So looking back at the CNN News feed I was getting my trial news from, this may have been a screw up on my part. I read the update for that and didn’t see it was Trump talking to journalists not the judge during the Sandoval hearing.
Ahhh, so it’s just the usual bullshit performance art for the MAGAts, just like all those court cases where Trump Toadies (Guiliani et al) would bloviate to the media about all the evidence of fraud, and then go into court and admit they had no evidence whatsoever of any fraud.
Also e jean ties into the access Hollywood tape. The way he attacked her and what stormy Daniels said about the hotel room are exactly what he said on the tape.
The issue isn’t whether or not he had an affair. The issue is about fraudulent accounting. And anyway by her account it was consensual.
The pictures that I’ve seen show a nearly-empty courtroom. For instance, in the photo here:
They needed the seats for the jury. They were coming in at 90+ at a time, then winnowed down, then able to fit in the jury box.
It’s relevant because Trump has denied even having the affair with Daniels in the first place. At least that’s what he bloviates in public. Not sure if this lie will be part of his defense. Probably not, but the prosecution has to be prepared to refute this lie.
That’s an important point. One of the reasons that a judge needs to keep a handle on what is relevant is that ancillary issues can create “mini trials” over issues that aren’t actually the subject of the trial.
So, while I think the judge will allow testimony that Daniels (and Karen McDougal) had affairs with donald, I don’t think he’ll let it be a feature of their testimony. No lurid details; he may even restrict discussions of specific liaisons. It’s enough that they had a ‘relationship’; the specifics would be that who, what, when, of them being paid in exchange for an agreement to remain silent.
Similarly, I doubt that the judge would let the defense try to prove that donald didn’t have these affairs. Argue that he didn’t pay them, or have any knowledge that other people did? Fine. But this isn’t a trial about adultery.
Remember, too, that the Sandoval hearing was to determine what prior cases could be introduced to impeach Donald’s credibility. The judge will rule on Monday with that in mind. Something that relates to dishonesty is fair game (although how recent it occurred is another factor to consider). But just introducing something to impugn Donald’s reputation isn’t allowed.
If he paid to hide a real affair or just to shut her up as he claimed, it’s all the same if the payment was fraud
Even that is not the issue in this trial. The issue is whether he had fraudulent records produced with respect to where the money went. If Stephanie can show that Cohen gave her a check for $130k, and Cohen can show that he was reimbursed for that check, and the records of where that money came from are missing or mislabeled, then Individual-ONE is guilty of fraud. Or, one of his lackeys perpetrated the fraud on a hand-wave, so Individual-ONE is innocent because he did not literally specify how the funds were supposed to be labeled. It’s not my fault.
This article from Maggie Haberman is chock full of descriptions of trump suffering because of the trial. He has to sit down and shut up! He has to listen to people say mean things about him, and he can’t even talk back or twuth! I am a small and petty person, because each one made my wicked black heart skip a beat in joy.
NEW YORK — “Sir, can you please have a seat.” Donald Trump had stood up to leave the Manhattan criminal courtroom as Justice Juan M. Merchan was wrapping up a …
For the first few minutes of each day during jury selection, a small pool of still photographers was ushered into Part 59 on the 15th floor of the courthouse. Trump, obsessed with being seen as strong and being seen generally, prepared for them to rush in front of him by adjusting his suit jacket and contorting his face into a jut-jawed scowl. But, by day’s end Friday, Trump appeared haggard and rumpled, his gait off-center, his eyes blank.
People close to him are anxious about how he will handle having so little to do as he sits there for weeks on end, with only a handful of days of testimony expected to be significant. It has been decades since he has had to spend so much time in the immediate vicinity of anyone who is not part of his family, his staff or his throng of admirers.
Most of the time, Trump has been forced to sit at the table, unable to use his cellphone, and listen as prosecutors have described him as a criminal, as jurors have been asked their opinions of him.
Not exactly 100% consensual.
It appears the Official Russian press says this is all a big frame up, etc.
‘Fabricated case’ - Russia
By Andrey Vladov, BBC Monitoring Russia specialist, London
A pro-Trump bias was in evidence in much of the coverage. On state TV Rossiya 1’s main evening news, the presenter used the Russian slang word “bespredel”, which roughly translates to utter lawlessness and abuse of power, in reference to the trial and other criminal charges faced by Trump.
I am shocked, shocked. 
Thanks for that. It was interesting. It must be hell for him to have to sit there, not being able to do or say (or Twuth) a damn thing. I almost can’t blame him for falling asleep; I’ve been in courtrooms where proceedings aren’t terribly exciting, and parties look like they may indeed nap for a bit. But our litigants in the local courthouse aren’t nearly as high-profile as Trump. He, at least, could maybe have a Red Bull or two before court and at lunch, so he stays awake and looks alert.
Friday’s Sandoval Hearing decision tomorrow, followed by opening statements. What does anybody think the chances are that he will just sit there quietly during the prosecution’s opening statement? I think he will react in some way; not necessarily enough to get him thrown out or hit with a contempt charge, but enough for the judge to say, “That’s enough, Mr. Trump.”
I hope I’m wrong, but in a way, I kind of hope I’m right. That would fit in with Maggie Haberman’s observation of him as not in control in these proceedings, and he’s not used to that.
I hope I hear at some point: “Control your client or I will have him removed from my courtroom “
Trump might actually prefer to be removed.
It would fit his narrative of being unfairly persecuted. “They won’t even let me have a trial!!”. The publicity would be a good boost for his campaign,.
And if reporters in the courtroom can’t see him, they wont write as much negative stuff about his dishevelled appearance.
(Or his farting 
).
No, he’d have a trial. What typically happens, at least in my jurisdiction, is that the unruly defendant would be removed to another room, where they could observe courtroom proceedings on closed-circuit TV (CCTV). A similar CCTV feed would show the defendant to the court. I’m sure that he would have one of his legal team with him, to relay messages to his team in the courtroom.
So, reporters would still be able to see him, but would be unlikely to hear him, as he likely wouldn’t have a hot mic. Regardless, it would be easy for reporters to look to the CCTV monitors see if he starts ranting and raving, even if they cannot hear him.
Again, this is the way things would happen in my jurisdiction. I see no reason why things might be different in New York, but of course, New York may vary.
And miss out on the opportunity to glare contemptuously at the jury? You underestimate how much he overestimates himself.
Indeed. And I think he has overestimated himself this time.
No doubt he thinks that if he glares at the jury, they will be cowed into acquitting him. After all, he’s rich and famous and he was the President, and he will be again. So he thinks; I disagree. Never mind that for now.
But I don’t think the jurors will be cowed at all. They’ll see this sad man there, trying to intimidate them but being unable to say anything, either verbally or by Twuthing, and thinking, “Y’know, it’s true. Somebody finally got Trump to shut up, if only for a few hours; and matters are out of his hands until this thing’s over and he cannot do a damn thing. I guess that the emperor really does have no clothes.”
At least, that what I hope would happen should he try glaring at the jury.
Also, these are New Yorkers we’re talking about. Glares don’t work on New Yorkers.