yada yada.
So this is not like a private He's not talking
in a bar and we've intercepted it.
Somehow. He's not like talking to the mirror,
He's talking to his audience on TikTok Rhonda.
It really is stunning and and I don't know if
anyone involved in this trial can stay quiet.
I mean, all of these characters seem to want to
get their platform out there.
We
will
never give up. We will never
conceive. It doesn't happen. That's exactly what it
was and you've been indicted over that.
I object to you getting
right. Welcome to the Trump Trials sidebar from the Washington
Post.
I'm Libby Casey, and I'm here with my colleagues Rhonda
Colvin and James Holman.
And while we are moderately comfortable here in our studio,
the former President Donald Trump is at this moment in
the ice box.
That's the courtroom in lower Manhattan where he's on trial,
facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.
And it's this courtroom that he tells us repeatedly in
his hallway comments is very cold.
But if he's not careful,
Rhonda and James, he could end up in a totally
different type of icebox.
He could end up in jail,
the clink, because he keeps breaching the gag order.
We will talk about that in a little bit.
We're also going to talk on today's episode about what's
happening in court and how the prosecution is developing its
case,
how they're painting this portrait of a hush money scheme.
And our colleague and friend Ashley Parker,
senior national political correspondent, will join us to preview an
upcoming witness,
someone we rarely hear from publicly,
who could likely take the stand as someone who's very
close to Donald Trump.
Hope Hicks. So let's dive in.
Trump was found this week to be in criminal content
of the gag order.
In nine instances, I have the gag order right here
and the the ruling of contempt.
7. We're on his true social account.
True. We're on his campaign website.
James, how big of a deal is this finding of
criminal contempt and the punishment?
This is the first time a former president has ever
been held in criminal contempt of court.
That is a big deal.
And it followed, basically repeated,
brazen
ignoring of of of an order from a judge.
It's a it's a it's a big moment
in the grand scheme of things.
The the penalty right now is small.
He's only fined 9000 bucks for Trump.
That's nothing. It's not even a drop in the bucket.
But it it puts Trump on notice.
And the judge clearly is frustrated.
The judge had another gag hearing today
Thursday, and the prosecution continues to allege violations.
And it does feel like there's a game of chicken
being played where Trump is basically daring the judge to
put him in jail,
$1000 for each instance Rhonda.
But the judge did point out that
it would be better if the fine could be more
commensurate to Trump's wealth.
But he's stuck because he doesn't have a lot of
options.
What are his options? Yeah,
the judge doesn't have a lot of options.
In fact, the reason why it's
$1000 per violation is because that's New York State law.
So if people are wondering,
wow, that's just a drop in the bucket for Trump.
It's because the judge has to comply obviously,
with the the state code.
So it's not high at all.
But it is the the one real step that this
judge has taken when it comes to contempt of court
charges.
And as as James mentioned,
there's another batch that the prosecutors want the judge to
weigh in on a a batch of potential violations.
So we'll see where that goes.
But it shows you that this is going to be
an ongoing problem throughout this trial,
that that Trump's post on truth,
social or things that he says
are subject to be violations of this gag order.
And I'll admit I'm sort of sympathetic to some of
Trump's pushback to the gag order,
which is
other witnesses are attacking him.
One of the things he got criticized for was saying
that David Pecker was, was a nice witness and which
was pretty neutral.
Judge Marshawn said. He wasn't that bothered by it,
but it's one of the things that the
prosecution asked for him to be gagged over.
Can you play that tape?
Yeah. I would like to hear your reactions because it's
important to hear how he said it,
where he said it and maybe why he said it.
Let's roll the tape. Yeah.
And now he's been very nice.
I mean, he's been, David's been very nice.
He's a nice guy.
Trump made essentially a campaign stop before court early one
morning.
He went to a construction site,
talked to reporters, and he was asked about David Pecker's
testimony.
And that's what he said.
So what's the concern here?
What is the prosecution saying about saying he's nice?
Well, the gag order says you can't talk about any
of the witnesses.
And basically the prosecution is saying he knows exactly what
he's doing.
And he's sort of opening the door to say mean
things about Stormy Daniels or Michael Cohen,
the two star witnesses who are coming up.
And the judge said, well,
you know, whatever he would be,
it's a pretty neutral statement.
And the prosecution saying, no,
Trump knows exactly what he's doing.
I mean the other thing that Trump's lawyers Todd Blanche
specifically said on Thursday morning was that Biden made a
joke.
President Biden during the White House correspondents dinner over the
weekend and he said Donald Trump is in stormy weather
and
and the lawyer said it's not fair that his opponent
in the election we've ever had anything like this.
But the the sitting president and his political opponent is
able to talk about Stormy Daniels and Trump can't.
The judge was a lot less sympathetic to that and
said you can attack Joe Biden without needing to mention
Stormy Daniels
and Todd Bunch didn't really have a good comeback for
that.
So I I'm sympathetic to
Trump, feeling like he's in the midst of a political
campaign and he has to sort of watch his words
carefully.
He is a candidate for office.
On the other hand, you know,
you're not supposed to talk about the jury.
It's, it's it's saying, yeah,
let let me just go through what the four instances
that they talked about today in court are.
One is that Pecker tape that we played.
One instance he called Michael Cohen a liar.
Another instance he talked about both Pecker and Cohen.
And then one instance Rhonda Trump criticized the jury and
Judge Marshawn seems to have the least tolerance and patience
for that.
That's right. Because if you look at jurors,
they are people who are randomly selected.
They are fulfilling this duty that they have to.
They're giving up their life.
They're giving up their work for an extended period of
time.
So it does appear that the judge,
it is not really taking any sympathy
for Trump on on that part.
But we did see in the order that was earlier
this week when the judge concluded that he did
violate the gag order, the first group of violations.
He did open the door that he may release Stormy
Daniels and Michael Cohen from protection from the gag order
because they have been out talking about Trump as well.
They are very public figures at this point,
so he may remove them from the protections of the
gag violations.
But the jury, of course,
these are just regular citizens just doing their duty.
Can I read to you something that came from the
judge's decision here about holding Trump in contempt and and
saying that he violated the gag order?
It says it is of utmost importance to this court
that the expanded order not be used as a sword
instead of a shield by potential witnesses.
So it can't be used as a weapon by by
Cohen and Stormy Daniels.
Right. So I want to play for you what Michael
Cohen is doing.
Because Cohen said last week,
I'm going to stay quiet.
I'm not talking on social media anymore.
And he sort of clammed up on like X on
what was known as Twitter,
but he kept talking, streaming live on his TikTok account.
Look, I'm going to play you guys some of this
tape.
Let's watch.
It appears that Trump's legal team
are actively, as well as ABC News and others are
actively watching with us
and videotaping it and intending on potentially using it for
stories or for
or for case. The case that's coming up where I'll
be testifying in yada yada.
So
this is not like a private he's not talking in
a bar and we've intercepted it.
Somehow. He's not like, talking to the Mirror.
He's talking to his audience on TikTok Rhonda.
It really is stunning. And and I don't know if
anyone involved in this trial can stay quiet.
I mean, all of these characters seem to want to
get their platform out there.
This is kind of textbook Michael Cohen,
too. If you go back to the early days of
the Trump campaign,
for the first campaign for president in 2015,
Michael Cohen was out there.
He was, you know, known as The Fixer.
A lot of journalists had interactions with him.
I think James could probably talk on that.
And this feels, you know,
just a part of who Michael Cohen has become.
It doesn't appear that he's going to stay quiet.
I personally, you know, it's not televised,
of course. But I can't wait for the readout of
what the transcripts say when he's on the stand because
I you almost can envision A shouting match between
Michael Cohen and Trump when he's in there because they,
they both won't stay quiet.
Everyone sort of dislikes Michael Cohen.
I mean, he's not even the prosecution realizes what a
flawed witness he is.
The federal government chose not to bring charges
against Trump in part because Michael Cohen is
such a problematic witness with the history of lying underoath
repeatedly. And this is one of those things where it's
this really seedy guy who we all have to acknowledge
is CD who is their star witness.
And that's why you have to
if you're the prosecution's lay the groundwork in the foundation
with all this other stuff so that it you can
you can't just dismiss Michael Cohen and then
get found not guilty. And so we we see a
prosecution that's very,
very mindful of that. Let's talk more about what actually
is happening in court in terms of the case building
in a moment.
But I just want to stay with this gag order
question because the judge,
it's so much more complicated because Cohen won't stay quiet.
And then the other aspect of this is that the
judge is very mindful that Donald Trump does have rights
of free speech.
And the judge even said you know he's running for
office.
He recognizes that he's running for president of the United
States.
So he's trying to limit
the gag order. But at the same time,
James, it the judge has another step,
right? Rhonda, you said it's $1000 or it's jail.
So what would it take to throw the former president
of the United States in jail?
Rhonda? Well, according to New York law,
I looked looked it up yesterday.
It says, and this is a quote from it
for contempt. There may be a fine not exceeding
$1000. So that's of course why it's 9000 for Trump
or imprisonment not exceeding 30 days.
So if the judge did go the imprisonment route,
it would be no longer than 30 days.
And it would also be in the jail of the
county where the court is sitting.
And of course the the county of Manhattan is Manhattan
is in New York County,
so it would be in a jail
there. But this is all of the discretion of the
court,
the discretion of the judge.
We'll have to see if he goes that route.
But we do know politically that Trump has sort of
been talking about possibly be going into jail.
Being a political prisoner,
the visuals would be very effective for Trump.
However, the experience would not be enjoyable to say the
least.
Right? Exactly. Yeah. All right.
Well, let's talk more in a moment about what is
happening in court and how prosecutors are building their case.
Stay with us.
Let's talk about what's happening in court this week and
how prosecutors are building their case now.
Witnesses we've heard from so far include the attorney for
Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal,
who negotiated the money to get their stories
about alleged sexual encounters with Donald Trump.
Also the publisher of the National Enquirer,
David Pecker, and even the executive assistant to Trump who
knew about his personal contacts,
essentially his Rolodex. Also the archivist to C-SPAN.
But let's talk about him in a moment.
C-SPAN guy aside, what sort of case are these witnesses
being used to build against Donald Trump?
Rhonda. Well, for the prosecution,
they are trying to build this case that this is
also an election interference case.
They are using a New York State law to say
that the hush money payments are directly tied to Trump's
desire to conceal these alleged relationships in order to win
the White House. So they're they're
hedging their bets on this New York State law
We've heard from. I think one of the star witnesses
this week has been Keith Davidson,
who was the lawyer for both Stormy Daniels and Karen
McDougal,
who received the hush money payments.
Allegedly. He's really had some.
He has the receipts, basically.
There have been so many text messages
laid out this week between him and Michael Cohen about
the payments,
about keeping stormy off of interviews,
about all sorts of things.
So we're really getting a sense of a timeline,
a sense of the relationship between the fixer,
Michael Cohen, and the lawyers for these two women.
And then also what's been really striking to me is
that Cohen kind of feels like he's on the on
the sand.
He isn't physically, but his name keeps coming up.
And for the defense, that might be a good thing
because because
Davidson seems to be able to
paint a picture of Michael Cohen as the bad guy,
as the guy who's doing this all on his own.
Trump didn't really know about it.
This guy is a shadowy figure.
There's a lot of crude language in a lot of
the text messages that have been released.
So it does seem like Michael Cohen is definitely at
the center,
even though he's not one of the witnesses right now.
Yeah, I mean, it's come across to me that he's
been able to to
trace the trail to Donald Trump.
What do you think, James?
Yeah. And I mean that's to Rhonda's point,
that's what the defense wants.
Exactly. That is the. That's exactly Emil Bove,
the one of the lawyers for Trump.
His first question when he got a chance to cross
examine the witness was before this trial.
Have you ever been in the same room as Donald
Trump?
And he said no. And so that's part of the
idea that if this was Michael Cohen's doing,
he was the one who was cutting all these deals.
But a lot of the text messages and conversations that
Davidson has recalled with Michael Cohen have Cohen saying
the boss is really angry about the story in the
Wall Street Journal a few weeks before the 2016 election.
That kind of flicked at Karen
Mcdougal's non disclosure agreement. Or
Trump is seething that Stormy Daniels is giving interviews
where she's being kind of coy
about her relationship with Trump and
the the Trump is going to sue you and you
know threatening to sue
sue they the prosecution was trying to use him even
though Cohen clearly was the cut out to say Cohen
made clear he was speaking for Trump.
There wasn't hints and nods.
Cohen was saying very explicitly
that that Trump was directing this and that it was
for the purpose of
interfering with the election that the the idea was to
buy silence until after the election,
that that, you know, this was about suppressing the story
so that Trump could win the campaign.
James, do you have the sense that Bove has been
effective in his cross examinations to to Rhonda's point of
like what the defense is trying to push back on?
Because there have been some moments where it's almost like
he should have stopped asking questions.
Like he kept going to be a little too far
and
didn't get what he wanted from the witness.
Well, it's interesting because you know,
the the part of the defense strategy with Cohen and
Davidson and everyone is to just paint this whole world
is really seedy,
which it is. I mean,
this is like this, this
what Davidson does for a living is like basically shake
down
powerful people for money to keep stories about things that
they're accused of doing quiet.
And so the Bove, I think,
did get some blood when he said you were investigated
criminally for potentially extorting Hulk Hogan over a decade ago
to keep quiet a story.
And he was like, yeah,
but they didn't charge me with anything.
You know, it was like
because basically what he's doing is going to
rich people and saying, if you want the story to
be quiet,
pay me. And so they're trying to.
I
mean, that is shady that.
And so none of these are like
angelic witnesses and and so I do think that they've
scored some points there and of of establishing the distance.
But that is how a criminal conspiracy works,
is that the the person who's in charge of the
alleged conspiracy isn't the one like having every
interchange with every lawyer. I mean that's why you have
someone like Michael Cohen.
That's what the role of a fixer is
to keep the principal out of it.
So I think it helped lay the foundation to bring
Cohen up.
We got a lot of insights into Cohen's state of
mind.
I think some of the questions that the prosecution was
asking,
usually one of the things you'd want to do in
the trials like get out front because they know where
the defense is going to go.
So the prosecution was trying to get at the idea
that Michael Cohen like they don't want the jury hearing
at first when in cross examination that Michael Cohen was
sort of, you know, at one point Davidson thought Cohen
was going to kill himself because
he, Trump wasn't going to make him White House chief
of staff or Attorney general.
Slow down with that for a minute because that was
very alarming.
Right. So just I want you to just kind of
like,
James moves, James brain moves so fast.
So like, yeah, this was really alarming testimony that Michael
Cohen was so upset that he wasn't being brought to
Washington to be part of the Trump administration.
He was despondent. He was beside himself.
He might have even been suicidal,
according to the witness. Right.
And what's funny is I actually remember talking to Michael
Cohen at that time and Michael Cohen telling me,
a reporter, like, I'm not,
I don't want to go to Washington.
I don't want a job in the White House.
I'd rather stay in New York
and and I I believe
Davidson's account over what Cohen told me contemporaneously,
basically. But why does that matter?
So the the why it matters is that
Cohen in this conversation and in for the most part
Davidson,
has been sort of a dry witness.
But he recalls getting this phone call from Cohen.
Well, he's shocking. He's a distract Cohen.
And so there's there's the key.
He's he's shopping. And it's like
the mall was decorated with like Alice in Wonderland.
And he remembers it feeling really surreal.
It was this kind of like novelistic color.
But the key thing is Cohen says
I've saved Trump's ass so many times,
you have no idea. And he's betraying me by not
giving me a big job in the administration,
by not bringing me to Washington.
And the the he didn't say I'm suicidal.
But Davidson came away thinking,
wow, this guy's really down.
And that is sort of the mercurial Michael Cohen of
like,
you know,
this is the Cohen a lot of us
interacted with during that time where it was sort of
like everything was hyperbole and overstated and
dramatic And. And so
it does capture Cohen's state of mind.
In some ways, that's helpful for the defense because it's
sort of like,
wow, this guy was, he had a,
he had an axe to grind,
right? I mean, Trump didn't give him this big job
that he wanted.
But it also gets at the feeling that Cohen had,
like, really gone to bat to help Trump.
And it does at least put in the jury's mind
like,
what other times did Cohen save Trump's ass,
you know, and cover up for him?
The prosecution is definitely painting a vivid picture of the
hush money scheme and laying that out.
And we are hearing witnesses talk about,
yeah, what? How it worked.
How? That was engaged. And the key is going to
be really tying it all together and and watching the
through lines.
You know, while the jurors aren't hearing from Donald Trump,
they can certainly see him in the room.
They're not hearing his voice unless he decides to be
a witness for the defense,
which would be shocking, but possible,
right?
I, I, I for journalism sake,
I think he should do it.
OK. So. Well, stay tuned for that one.
But even though he's not saying anything at this point,
the jurors are still hearing Donald Trump's voice.
And that gets us to the C-SPAN archivist
who was one of the witnesses He was called as
a witness to essentially verify information and allow it to
be put into record.
And it's footage, thanks to the plentiful archives of C-SPAN
footage of Donald Trump himself.
So let's roll the tape so we can hear something
that jurors heard this past week.
Total fiction. They're
100% made-up. They never happened.
They never would happen.
I don't think that happened with very many people,
but they certainly aren't going to happen with me.
They are all false. They're totally invented fiction.
All
100%, totally and completely fabricated.
Never met this person. These people,
I don't know who they are.
Think of what's happening to our country.
Think of what's happened. I don't know who these people
are.
I look on television. I think it's a disgusting thing
and it's being pushed.
They have no witnesses. There's nobody around
Donald Trump saying I've never met these people.
Now this is one of a handful of videos that's
already been played for the jurors.
There are others that have been allowed into evidence.
What is he talking about,
Rhonda? Well, this is actually a part of a workaround
from the prosecutors because the judge in the beginning of
this trial said he did not want any evidence brought
forward to the jurors that went over any sort of
allegations of sexual assault
that Donald Trump was a part of,
any sort of sexual assault.
So the prosecutors invited the
C-SPAN, the director of archives on the stand,
Our beloved C-SPAN is involved.
He got the mug
20 minutes, 20. He got 20 minutes on the stand.
He got the mug right here and that right.
And that was just so that these clips could be
brought in.
That shows that Trump does have a pattern of talking
verbally,
attacking women who said that he
allegedly assaulted them sexually. So that is how the prosecutors
are bringing this part of Trump into this trial and
sort of working around what the judge had said he
would not allow. So it also,
I mean it shows, it shows Donald Trump lying through
his teeth and the defense isn't really stipulating the
because who was he talking about?
He was, well he was talking about these
he they aren't allowed to introduce the Access Hollywood tape
but the jury.
So they didn't see the tape,
but they heard the contents,
they heard the transcript and they can refer to the
impact that the tape had.
And so this is all these women who have come
forward
to accuse Trump of
sexually assaulting them and Trump saying I'm going to sue
them all after the election and and being really definitive
in his denial.
And one of the other clips that the jury saw
was Trump describing Michael Cohen as a talented lawyer.
And, you know, I think it kind of gets at
the idea of like Trump saying one thing publicly and
another thing privately.
And to your point will be like if Trump's not
going to testify,
the. This is the Trump that they're seeing.
And it gets its state of mind.
It gets it like why he was eager,
if he was lying so blatantly in public,
why he was eager to
kind of like keep this quiet,
these, these two women quiet before the election.
All right. Let's talk about the words of the week
because Rhonda kind of hinted at this and it's going
to be very helpful for our understanding of this case.
All right. Stay with me,
guys. I'm putting on my
glasses for this. Words of the week are New York
election law
17-152. This is a New York State law conspiracy to
promote or prevent election.
It's a misdemeanor. And you did refer to this earlier,
Rhonda, because it's essential to the prosecutors being able to
nail this case and saying not just this is a
hush money issue,
but it was done to
interfere with an election. Exactly.
So this is a little used law as a state
law that the prosecutors,
they didn't reveal that this would be their tactic until
last week when they started their opening arguments.
But this is something that they have decided to make
the center of their argument that these hush money payments
are connected to a larger conspiracy,
a larger scheme where Trump wanted to win the election.
So they are going to use the state law to
apply to that.
I think legal scholars are super interested to see if
this will work because they are sending their case on
it.
But it's interesting because the defense position that we've seen
this week is to counter this argument by saying look
these this is how high profile people act.
This is standard to want to suppress stories that might
be incriminating but we'll have to see if attaching the
hush money payments
issue 2 an election interference issue will work for the
prosecution and and if that will,
you know lead to a conviction for Bragg and his
team.
I remember they don't Trump doesn't have to convince or
Trump's lawyers don't have to convince everyone on the jury
that he's not guilty. They just have to convince one
or two
and and if if they can poke at this hole
you know that this was what this is what rich
people do.
This is standard operating procedure.
This is the CD underworld of tabloids
that that maybe you can convince one or two people
that
Bragg is sort of in using this statute
in in a very novel untested way
maybe overreaching. Although of course the jurors aren't like going
home and looking for their law books and Googling wait,
hold on I've got it.
New York election law 17-152.
I mean so they may not necessarily realize how novel
this is.
The the the issue though is they're going to have
to followed down the path right A to B to
C wrap that all together and it leads to D
and there is at least one lawyer on the jury.
Right. That's true. That's true.
So two of them will maybe know this but maybe
not.
I don't know. And when the when the prosecution talks
about it I
they make it sound so obvious and easy and kind
of of course we're doing you know of course this
is
you did you did this one crime and further into
this other crime it's
you know the we'll see how that plays with the
jury.
It made
the as Trump said of the jury it's
you know it's Manhattan. It's a Democratic jury pool.
All
right. We'll stay with us.
Ashley Parker joins us in just a moment and we'll
get to our reader mail back.
While most of the witnesses we've heard from so far
we're involved in the alleged catch and kill scheme to
bury negative stories about Donald Trump,
the witness list is about to get a lot more
personal for the former president.
That's because one of his closest former aides is expected
to take the stand as soon as Friday.
Hope Hicks. Now Hicks was by Trump's side from his
2016 campaign throughout his presidency,
and a lot of us saw her much more than
we heard her if you weren't a member of Trump
World.
But we know that they had a very close working
relationship.
So here to tell us more about what Hope Hicks
could provide on the witness stand is our colleague Ashley
Parker,
senior National political correspondent. Welcome Ashley.
So Hope Hicks is a bit of an enigma to
those of us who are outside of Trump world.
She was always photographed right behind the president,
right by his side, whispering in his ear even.
How important is she as a fixture and someone who
witnessed the lead up to his presidency?
Well, she's sort of the Zelig of Trump world,
right? And she has this kind of fascinating origin story.
She ends up in his orbit because she was working
for the Trump Organization, working with his daughter Ivanka,
doing branding and marketing. She had no prior political experience.
When he asked her initially in 2015 to join his
campaign,
she thought he was talking about,
you know, a campaign he was running for one of
his golf clubs,
a marketing campaign. So that's how she starts.
But she has really been the person by Trump's side
since the very beginning.
And she did take a break in the White House.
She left for about two years.
She came chefed at the in 2018.
She came back two years later for the 2020 campaign.
But even within all that,
for whatever reasons that we can get into,
she was
by his side in and out,
a family on the wall in just about every important
decision that happened in in Trump world.
Which means also all of these moments and controversies and
scandals that
special counsels are interested in,
Grand juries are interested in,
federal prosecutors are interested, district attorneys are interested in,
congressional hearings are interested in.
So Hope is someone who has
actually, in certain ways, tried to move on with her
life.
Twice she left the White House again,
and then afterwards, when he wasn't president,
she splits her time between New York and DC She
started a political or
she actually not a political consulting firm.
She started a consulting firm.
She hasn't really done much politics other than she worked
on Dave
Mccormick's Senate campaign in 2022.
But she keeps on getting pulled back in largely against
her will
because she is always called to testify.
I mean it's been so many times that she's been
called
before people asking questions about Donald Trump and the TikTok
and timeline,
Senate Intelligence Committee, House Intelligence Committee,
January 6th commit. I mean,
but so much of this has seen,
but some of those scenes are now all walking in
and out of places that she frankly doesn't want to
be.
We haven't gotten to hear her though talk much about
that time out loud,
right. A lot of this has happened behind closed doors.
Yes, the January 6th testimony,
parts of that were public.
A lot of this is behind closed doors.
Sometimes, you know, there's transcripts or visibility after the fact.
But yeah, so Ashley, take us to the time that
the prosecutors might be really interested in
as they're looking at this moment in the ramp up
to the election
when Michael Cohen possibly Donald Trump.
We'll see what the the evidence shows.
We're finding out about these allegations of women who were
saying they had sexual relationships with Trump.
What do we know about Hope Hicks's knowledge or witnessing
of some of these crucial conversations.
So I will confess that this is the part that
I like just about everyone who is waiting for her
to be called and very curious to see what she
has to say knows the least about.
But my sense is a couple things.
You know David Pecker, who ran the National Enquirer,
He previously testified that there was a meeting in Trump
Tower,
I believe in August of 2015 that he said hope
was in and out of,
which again, just shows you sort of.
It's not that she was making decisions.
It's not that she was even officially advising.
She was just kind of always around and in the
either.
But she was in and out of this meeting where
he
agreed. He and Donald Trump agreed that the National Enquirer,
David Pecker, would be the eyes and ears of the
campaign and try to kill
damaging stories that could hurt Trump.
So that is likely one area they're going to want
to talk about.
Another area is Hope Hicks was the person who was
contacted by our former colleague David Farenthold
when the Access Hollywood video came out.
And you know, prosecutors want to make this case about
more than just sort of
sexual foibles. They want to make it about interfering in
an election.
And so it seems like 1 area they may want
to talk to her about is this idea that by
the time this alleged hush money was paid because of
the Access Hollywood video, the Trump campaign was very worried
about how female voters were going to react to them.
And there was a sense that if there's any more
damaging allegations that will hurt his chances to become president.
And this idea that they wanted to stop at all
costs for political reasons,
not because Melania would be mad for political reasons.
Public allegations about more alleged affairs.
James Armando, what questions do you have about Hope Hicks
relevance and potential testimony.
I like how Ashley kind of classified this as she's
a person who has access.
She's a person who's in the middle of the Trump
orbit,
how she's like truly a witness.
She is truly a witness.
She's seeing things that other people don't have knowledge of.
So she could potentially be very key when talking about
meetings,
talking about timelines. I'm interested in hearing
more on that once when she does testify.
But it is also interesting to hear you say that
she doesn't want this role.
She has tried to escape from the White House,
escape from the Trump orbit,
but keeps getting pulled in.
And I was thinking about her testimony.
It was a an interview with the January 6th Congressional
committee
and they have text messages that she wrote after January
6th where she was angry that Trump did this,
said that he makes them all look like domestic terrorists.
I'm wondering when I was looking at that testimony too.
And at one point she says the,
oh, you know, everything we worked for is kind of
all over.
And the only jobs we're going to be able to
get afterwards is for the local Proud Boys chapter,
right. And again, there's very real raw emotions on January
6th.
And she seems like she's really aware of the optics
of all of this.
So yeah, just having her there,
telling whatever she knows is going to be super interesting
once we get the transcript.
I mean, I think the prosecutors can use Hope to
establish that a lot of the behavior was
related to the campaign, that it was sort of like
how do we buy time
to establish the fear that existed right after the Access
Hollywood tape came out?
Can we push this until after the election?
The other thing that Hope can talk about,
that we got some indication of during David Pecker's testimony
is that she
was involved in some of the conversations in 2017 after
he becomes president,
along with Sarah Huckabee Sanders about how to manage these
stories and control some of the
stories when the Stormy Daniels denial came out.
So I think she, because she was with Trump,
can speak to connecting, creating this Nexus with the former
president
and also establishing that it was
campaign
related or that there was a campaign mentality which is
so important,
which is creating this like that it was in furtherance
that he did the falsified business records in furtherance of
another.
And I think another thing that's worth mentioning that is
not quite to what the prosecution wants,
but why I'm so looking forward and curious is
hope again, is just a fascinating figure,
right? She's this rare person in the Trump orbit.
She's a former model who eschews the spotlight,
right? She's was so ironic,
right? She's a model who does not want to be
in the spotlight.
She never wanted it. She's frequently,
or at least initially, was very underestimated,
in part I think because of her modeling pedigree and
because of her relative youth when she joined the White
House in such a high profile
role. She's someone who, in this White House that was
known for its warring factions and infighting,
was well liked by just about everybody.
She also had the absolute trust of the former president
and his family,
and also the respect generally of the media.
She's someone who was in all of these situations,
as Rhonda was saying, making her such a good witness,
but escaped not just with her reputation largely intact,
but she wasn't one of these Trump allies who needed
a pardon at the end of the day,
right. She's not, you know,
she's being asked to answer questions,
but there's no indication that she herself has done anything
wrong.
And then is Ronda was also talking about I mean
she I always thought about covering Trump and Trump's world
is sort of like the Hotel California you can leave
but never check out or check out but never leave.
But like there is this force field.
I mean I feel like having covered Trump starting in
2015,
right. Like if he wins it you know who knows
what happened.
But if he wins again I think like this will
you know this will be like over a decade.
Like, I will have given birth to two children,
you know, while covering Donald Trump.
And I think hope is a case study of someone
who,
whatever she does, there's still some,
there's warmth and affection there,
and she just keeps on getting pulled back into that
sort of,
like chaotic tornado that sweeps up everything in its path.
How powerful could her testimony and that moment be for
Donald Trump to be in that courtroom and have her
testifying or calling conversations being asked pointedly as lawyers do
about the actions of the former president?
Because, you know, you guys have talked about her testimony
to like the J6 committee and others,
special counsel. But Donald Trump's going to be in the
room this time,
You know, it's going to be uncomfortable for both of
them.
So after his presidency ends,
right? She kind of leaves politics moves on north her
life,
but talking to people who know their relationship,
they're in touch, they call each other from time to
time.
She's down at Mar a Lago a handful of times.
And then there's her January 6th testimony.
And again, this is another example where she does not
want to be called to testify,
but she is and she does So in her testimony
on January 6th,
in certain ways was quite explosive
and the president was upset about it.
He sort of thought she had gone further than was
required of her.
And so again, I I think a rupture would be
overstating it,
but they have not. My understanding is they have not
spoken since that January 6th testimony.
And again, people say the relationship is cordial.
There's still a lot of warmth and affection there.
They think getting back to the Hotel California,
you know she's she's never truly out.
But I don't think she she doesn't want to be
doing this.
She certainly doesn't want to be doing this while he's
sitting,
however many feet away. He doesn't want her doing this.
And it's not like Donald Trump and Michael Cohen,
who are now enemies and,
you know, kind of have that tension and anger,
but is a kind of way to get through this
moment.
Like, neither one of them wants to be there,
and neither one of them wants to really be hurting
or being hurt by the other one.
Ashley Parker, senior national political correspondent,
thank you so much for talking with us.
Yeah, come back again soon.
Thanks. We'll have to see you when she testifies.
Yeah. Thank you so much.
Thank you. And finally, today,
our reader or viewer mailbag,
a reminder that you can send us your questions to
sidebar@washpost.com. Here's today days isn't the most important question.
When will the Supreme Court rule on Trump's immunity?
Could there be a scenario where Trump gets up and
walks out of court mid trial if they decide soon?
Oh my gosh, what an evocative image that is.
This is not likely to happen
in this trial. Explain why Rhonda?
Yeah, this, this will. The Supreme Court's arguments over whether
or not Trump has this
widespread presidential immunity will likely not affect this case if
he gets up and walks out.
I don't know. He could,
but I don't think it'll work for for him on
this.
It does. That argument is probably going to affect the
January 6th federal case,
the Jack Smith LED case and also the Fulton County
case because those two focus on his actions around January
6th,
right as president and whether or not that was an
official act
as president. So we'll see.
So this case predates being president.
You can't have immunity for something you did before.
It doesn't like you get
immunity for all things you ever did wrong.
This is the criminal conduct in question is before he
became president,
So it couldn't have, even if it was allegedly into
service to become president,
it was before the presidency began.
I will say though, if the Supreme Court rules on
this during the this trial,
the New York trial, I do certainly see a world
where Trump may come to the cameras and claim like,
well, the Supreme Court said I have,
you know, get out of jail free card.
I'm going now, but that's not going to work.
But I could see him using
whatever their decision is, if it's to kick it down
to the lower courts to decide whatever it is,
I can see him using that
and telling people that he's immune.
But that's not necessarily how the law works.
Yeah, you know, and I do think like the justices.
We were surprised by how many of the justices seemed
amenable to
levels of the argument. But
I I don't. I think
none of the justices were in a place where they
wanted to give Trump total immunity,
which is what he's asking for.
For all things that he did as president,
the the justices just weren't going to go that far.
But a reminder that a win for Trump isn't just
getting immunity.
It's also having the justices.
If they decide that this bears more
conversation, more judgment, if it has to go back down
to lower courts,
if there needs to be hair splitting on,
you know, just what acts are permitted as president and
immune and not that is a win for Trump because
it delays the process of so many other trials where
people are just waiting to get going.
As we watch this New York one play out,
well, that's all we have time for.
A reminder once again, you can write to us.
It's sidebar at
washpost.com and you can subscribe to our show.
Find us wherever you listen to your podcasts and hit
that subscribe or find us on YouTube or
youtube.com/washingtonpost. I'm Libby Casey. I'm here with James Holman,
Rhonda Colvin and we will see you next week.