I don't want to seem salacious and (almost) feel sorry for Melania and (definitely for) Barron Trump, but, if I had been the prosecutor, under oath, I would have (as respectfully as possible) asked Hope Hicks if she ever had had an affair with Donald. As exquisite as she is, whatever her answer, it would have been relevant to her credibility as a witness.
I don't want to seem salacious and (almost) feel sorry for Melania and (definitely for) Barron Trump, but, if I had been the prosecutor, under oath, I would have (as respectfully as possible) asked Hope Hicks if she ever had had an affair with Donald. As exquisite as she is, whatever her answer, it would have been relevant to her credibility as a witness.
If she answered "no" (which I'm assuming is the truthful answer) the prosecution would look foolish or worse in front of the jury. No competent prosecutor would take such a chance when it was clear that she had testimony that would help the prosecution.
I contemplated that. But, it still leaves me, as a one of the millions of collective citizen-victims of Trump's many alleged crimes, wondering about the reality of her testimony.
I have no illusions about Hicks. Her attempt during x-examination to wax on about how concerned Trump was about Melania finding out about the McDougal affair and Daniels tryst made me taste a little vomit. In addition, it's likely Hicks committed perjury in 2019 when she testified under oath to the House Judiciary Committee that she had no knowledge of, and was not involved in any conversations about, hush money payments to Daniels during the 2016 campaign. She clearly wanted to imagine herself walking a line during her testimony where she could appear "neutral" and not damage Trump too much. Whether she told the whole truth during her testimony will probably never be fully known.
I don't want to seem salacious and (almost) feel sorry for Melania and (definitely for) Barron Trump, but, if I had been the prosecutor, under oath, I would have (as respectfully as possible) asked Hope Hicks if she ever had had an affair with Donald. As exquisite as she is, whatever her answer, it would have been relevant to her credibility as a witness.
I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that question might be ruled as irrelevant.
Also, it's not a good idea to ask a question when one does not know the answer.
And, finally, that may not have played well with the jury.
True. True. And true. Also, curiosity killed the cat...
If she answered "no" (which I'm assuming is the truthful answer) the prosecution would look foolish or worse in front of the jury. No competent prosecutor would take such a chance when it was clear that she had testimony that would help the prosecution.
I contemplated that. But, it still leaves me, as a one of the millions of collective citizen-victims of Trump's many alleged crimes, wondering about the reality of her testimony.
I have no illusions about Hicks. Her attempt during x-examination to wax on about how concerned Trump was about Melania finding out about the McDougal affair and Daniels tryst made me taste a little vomit. In addition, it's likely Hicks committed perjury in 2019 when she testified under oath to the House Judiciary Committee that she had no knowledge of, and was not involved in any conversations about, hush money payments to Daniels during the 2016 campaign. She clearly wanted to imagine herself walking a line during her testimony where she could appear "neutral" and not damage Trump too much. Whether she told the whole truth during her testimony will probably never be fully known.