Trump is in the courthouse and it’s go time. Hoping we get a ruling on the gag order. It’s a full day so also hoping we see the defense fail to do well against Pecker.
If I was on the jury, this recent exchange would make me sit up and take notice:
(from CNN)
Steinglass is asking whether Pecker had any intention of printing McDougal’s story about Donald Trump.
“No, we did not,” Pecker says.
Steinglass followed up, asking whether Pecker’s intention was so that her story did not influence the 2016 election.
“Yes, it was,” Pecker says.
This certainly seems to establish a pattern of paying people off so their stories of infidelity would not influence the election, rather than whatever poppycock excuse the defense team is planning on trotting out.
as i understand it ami was not reimbursed by trump for the money paid to mcdougal and doorman. i believe that is where manhattan is able to find the enhancement to go for the felony.
The former tabloid executive says he wanted the repayment before September 30, when the company’s quarter ended. He wanted the “proper true ups” on the various accounts at AMI, Pecker adds.
Pecker says he was explaining to Cohen why he kept discussing the issue of repayment.
from testimony today:
“I wanted to explain to him why it was so important to be reimbursed,” Pecker told the court.
“Why worry? I’m your friend. The boss will take care of it,” Pecker says Cohen would respond.
also this:
Trump’s attorney objected to a series of questions by Steinglass about Pecker’s knowledge of campaign finance laws at the time of the transaction. The objection is overruled.
Steinglass is asking whether Pecker was aware that corporations making campaign expenditures in coordination with a campaign without disclosing them was unlawful.
Yes, Pecker says.
Pecker also confirms the transaction was not reported under campaign finance obligations.
Trump passed a note from one of his attorneys to the other at that moment
the procecution is laying out the enhancement part of their charges.
these are from cnn updates:
David Pecker testified that he had concerns about the legality of the catch and kill deals. In 2016, Pecker testified he consulted an election law attorney when AMI was structuring the catch and kill contract with Karen McDougal and said that AMI’s in-house attorney was aware of the deal.
Still, AMI moved forward and signed a deal with McDougal, including rights to any stories involving married men, with no intention of publishing health and fitness articles they promised her.
Two years later, AMI signed a non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors investigating Michael Cohen. Under the deal, AMI admitted it violated federal campaign finance laws by making a $150,000 donation to Trump’s campaign while coordinating with the campaign. AMI never disclosed the contribution to the Federal Election Commission. As part of the deal, Pecker cooperated with federal prosecutors.
During questioning Thursday, Pecker said he knew at the time the 2016 deal was illegal and he wouldn’t have entered into it if it wasn’t for Trump’s benefit.
Welp. I know the testimony has been pretty damning throughout but that’s pretty durned darning.
court is back after a brief break.
due to a team trump objection the following is happening.
The judge is back on the bench. We’re now going to discuss the disputed exhibits. Steinglass handed the judge a binder with the exhibits.
i’m starting to see why they think 6-8 weeks. although now it should be full days as passover ends on the 30th. mr pecker will be on the stand for quite a few days.
Attorneys signaled that they will not be done with Pecker’s testimony today.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said he had about two to three hours left. Trump attorney Emil Bove noted that there’s “a lot more to come.”
“We’re not going to finish today,” Bove said.
Judge Juan Merchan noted that he wasn’t trying to rush Trump’s side and they could have as much time as they wanted to cross.
Steinglass is resuming questioning of Pecker.
Prosecutors have asked Pecker about the “Access Hollywood” tape that was released before the 2016 election.
Trump has his eyes closed, a scowl on his face as he listens to this line of questioning
You don’t know how difficult it is to remain sober and mature when reading sentences like this.
He must have been relentlessly teased growing up. May explain some things about him.
Who knows.
That certainly supports the argument that the false entries were made to cover up a different offence, which is necessary for the felony charge.
On Day 1 of testimony, Rachel Maddow said (paraphrased): “Of course, the 1st witness is named Pecker…because the journalism gods like to test our maturity level.”
If I was the bailiff, I’d call him to the stand by saying “Will Pecker please rise?”
for testimony lasting more than 4 days …
Yeah, this is looking like the prosecution’s case is more solid than all the pre-trial peanut-gallery punditry made it sound. Of course, the defense hasn’t had their turn yet.
Appreciate this. It sure looks like the prosecution is suggesting that the McDougal/Doorman stuff was illegal.
But none of that is charged. Only Cohen’s fake invoices to get repaid for his payments he made to Stormy and which were incorrectly labeled in the ledger (11 Cohen invoices, 11 checks to Cohen, 11 ledger entries = 33 charges). Those make up all the charges.*
Unless you’re saying they are showing a pattern and Stormy fits that pattern, then yes absolutely.
*as noted above there was a mistake and something was entered twice which is why there are 34 charges and not 33.
Take a look at Evidence Rule 404(b). (I’m sure NY has a similar rule)
(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
the national enquirer has a red line with porn stars!!??!
Pecker is testifying more about why that AMI, the National Enquirer’s parents company, couldn’t pay $120,000 for Daniels’ story.
“I said, ‘I don’t want the National Enquirer to be associated with a porn star,’” Pecker says on the stand, adding that with Walmart as a main distributor of the magazine, it would be very bad for AMI.
Was going to finish out my thoughts from yesterday re: other crimes, but this article seems very timely.
Charting the Legal Theory Behind People v. Trump. The entire article is worth reading if you want to get into the weeds of the “other crimes” but here’s some highlights:
Bragg had charged Trump under New York Penal Law § 175.10, falsifying business records in the first degree. The falsification of business records alone is a misdemeanor under § 175.05—but Bragg had boosted the charge to a felony by alleging that Trump fudged the records with the “intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.” But what other crime? The indictment didn’t say.
If you’re looking for the clearest statement of Bragg’s legal theory, you can find it in a November 2023 court filing opposing Trump’s motion to dismiss the case, along with Merchan’s ruling on that motion.
In his filing, Bragg sets out four potential object offenses: violations of federal campaign finance law under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA); violations of New York Election Law § 17-152; violations of federal, local, and state tax law; and additional falsifications of business records outside the Trump Organization. Merchan allowed Bragg to move forward with the first three theories, but tossed out the last one.
…
Clear as mud? In all seriousness, what this deep dive has hopefully shown is that Bragg’s legal theory is genuinely tangled…
I would add the clearest Bragg has been was his response to Trump’s pre-trial written questions:
Request No. 2: "Specify the criminal statute (i.e., ‘other crime’) which Donald J. Trump is alleged to have committed or intended to commit or to aid or conceal the commission thereof by means of the allegedly false business record…
People’s Response to Request No. 2: Defendant is not entitled to the information requested in Request No. 2. Where an intent to commit or conceal another crime is an element of an offense, the People need not prove intent to commit or conceal a particular crime… the People respond that the crimes defendant intended to commit or to aid or conceal may include violations of New York Election Law § 17-152; New York Tax Law §§ 1801 (a)(3) and 1802; New York Penal Law§§ 175.05 and 175.1 0; or violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq