“He wasn’t thinking about Melania. This was all about the campaign.”

If the jury believes even half of Cohen’s testimony, the FEC violation elements are met.

“This distinguishes him from those witnesses who remain firmly in Trump’s orbit. They, when asked, said that Trump was deeply worried about the effect that the Stormy Daniels story would have on his relationship with Melania. Westerhout, under further questioning, admitted that it was an assumption she had made — not a worry she ever heard Trump express.“

…..

“Women are gonna hate me. Women will hate me. Guys, they think it’s cool. But this is gonna be a disaster for the campaign,” Cohen recalled Trump saying.

Cohen went on to say that Trump was polling “very poorly with women,” and that, coupled with Access Hollywood, Trump said that it was a “disaster,” telling Cohen: “Get control over it.”

…….

Cohen testifies that Trump told him that the “locker room talk” defense came from Melania.

Recall: Trump’s defense of the Access Hollywood tape is that it was bravado — locker room talk — embarrassing and unfortunate but not reflective of any broader pattern of behavior. It’s not clear why Trump wanted to persuade Cohen that Melania came up with that response.

…….

Cohen testifies to this by saying that he made the tape in part to demonstrate to Pecker that “Mr. Trump was going to be paying him back,” and to ensure that Pecker remained “loyal to Mr. Trump.”

He tells Hoffinger that it was the only time he ever secretly recorded Trump.

There’s an obvious credibility issue: Cohen did something very invasive and untrustworthy by secretly recording his boss. Hoffinger is trying to inoculate jurors against potential cross-examination on that issue by having Cohen walk through his thought process.

…….

Hoffinger is having Cohen explain the dirty details of what it meant to be Trump’s fixer: his job was in part to “renegotiate” bills from vendors and contractors with companies that had performed tasks for the Trump Organization.

More simply put: Cohen’s job was to cajole, coax, and threaten vendors to accept lower payment.

He says that he did this with law firms when Trump “didn’t believe that the invoice was fair, reasonable, or justified.” He also tells Hoffinger that he did it with around 50 vendors to Trump University, the education venture that was found to have been a fraud. Cohen says that Trump was “not going to fund the balance” of what Trump University owed, so instead they paid twenty percent of what was owed to each.

…….

He says that Trump told Pecker at the meeting: “Anything negative comes, you let Michael know.”

As Trump decided to run, Cohen recalls, he understood that his past relations with women would be an issue. Cohen says that Trump told him to “be prepared” because a “lot of women” would be coming forward.

Med students avoiding red states

The real depressing statistic is that interest in residency programs in general is dropping slightly, probably because students in red states don’t want to leave home, but just know that they can’t practice ethically under the conditions the extremist politics have generated. The laws put them into the position of having to break either the criminal code or the Hippocratic Oath. So programs are slightly down nationally because that includes red state students who would study in blue state schools. But the drops are exponentially larger in red state schools.

This is just the beginning. It’s already affecting other industries, and Texas is very likely going to lose much of the tech advantage it had built up over the years. Even many young Republicans don’t want to live in the Gilead states.

You can read the article here.

“….the number of applicants to residency programs in states with near-total abortion bans declined by 4.2% between 2024 and 2023, compared with a 0.6% drop in states where abortion remains legal.”

“The AAMC analysis found that the number of applicants to OB-GYN residency programs in abortion-ban states dropped by 6.7%, compared with a 0.4% increase in states where abortion remains legal. For internal medicine, the drop observed in abortion-ban states was over five times as much as in states where abortion is legal.”

Is Aileen Cannon corrupt or just incompetent?

As you know, she has basically put off anything happening in the trial because there are motions pending and she seems to be overwhelmed. I guess. As one of the commentator says she should just rule on them. Whether it’s intentional or she is just in over her head, she has basically assured that if Trump is elected this trial will never happen. It has been suggested that no judge should preside over a case involving someone who appointed them.

There is a growing chorus of calls for her to be removed from the case, and even to be removed as judge. Two of her own clerks have quit in protest. She has only presided over a couple of trials and certainly never over one involving classified documents. But that’s not what amazes me. What amazes me is the lack of legal expert defenders. Usually a judge would have at least a few. In fact, other than reporting on her rulings, the right wing media is dead silent. I waited a few days and then went down the rabbit hole of wandering the terrain of right wing media for conservative academic legal defenders. I went to Fox and OAN. I went to National Review. American Spectator. Human Events. Commentary. Even most elected Republicans are kind of muted on the ruling – one exception is Rep. Steube in Florida as reported by Newsmax. Otherwise, she really has no defenders.

And this is the case where Trump really has no defense. The law says what it says. He had the documents. He was given multiple opportunities to return them. He refused multiple time and lied over and over again about what he had. He forced an FBI raid to recover them. He shared documents with people without security clearance. It’s really open and shut.

The right to a speedy trial is not the defendant’s alone. It is also the general public’s. She is not taking that seriously at all. Is she deliberately pushing the trial back or is she just incompetent? It doesn’t really matter. It’s banana republic corruption.

Dave and I talk about Biden withholding offensive ammunition from Netanyahu; campus protest aftermath; Stormy testimony at the Trump trial; Judge Merchan’s jail threat; and MTG’s slap down in the House

Trump’s attorneys made a motion for mistrial because of the sordid details Stormy Daniel’s went into and in denying the motion a clearly frustrated Judge Merchan told them that they should have objected to the testimony when it was happening. Technically he’s right – you can’t complain about it after the fact. The Judge’s comments are probably not going to improve Trump’s relationship with his attorneys as he’s been pressing his attorneys to be more aggressive. But in the video I explain why I think it was sound strategy to not object in front of the jury. That being said, Trump’s attorneys should have called for a sidebar and then objected in chambers. Instead they just let it happen. All that being said, I think the jury is focused on the issues judging from the reporters accounts of when they’ve been taking notes. Daniels’s testimony is there simply to verify that Trump had some very real issues to hide from the voters – whether or not they were true (it doesn’t matter whether Daniels was telling the truth, only that she had the story to tell, and this is why a number of legal experts are calling Trump’s attorney’s cross-examination a “disaster” as it only underscored the point).

Meanwhile, we also discuss Margerie Taylor Greene’s amateur hour motion to remove Johnson as Speaker, and she got slammed down but hard! 10 Republicans voted along with her and 33 Democrats who got to make their own political points as Johnson now owes the Democrats a huge favor because their promise to save his ass (by not running their own candidate) allowed the vast majority of Republicans to vote for sanity.

Seriously Hill reporters?

The Hill’s headline reads: “Trump attorney blights Stormy Daniels’s credibility in tempestuous cross-exam.”

The following is taken from the article:

Across three hours of questioning over two days, the defense attorney insinuated Daniels’s work in porn made her ready to cash in. 

“You have a lot of experience in making phony stories about sex appear to be real, correct?” Necheles asked Thursday. 

That is among the stupidest questions I’ve seen asked in court and yet it’s the first the Hill highlights as an example of “blighting” her credibility.

As to all sides in the university events across the country, this Rabbi has provided the most profound voice I have heard thus far

Has Netanyahu gone insane?

I support Israel’s right to defend itself, but Hamas has accepted the ceasefire deal. However, even while looking over the deal, the Netanyahu has the IDF making strikes in eastern Rafah. The U.S. is making tepid protests. Netanyahu is caving to hardliners in his coalition according to reports – hardliners who care nothing about the hostages. Civilians have been warned to leave Rafah, but where do they go? That was the last place of refuge.

Meanwhile, agencies say this will bring on famine and mass suffering. It’s insane. If Biden wants to hold office, he has to break away from Netanyahu now. Support the country, break from the crazy.

Concerns over Deputy D.A.’s potential bias if he prosecutes protest cases

Redheaded Black Belt has the story. No comments from the County admin or D.A. office, but I imagine they just won’t assign him to any of the cases.

Probably he should also be instructed to remove the banner from the window given the context of his counter-protests, although I wonder if there would be similar issues of a flag of Sweden or France.

Huge protest in Tel Aviv

Probably in response to Netanyahu saying that an end to the war won’t be part of any deal.

These demonstrations are getting bigger.

Local Jewish Leaders Respond to Senator McGuire and Assembly Member Wood

Dear Senator Mike McGuire and Assemblymember Jim Wood,

As leaders in the Jewish community in Humboldt County, we express our disappointment in your recent press release in which you referenced “antisemitic hate speech” in connection to the protests at Cal Poly Humboldt. Yes, there have been instances of antisemitism. Yes, there is important work to be done. But we do not find the protests themselves to be antisemitic and we reject it as justification for the police force used against the protesters. This inappropriate justification is all the more problematic because it was done without any consultation with Jewish community leaders.

Our Jewish community is diverse with wide ranging views. We share the distress felt by so many Cal Poly Humboldt students, faculty, and staff over the ongoing violence and tragic loss of life in the Middle East. We have varying opinions about the protests, slogans, and many related matters, nor do we share one definition of antisemitism. The Temple Beth El Antisemitism Task Force holds that the charge must be brought with discretion, carefully taking into account numerous factors in any situation. While some of us have witnessed and are concerned about statements and acts by individuals that we experience as anti-Jewish, we push back against the charge that antisemitism was endemic to the protests at Cal Poly Humboldt or that expressions of it were an appropriate justification for police action.

Senator and Assemblymember, you stated concern for the difficult experience of “Humboldt’s Jewish students and others over the past week.” Yes, the past week has been traumatic, for the entire campus community and community at large. But the problems with antisemitism at Cal Poly Humboldt are not confined to one tumultuous week. Let us explain:

In past decades very few antisemitic incidents on campus came to our attention, and some longtime Jewish faculty report encountering no antisemitism at Humboldt State University (now Cal Poly Humboldt). Jewish faculty and staff have received honors, and rabbis teaching or volunteering on campus have been treated with respect. Similarly, for decades there was very little antisemitic activity in the community at large. But things have changed in recent years. Even before the October 7 massacre, some Jewish students reported feeling marginalized by classmates and instructors.

Since October 7 there has been a surge in antisemitic crimes and incidents off campus and one hate crime on campus right after the massacre before protests began. The charged atmosphere of the protests this winter and spring has left some Jewish students, faculty, and staff feeling intimidated and afraid to openly identify with their religion or celebrate their heritage. One student was viciously harassed and has received little help.

In early February, Jewish community leaders contacted University administration requesting a meeting on urgent problems and solutions. It took three months to get a one-hour meeting. During that time the situation deteriorated, and the University failed to engage with us in any meaningful way. We were surprised to read a recent press release in which the University stated they “have been in touch with Jewish community leaders.” This is inaccurate. Now it appears that our well-intentioned elected officials have been misled by the University.

The protests loudly demonstrated a lack of cultural sensitivity and indifference to alienation of Jewish students with opposing views. The University ignored offers of help from Jewish leaders and failed to provide students, faculty and staff with resources to address antisemitism and support Jewish life on campus. This must change. At a long-awaited meeting on May 2 with the Dean of Students, it was agreed that vigorous, long term effort is needed to educate the Cal Poly Humboldt community about and respond to antisemitism. Crimes and discrimination must be taken seriously, and spurious charges of antisemitism must be scrupulously avoided.

We appreciate your service to the community and want to make sure you understand the risks of potential harm and escalation that come from a politicized use of the term antisemitism. We would like to work with you directly to address these complex problems and the nuances required for future communications.

Rabbi Naomi Steinberg, Lecturer Emerita Cal Poly Humboldt

Rabbi Bob Rottenberg

Courtney Ladika, M.D., Temple Beth El President

Caroline Connor, M.D., M.P.H., Temple Beth El Vice President

Emeritus Professor Ann Alter, Temple Beth El Board Secretary

David Boyd, Temple Beth El Antisemitism Task Force