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)
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.
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.