Trump Trial Day 11: Another Good Day For Trump in Court.


by William Upton

The eleventh day of former President Donald J. Trump‘s Manhattan-based hush money trial was abbreviated, ending before 1PM. Defense attorneys for the former President finished their cross-examination of Madeleine Westerhout, a former White House aide. Despite being a witness called by the prosecution, Westerhout — like many of the prosecution’s witnesses — proved relatively damaging to its case under cross-examination by Trump’s defense team.

Following the conclusion of Westerhout’s testimony, jurors heard from a series of custodial witnesses used by the prosecution to enter new evidence into the court record. These witnesses, themselves, held little bearing on the course of the trial

Democrat-aligned Judge Juan Merchan, meanwhile, denied a defense motion to issue a gag order on Michael Cohen. The disgraced attorney has made frequent public statements on TikTok against former President Trump. Additionally, Cohen has used social media to profit directly from the trial.


The prosecution has tried to make much out of former President Trump’s attention to detail. Several of the witnesses brought by the District Attorney’s office have primarily served to establish the approval process for payments, statements, and other documents within the Trump Organization, the 2016 Trump campaign, and the Trump White House. The goal is to portray the former President as someone who pays careful attention to detail and would have either had pre-knowledge or inquired about the nature of the payments to disgraced lawyer Michael Cohen.

However, during her cross-examination, Trump‘s former personal assistant in the White House threw cold water on the prosecution’s strategy. While she did testify that the former President was very detail-oriented, she explained that the busy nature of running the country resulted in Trump often signing checks while he was engaged in other tasks, including phone calls or speaking with aides. This recollection appears to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s assertion that Trump was aware of the purpose of the payments to Cohen.

In a separate moment, Westerhout again reinforced the Trump defense team’s assertion that the former President was motivated to protect his family, not the 2016 election. “My understanding was it would be hurtful to his family,” Westerhout said, noting that the Stormy Daniels affair allegations made Trump “very upset.”


The prosecution‘s next witness was Daniel Dixon, a lead compliance analyst with AT&T. He testified as a records custodian, specifically regarding cell phone data relating to calls made between Michael Cohen and others. On the stand, Dixon spent most of his testimony establishing the veracity of cell phone call records submitted into evidence by the prosecution. These records allegedly show calls between Cohen and Trump that prosecutors allege revolved around the hush money payments.

Dixon’s questioning by the prosecution was short, though not as short nor as damaging as his cross-examination by former President Trump‘s defense team. Attorney Emil Bove handled the cross, immediately diving into the technical specifications of cell phone SIM cards.


Bove asked Dixon if a SIM card “can be pulled out of one phone and put into another?” Dixon responded, “Yes.” He next shifted to the nature of call records, pressing Dixon: “These records don’t reflect the content of these calls?” The AT&T analyst replied, “Correct.”

“You can’t tell from the records themselves who actually spoke?” Bove asked, Dixon again answering, “Correct.”

Casting doubt on the nature of the calls, Bove next asked Dixon: “You’re familiar with the concept of a pocket dial?” The analyst acknowledged that he was familiar with a pocket dial.

The next witness for the prosecution was Jennie Tomalin, a senior analyst with Verizon. Again, the prosecution called the witness primarily to introduce phone call records into evidence. One of the records concerns a call made involving Allen Weisselberg. The prosecution likely intends to bring up these records in later testimony by other individuals.


Just before the court took a brief break, former President Trump‘s defense attorney Emil Bove objected to a pending evidentiary exhibit by the prosecution. The Manhattan District Attorney‘s office intended to submit into evidence a 1999 interview between Trump and Larry King in which the subject of campaign finance law was discussed.

“There was extensive revisions to campaign finance laws in intervening period both statutory and by the Supreme Court,” Bove argued before Judge Juan Merchan. The defense attorney noted that the former President’s view on campaign finance law dating back to 1999 had little bearing on his views in 2016 or 2017. Prosecutors countered that the specific segment involved Trump’s opinion on the corporate contribution ban, which has been established law since 1907.

After the brief break, Judge Merchan ruled against the prosecution and denied the exhibit entrance into evidence.


The prosecution next moved to recall Georgia Longstreet to the witness stand. Longstreet is a paralegal with the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. While her direct testimony last week and today hasn’t been impactful on the direction of the trial, she — like the phone company analysts — has been used by prosecutors to enter additional evidence into the court record and, subsequently, juror review.

Longstreet testified about the process by which the District Attorney’s office preserved social media posts by former President Trump. Again, her testimony served as a vehicle for the prosecution to continue entering Trump tweets into the court record.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
1 Comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This case is like a professional football team, Trump’s team, competing against a high school football team, fat Bragg’s DNC fascist lawfare team. It’s no contest. Bragg’s team has NOTHING and is just there. The only possible wild card is if the referees are corrupt, which in this case they are.

Based on the evidence, the outcome is clear and already determined. But the refs keep throwing unwarranted flags and could eventually call the game for those ill-prepared to even be in the game.