If Peter Bogdanovich was forgetful and mentally dull 45 years after Paper Moon, he was not the only such senior citizen. The undersigned 69 year-old individualoid thought the Trump trial had recessed until next week. Thus, rather than give you blow-by-blows of today's court testimony I continued dissecting a 51 year-old movie. Oy vey.
Hope Hicks testified for the prosecution today. Her appearance, when it was announced that she would be the next witness, drew "gasps" in the courtroom per the Quasis. "Hopie" as Trumpie called her in the White House, didn't disappoint. She gave testimony helpful to the prosecution--and to the defense, and even provided the affecting spectacle of the beautiful woman in tears, prompting the court to take a brief break so that she could gather herself.
For the prosecution, Hicks was right in the middle of the "grab 'em by the pussy" Access Hollywood campaign "crisis", her word, in, by this old man's recollection, in October 2015. And then three days before the election (propinquity is so key in the case) the Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal shit storms rained on her pretty head. She identified Michael Cohen as chief firefighter on the front line of the fire-"Storm" (as Conehead referred to Ms. Daniels), someone she, Hopie, was in constant "frantic" contact with, testified that she thinks she recalls one time hearing Trumpie on the phone with said Conehead, and stated that Cohen making the payment to "Storm" on his own, from altruistic chords, were not chords Cohen ever displayed having to her.
All good for the prosecution. For the defense, the affirmative defense to the case is that the motive for the payments to the women was all to protect said Trumpie's image as a "family man", having nothing whatsoever to do with the election, Hopie revealed the touching order that Trumpie gave her to make sure that the newspapers carrying the stories didn't get delivered to Melanoma at Mar-a-Lago. I do think that protecting his wife should be his affirmative defense, however, and on this point my betters at the New York Times disagree, the notion that this is good for the defense seems to me belied by the various forms of electronic communication available these days and in days for the past 100 years, viz radio, the newfangled electronic television machine, and exotic media such as the computer, the Interwebz and the "smart phone". Were I the defense, I would wish for more he'p than that there.
