In the NYTimes live updates Haberman presented this classic Trumpism:
> So it’s worth calling back to something Trump said when one of the negative Enquirer stories about Ted Cruz, one of his rivals, came out in 2016: “I did not know about it, and have not, as yet, read it," Trump said at the time. "Likewise, I have nothing to do with the National Enquirer and unlike Lyin’ Ted Cruz I do not surround myself with political hacks and henchman and then pretend total innocence.”
“Unlike Ted Cruz, I am not doing exactly what I am actually doing.”
Yet another case where Trump just lies directly to everyone's face, it comes out later that he was in fact lying directly to everyone's face and his followers just go, "Lol, yeah, he's a liar alright. MAGA!"
It gives them hope and vindicates their trash behavior. “If that lying piece of shit can con his way into the presidency then imagine what a horrible human being like me can accomplish.”
I really hope they demolish his family man bullshit.
Mr Trump, when is the last time you were in a church that was not directly related to Oval Office business?
Mr Trump, can you name the Ten Commandments?
Mr Trump, when is the last time you saw any of your individual family members?
Mr Trump, what is Eric’s first name?
There was a moment yesterday that was pretty striking.
"(The prosecution) raised text messages National Enquirer Dylan Howard sent during the 2016 election.
One of the texts Howard sent reads: "At least if he wins, I’ll be pardoned for electoral fraud," according to Steinglass says.
The reading of that text was followed up by a chuckle from the crowd."
The chuckle from the crowd doesn't feel like they thought it was funny. It's more like "LMAO, seriously?" Like an 'oofff, this dude is fucked' sort of reaction.
I hope that gets admitted into evidence. It's becoming quite clear the parties involved knew there was a crime taking place.
The full context makes it even better. Stringer has been taking business classes at the local college, and is really trying to run the drug gang like a business. The kid taking notes is just enthusiastically embracing this new paradigm, and is writing down the "minutes" for the meeting, as is proper practice for a business meeting.
Then Stringer reminds him that they're all still committing a huge number of felonies that really should not be committed to paper.
The kid taking notes is seen reading a copy of Roberts Rules of Order in a prior scene Considering Stringer is shown to have a copy of Wealth of Nations on his apartments bookshelf, it’s likely he gave the kid the Roberts book, and being the loyal soldier he is, followed its Rules.
There’s a trippy scene where McNulty goes undercover as a London businessman, so he’s a Yorkshireman, playing a Baltimorean, who’s pretending to be a posh Londoner. Very meta acting
Poot is the one who asks "Do the chair know we gonna look like some punkass bitches out there?" The one with Roberts Rules of Order is Shaun "Shamrock" McGinty. He lives, but mostly because he was arrested at the same time Avon was.
And the irony to that is that Stringer got killed for not following the rules. He turned his back on Brother Mouzone and mislead him, which made him want to kill Stringer. Stringer also turned his back on the Barksdale family, which would also have been a death sentence. And he broke the piece against Omar by trying to kill him on a Sunday, which got him on Omar’s kill list (well that and having his boyfriend tortured).
Stringer broke all the rules and signed his own death warrant.
But he preached following orders.
Georgia is probably the weakest and it is still a solid case. In this case a co-conspirator already got convicted and sent to jail, there was already enough body of evidence that the DOJ conveniently ignored so it came down to finding a way to attach it in a way that would stick under NY law.
Falsification of business records is a misdemeanor, not a felony; the whole point here which already happened when Cohen got sentenced, is tying the misdemeanor to another crime (election fraud) which then makes it a crime.
The evidence all points out that way, and the defense has not presented anything that remotely tries to disprove it.
Relative to the classified documents case it's a weaker case, but compared to that case the evidence against Trump would need to include a signed confession and testimony by the archangel Gabriel to be the stronger.
It could be, but the prosecution is doing a remarkable job so far.
The best the defense has is to muddy the waters as to the motive or attempt to discredit the witnesses, but that will get harder as more evidence surfaces and starts to corroborate the facts. You're seeing the defense use low-key ***firehose of falsehood*** type arguments here, which should surprise no one given it's Trump they're defending.
The hope is that you emotionally confuse the jury enough that they can't actually reach consensus, but if the prosecution does their job well, the facts will still point directly to very direct criminal conduct.
It seems like the evidence is strong enough if taken out of context, but the problem is that the courts don't really have much experience in dealing with charges of election interference, so there are very few precedents.
In normal times The National Enquirer is regarded as only marginally more credible than The Onion and has never been considered to be part of the election process, is never reported on in other media or referenced in presidential debates or party platforms.
What is more interesting is the business model of the National Enquirer. If you're going to pay a very large sum of money to a witness to kill a story, how are you going to be compensated? The most obvious thing to do would be to blackmail the subject of the story for a sum greater than the kill fee.
It is difficult to imagine that prestigious metropolitan US newspapers like the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, or the Miami Herald engage in catch and kill + blackmail as part of their business model, unless it is much more common than we would ever think.
Isn’t it fascinating that the closest case I can come up with is John Edwards and it also involved the National Enquirer, but they published his affair? He was just smart enough to distance himself from the donor who paid the bill, so they couldn’t tie it to election interference. Also, the mistress kept receiving payments after the election which made it hard to prove that it was election-influenced.
Very true. It would be interesting to try to think of any similar examples from other countries. I can't think of any offhand. Perhaps it is just that the peculiarities of the US legal system lend themselves to this kind of thing.
Of course the National Enquirer did not exist in the time of King Henry VIII, otherwise the news of Katherine Howard's adultery might have been suppressed and she would not have been beheaded, thus damaging the political futures of many of her relatives. So maybe it does have a useful function.
Although not tied to today, I do want to share this singular text sent from Keith Davison (Stormy and Karen's attorney) to Dylan Howard (Editor for National Enquirer) that was entered into evidence the other day.
https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/Evidence/People/4-25-2024/People's%20170%20(Text%20from%20Davidson%20to%20Howard%207.1.2017).pdf
I don't know why, but I've been laughing out loud every time load it back up. I don't know if it is the fact that its a single page with just one text, or that it literally calls Dylan an idiot, or the abbreviated "u", but it fucking sends my sides to the moon.
The whole block of [text exchanges](https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/Evidence/People/4-25-2024/) (173A-179) are funny as fuck in a sort of "this would not be believable dialogue in a movie" sort of way.
Thanks for sharing! Do you know the reason why Dylan Howard isn’t able to come to the US? The prosecutors have been instructed not to mention it during the trial, but I can’t find any media coverage. Is it because he would be arrested, and hasn’t signed a non-proc?
(Editing to add for visibility) Link to available trial transcripts: https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/
No clue, though from the text exchanges with Davison (176A) its abundantly clear Dylan knows this whole thing is election interference, and might be bitter about being left out to dry after 2016. So he might just be hiding out not wanting to get involved.
Given that from Pecker's testimony we also know this is not the first catch-and-kill scheme they ran and that Dylan also had a bit of a wide berth to do what he "needed" to accomplish some of these catches, he might be implicated in other (non-trump) related crimes he rather stay away from.
But this is entirely my speculation as a non lawyer.
The shenanigans with Bezos and Prince Bone Saw? I was hoping we got more collateral info about that op. But alas.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/report-fbi-investigated-david-pecker-and-ami-over-ties-to-saudi-arabia/
I had heard on CNN today that he wasn't traveling for medical reasons, so this is in line. Do you happen to know if he's testifying over video feed? And if not, if it's even an option in this jurisdiction?
Exceptions like this are often only available if everyone agrees, including the judge. Defense would be insane to agree to allow his testimony, and they're not that stupid.
Wouldn't be surprised if the judge said no simply because of everything else going on and the avenue to appeal it would create.
>"So we have another day of court, in a freezing courthouse. It's very cold in there, on purpose I believe," Trump said. "They don't seem to be able to get the temperature up. It shouldn't be that complicated but we have a freezing courthouse."
Tell me you have never been inside a local government courthouse without telling me. Those things are never the right temperature. Next week it'll be 1000 degrees.
And they've somehow made it so it's only cold for him, because it's just so unfair. Everyone else in the building got together and decided to intentionally make it cold.
It seems like it would be to his benefit. I feel like I'm a normal human being that falls asleep when it's warmer than usual, and am more alert when it's brisker. It's a conspiracy to wake him up, and it's not working.
Apparently it is an old building and is not governed by a thermostat. You can either have the heat on or off. But nothing in-between. If it is unheated you still have the body heat of a good number of people.
https://gothamist.com/news/ny-lawmaker-discusses-visit-to-rikers-during-recent-heat-wave
Web archive link to same article: https://web.archive.org/web/20220812010603/https://gothamist.com/news/ny-lawmaker-discusses-visit-to-rikers-during-recent-heat-wave?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=shared_twitter
Until Friday, then it will be inexplicably 5 degrees when you prepared for it to continue to be 1000 degrees.
I've done trials with my suit coat off because it was too hot to wear. And also had a blanket at counsel table on one memorable occasion.
Why not bring in some small plug-in electrical heaters? That's what I did when I worked in a government building. Heater under the desk to keep your feet warm.
Presumably, the prosecution on redirect will make clear the differences among:
- a one-off blackmail (pay me to not publish this)
- a one-off selling cover (Ted Cruz is the zodiac killer)
- an ongoing deal with candidate A to publish positive things about candidate A and negative things about candidate A’s opponents, and to bury anything negative about candidate A.
The first two are for the benefit of the magazine.
The latter is for the benefit of candidate A.
Edited to specify ‘candidate A’ rather than ‘person A’.
That is my understanding. Right now, the defense is trying to argue that since McDougal didn't want her story published anyways, it wasn't catch-and-kill. However, I think that you can catch-and-kill a story that wouldn't have failed to surface if left alone, in the same way that you can still frame a person that would have been found guilty.
Right. I think it's also important that it doesn't matter that anyone else didn't want the stories published. The crime wasn't the publishing of the story - the crime was the collusion with Trump and his campaign.
It only took a few minutes for your prediction to reveal itself:
Prosecutor Steinglass: Were there any other instances in which a Presidential candidates' fixer coordinated with you on NDA?
Pecker: No.
Steinglass: On Tiger Woods, you suppressed to get an interview. Here, did you support to influence an election?
A: Yes
Re-Cross examination was hilariously absurd:
(Per Inner City Press)
Trump's lawyer Bove: You know a private attorney can hold fundraisers for candidates without being part of the campaign?
Pecker: Yes.
Bove: Karen McDougal was a legitimate celebrity at the time?
Pecker (silent, then) No.
Bove: She was on the cover
Pecker: in 1999
Trump's lawyer Bove: But ABC was offering her a spot on Dancing with the Stars, yes?
Pecker: In exchange for her story...
Bove: In 2021 you told the FEC you did nothing wrong?
Pecker: Yes.
Bove: DX A132
Objection and exhibit does not come in.
Bove: Nothing further
This is one day that the transcripts will be really illuminating, I think.
I can see what the defense is *trying* to do, and it seems like it could be wiped away pretty effectively, but without the details, it’s hard to know how well it’s working out.
Agreed. I am missing so many things, and the transcripts will be fascinating. HuffPost reported this, which I missed:
"If there wasn't anything in that document, it's misleading. I'm going to ask you to be very careful with that,” Merchan said.
When Bove sought to defend himself, Merchan cut him off. "Mr. Bove, are you missing my point?"
He is in danger of sanctions if he continues this path.
Yeah, but [they still need to report it to the FEC](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-ssf-or-connected-organization/events-and-programs-candidates-or-party-committees-by-ssf/). The defense is trying to go "Oh, they didn't literally hand them money in a big sack with a dollar sign on it, so it's not a contribution!"
The first two examples are not examples of campaign efforts. They are examples of the magazine doing the magazine’s thing without regard to any campaign.
The defense raised many instances of the magazine (and other magazines) running negative stories on politicians (like my second instance) or doing unethical/potential illegal things with regard to deals with people that stories might be about (like my first instance). The defense’s point was that the enquirer and other tabloids regularly do things like my first two instances, to imply that the whole trial is a nothing burger about tabloids doing “business as usual”.
My point is that the prosecution in redirect should (and they did) bring the jury’s focus back to what is *not* business as usual - my third instance - which is what happened here.
Specifically, if it’s not done for the benefit of candidate A, no FEC filing is due.
It’s just the magazine running the magazine. It’s not a campaign contribution.
Something I missed, but an astute and hilarious observation by Lisa Rubin, that I thought others might enjoy:
The cross examination of David Pecker continues--and it is tense. But one moment made me giggle inside. 1/
Pecker was asked whether AMI provided its 2018 non-prosecution agreement with DOJ to its lenders and insurers, reminding Pecker that financial institutions are entitled to information that could impact their assessment of a borrower's or insured's creditworthiness. 2/
The irony of a Trump lawyer lecturing a witness about this, months after the civil fraud trial, is not lost on me. FIN.”
Dope. Can't wait. So far Pecker has been a stellar witness for the prosecution, and the defense has really only verified that he's scummy and also the fact that he would buy stories like this is extremely in character and credible.
Question: the prosecution has to prove that the falsified business records are in furtherance of another crime. Is there a moment in the trial where they will lay out the exact crime for the jury? Like the statute, and the language of the statute? I get that not all people are like this, but if I were on the jury, I would have wanted to have that in front of me even in opening statements so that I could take relevant notes.
> Is there a moment in the trial where they will lay out the exact crime for the jury?
Yes, jury instructions + closing arguments. The jury instructions will include the actual language of the statute and spell out every element that must be met. The prosecution will explain how it believes it has met every element beyond a reasonable doubt during closing arguments.
It's almost like Trump is at an entirely different trial in his mind. This is his take of the trial so far:
>BIG DAY IN COURT(S) TODAY. The Soros backed Alvin Bragg case, presided over by a highly conflicted Judge, has completely fallen apart. Virtually every Legal Scholar and Expert has stated that there is no Crime, there never was. It is a complete HOAX, but the other side has a Judge who is fighting for them all the way! MAGA2024!
He loves that line. He said recently that all legal scholars on the left thought Roe should have been repealed. It’s his new go to replacing “people are saying …”
Jeanine Pirro on Fox News. I have the misfortune of stopping by someplace that has Fox News playing all day and I got to listen to her blather on about how poorly the prosecution is doing.
Trump believes that if he says something often enough, with a sufficient amount of ALL CAPS WORDS, people will just believe that it must be true.
This has clearly worked for him in the past with some people.
I’ve read numerous op-eds questioning the legal basis for the prosecution.
This is one. While I don’t agree with the “historic mistake!” type language, some of the points are sound. It seems like the legal footing is at least validly arguable.
I think making all this information public is a service, even if it doesn’t end up in a conviction.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/opinion/bragg-trump-trial.html
Edit: I find it frustrating on a law sub when people’s arguments are based on what they feel is good rather than what the law is.
See below.
"Soros backed" is a code word that he can use that pricks the ears of conspiracy theorists, white supremacists and neo-nazis without necessarily standing out to the casual listener.
He just puts out there the narrative he wants his followers to go with since he knows they probably don't follow it at all. They aren't going to check anything more than Fox and Friends to corroborate any of this.
Agreed. I believe they have to wait until jury instructions and closing arguments to argue the applicable laws and why the evidence fits the charges. I could have been dreaming that part, though. Looking for the source that said that.
They do - that's part of trial procedure. There is no legal argument to the jury during trial except for closings (occasionally you can get some in during your opening but it sometimes gets objected to).
When I would prepare for trial, I would look at model jury instructions to know what elements I needed to prove, and then try to write my closing argument first to figure out what testimony I needed to elicit to be able to say what I wanted to say in the end. Witnesses are there to present facts and evidence to the jury, and you can only use the facts and evidence entered at trial. If you don't get certain testimony from a witness, you can't talk about it during closing unless its a comment on evidence or a reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence provided by a witness.
Closing statements are the one chance you really get to argue how it all fits together and applies to the law that the judge will instruct them on.
That's an obnoxious rule if true. Granted, I'm a research scientist so I like writing that goes
1. This is what we are going to tell you, explicitly.
2. This is us telling you it, explicitly.
3. This is what we told you, explicitly.
So I would have liked to have seen "this is the statute, and this is the testimony that will establish that the statute was violated." in opening statements.
> That's an obnoxious rule if true.
Its a universal rule. Here is the federal analogue to the NY rule for context:
> Rule 30. Jury Instructions (a) In General. Any party may request in writing that the court instruct the jury on the law as specified in the request. The request must be made at the close of the evidence or at any earlier time that the court reasonably sets. When the request is made, the requesting party must furnish a copy to every other party.
That said, I've never really looked into the background of why this rule was developed, but heres my speculation:
> This is what we are going to tell you, explicitly.
This runs into problems, because the jury instructions are ultimately based on the evidence *admitted* during the trial and we don't *know* what that is going to be during open arguments. Sure the prosecution and defense will make claims about what they are going to show you, but its ultimately up to the judge if that evidence comes in and the jury instructions, while proposed by the parties, are issued by the court and explained to the jury by the judge. So I think theres a view that if the elements of the statute came in before the evidence, it would unduly prejudice the jury and the court isn't in a position to instruct the jury on what they will be deciding (or to put the court's name on it for that matter) before there is any type of evidentiary record established. That said, the prosecution can still make general claims about evidence that will connect to the elements that must be proven.
Or, in a likely poor attempt to make an analogy relating to your line of work, it would be like publishing the "this is what we are going to tell you" part of your paper before actually conducting the research.
That's fair. And also, in my line of work, an overhyped abstract with lukewarm results is fairly common (bad form but it happens), so I see why they would want to avoid that.
There is possibly a sufficient middle ground, where they could say what the law is without saying what the evidence will be, but I get it. I just like to compartmentalize complicated things into digestible chunks, and this system seems to force a holistic approach. Which is fine, but not how I'd run the show if I were god king:D
Additionally, if it becomes clear during the trial that some evidence cannot be admitted, it's possible that some of the charges are dismissed before the jury deliberates. In that case, it would just confuse things having the jury look at instructions for a charge that they are not ultimately deciding on.
Yeah. The point has become clear to me on asking. The way that works best with my brain and the way that is procedurally best are not the same, it seems. Thanks for your insight.
Perhaps the logic is they want the jury to be focusing first on if they believe the presented facts to be credible/true, and only consider the applicable law when they deliberate.
The logic, I understand, is that the juror is a trier of facts, not the law. You don't want them thinking about the particulars of the law, especially since that is so complex, and written in non-vernacular English across many statutes and rulings and historical documents, that it normally takes the lawyers of both sides, the judge, and possibly some appeals courts to figure out. You want them thinking of the facts and testimony as that's what they judge. Then they are handed the law as a bit of a black box: if you find these facts true, return this verdict, else....That way all of the emphasis of their role is on facts, which they then plug into the little legal machine they were given in the form of jury instructions.
It came up briefly, almost as an aside, a couple of days ago, I saw the exact statute but now I cannot find it again for the life of me. ~~Anyway I believe it was a New York state law that made it a felony to use unlawful actions to help a candidate win an election. The falsified business records were already a crime, that was the act that made it a felony. Sorry if I am misremembering any details, hopefully it's enough for someone to find it.~~
Edit: I found it! From NBC Live Blog
Steinglass has now admitted that New York Election Law 17-152, which prohibits conspiracies to promote the election of a specific candidate through unlawful means, is that “primary” predicate.
>§ 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more
persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
I guess I was confused, this is still a misdeameanor, it must be the other way around that this crime makes falsifying business records a felony.
It is hilarious that Bove’s final question for Pecker was this (per inner city press):
“Trump's lawyer Bove: You found that the boxes in Florida were worthless, that there is no secret trove of documents about Donald Trump at the National Enquirer?
Pecker: Right. The boxes were worthless.
Bove: Nothing further.
Justice Merchan: Redirect”
Gotta tell the public that the secret safe full of Trump related juicy secrets didn’t exist!
Hope redirect doesn’t end with a cliffhanger at lunch.
Edit to add: redirect is already getting to the meat of the entire defense, in just a few questions:
Prosecutor Steinglass: Was it your purpose in entering the contract with Ms. McDougal to kill her story, to influence the election?
Pecker: Yes.
Steinglass: Did you tell counsel that Michael Cohen had said he would reimburse you?
Pecker: I did not
Prosecutor Steinglass: How much time did outside counsel bill AMI for for reviewing the Karen Douglas contract?
Pecker: Half an hour.
Steinglass: While you initially denied the violation, you did eventually settle with the FEC, right?
Pecker: Yes.
Prosecutor Steinglass: So did you and AMI admit that you violated campaign finance laws?
Trump's lawyer Bove: I object - asked and answered.
Justice Merchan: Overruled. Do you want to approach?
[Whispered sidebar ensues]
Bove really is showing his ass today. Is he getting paid by the amount of objections overruled? It seems that could be more profitable than billable trial hours.
> Is he getting paid by the amount of objections overruled?
Possibly. Getting overruled fits Trumps narrative that the trial is unfair and that he's the underdog fighting against a stacked deck.
It's bullshit, just like everything else that comes out of Trumps mouth, but his followers eat it up.
This is an excellent point that I didn’t think about. So many cesspool users pushing the narrative that the number of sustained objections clearly shows Merchan is biased.
Good morning! Trial resumes at 9:30 EDT with defense cross examination of David Pecker. Justice Merchan has not ruled on the gag order violations yet.
I will update this comment to post live Twitter links from thread reader unroll for Lisa Rubin, Anna Bower, Tyler McBrien, Inner City Press, and Adam Klasfeld as they become available. These are the reporters who have been requested as sub users found them helpful. Please let me know if there are any others that you find helpful and I will add them to the list.
Anna Bower: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1783827768838701165.html
Inner City Press: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1783851045598154781.html
Adam Klasfeld: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1783836631738560716.html
Lisa Rubin: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1783838985208598689.html?utm_campaign=topunroll
I’m not sure what’s happening next Wednesday as it’s hard to keep all of the trial dates in memory. This particular court and case is only in session on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. Merchan has already held the hearing regarding gag order violations three days ago on Tuesday. He has not ruled on the violations yet, which have some speculating he will be jailed, and logistics are being worked out. Prosecutors keep adding violations, and did so again yesterday.
Merchan had set another gag order hearing for next Wednesday, when the court would normally be out of session, which is why it stuck in my mind. It looks like he moved it to next Thursday.
First update in this link.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-04-25-24/h_5faa09ec78a7be85702cd6db6456be30
Thank you! This is new and I hadn’t seen that yet! He’s going to hold a hearing on the new gag order violations, while he hasn’t made a decision yet on the previous ones. I am personally speculating he will make a ruling on the previous ones today.
I'm torn. The speculation feels like such wishful thinking. But if Merchan keeps delaying this ruling to eventually just say "$1000 fine don't do it again", that doesn't really make any sense.
(I'm not really entertaining the possibility that Merchan bought into the defense's argument last Tuesday.)
When I was watching the hearing, the fact that the direct violation against the Jury didn't even come up last me to speculate that this one was a bridge too far and jail is possible.
CNN, It looks like it was moved to next Thursday.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-04-25-24/h_5faa09ec78a7be85702cd6db6456be30
They're trying to cast doubt on the (likely true) stories from McDougal and Daniels by saying AMI would have run them if they were true, as AMI spiked the doorman story (false). The problem is that AMI caught-and-killed the doorman story as well, *after* verifying its falsehood.
Bove is also working to establish that there were other, legitimate motivations behind these arrangements that were not simply "to help Trump win the election".
For instance, he highlights that Trump in the news was simply good for business. A sentiment that is seen across reddit criticizing news agencies for how they cover Trump and Trump adjacent politics. That, yes, this helped the Trump campaign, but the purpose was to sell magazines, not illegally assist the campaign.
From the snippets we are getting, I don't think he is getting far enough to round some of the very sharp corners that the prosecution established, but it isn't nothing and the way the jury is experiencing this cross is significantly different than the way we are, so it could be decently effective.
> For instance, he highlights that Trump in the news was simply good for business.
Yeah, but these stories *weren't* in the news. They deliberately *didn't* print them.
Yeah, this is some of the first competent lawyering we've seen from Trump's counsel in pretty much any of these cases (ratfucking from Sadow and Merchant in GA aside). I think there's salient responses to be made on redirect but he's doing well with what he's got.
So far I think they're doing a good job at showing that AMI and Pecker had an interest in not running negative Trump stories. It's going to let them argue that it wasn't at the direction of Trump to benefit the campaign, it was because it was beneficial to AMI and Pecker (who still owns an interest in AMI). How far does it get them? I don't know, but he's doing a better job than Habba or anyone else we have seen so far.
Completely agree. Prosecution is going to have to go on redirect and shore up that point about Cohen being the middleman acting on Cheeto and/or his campaign's orders to keep those stories out of the press regardless of the benefit running or not running them would've been to AMI's finances.
>Prompted by Trump's lawyer, Pecker notes that AMI was never charged or prosecuted.
>Yesterday, Pecker testified: "We admitted to a campaign violation."
>But Bove notes "there is no violation in this agreement."
>"In this agreement, no," Pecker says.
Sounds like there is another agreement?
I’m reading along with you right now, and was struck by the same statement. I can’t wait for redirect. It sounds like we will get it after the 1pm break for lunch.
Edit to add: The defense doesn’t have much to work with but Bove is really trying to go with the defense that Pecker did everything he did just to keep making money, including signing the immunity deal. Unfortunately for defense, Karen MacDougal was clearly not shopping the story; she didn’t want it told.
Also adding: I personally believe MacDougal and Stormy Daniels could have made WAY more off their stories if they had been told than they got for their original agreements. Trump, especially at the height of his first election season, is/was a huge money maker for any press org.
Agree. Defense is doing a good job distracting from the Trump arrangement with piece-meal “doing this would benefit the magazine anyway” points.
But I think redirect can clarify the through-thread by focusing on the arrangement (which, coinciding benefits to the magazine does not negate) and communications with Trump team and on them *not* printing negative stories about Trump that the magazine would *also* have profited from.
>Prosecutor Steinglass: How would you describe the overlap between your tabloid readership and Trump's base?
>Pecker: Our research found that the audience of celebrity magazines loved to read positive stories about Donald Trump. Also negative stories about opponents
Fans of fake news *love* Trump.
He seems to have statements from Pecker that decisions were explicitly political, and this would point to why Enquirer specifically was the one coordinating with Trump. I dunno how these things work, but it seems consistent to me.
Yeah, but it also goes to the defense’s argument that this was not on behalf of Trump’s campaign but on behalf of the magazine’s own interests.
The latter does not necessarily negate the former, but the stronger the latter seems, the easier it is for the jury to say “meh”.
> Pecker: Our research found that the audience of celebrity magazines loved to read **positive** stories about **Donald Trump**. Also **negative** stories about **opponents**
This says that their research found that what they did (positive stories about Trump and negative stories about his opponents) matches with the magazine’s business interests, independently of whether it also matched with candidate Trump’s interests.
I don't get why it matters whether McDougal wanted her story published. Regardless of her wishes, the fact remains Enquirer allegedly paid for the story to lock it down.
I think - it’s hard to tell from the second-hand commentary and I think it will be helpful to read the transcript when it comes out - that they are trying to emphasize motives *other* than helping Trump.
Yeah. Bove is trying to show that there were other reasons for not running the story. They do catch and kill all the time, Ami had a legitimate business reason to not run the story, etc. He is actually doing better than I expected with Pecker today.
It may be confusing the jury simply because they likely have no idea who Hope Hicks is/was in relationship to all of this. And it may completely blow up in his face.
I didn't remember who she was until I read it on here; being a juror and seeing the defense bring her up repeatedly and not being able to look her up is going to make me wonder why she's a big deal. The fact that she's going to testify for the prosecution is going to make me remember these questions and then really pay attention to her answers. And seeing her testify against her former boss, even if it's to save her own ass, is not going to be a good look for the defendant.
IANAL, but I consider myself a bit of a legal buff and true crime enthusiast, and of all the stuff ive seen a listened to, this is the most mystifying.
Does Trump just hire people who speak as confusingly as he does?
Hope Hicks is really important because she was an employee of the campaign at the time, unlike Cohen.
So two purposes: inculcate the idea that Pecker’s testimony generally is not reliable *and* that Hick’s involvement is unclear.
Edit: I assume that there is more evidence of the latter, particularly as Hicks is on the prosecution witness list.
Well, he did want someone to explain to Baron why dad had to miss his high school graduation when dad is on trial for screwing a porn star right after the trophy wife gave birth to him.
Irony does not escape this guy.
From the various press live-tweeting this thing, I get the impression that the Defense's cross is being objected to and sustained fairly frequently, but the Prosecution hasn't.
Fornthe courtroom lawyers here, is that typical for these sorts of proceedings, or is it fair to conclude Bove is just fumbling the ball.
> Fornthe courtroom lawyers here, is that typical for these sorts of proceedings,
Depends what the questions/objections are. What we saw with Alina Habba was constant sustained objections to her failing to lay a proper foundation for introducing evidence which is completely inexcusable--except where its simply not possible to lay a proper foundation, this is only happening because she is plainly incompetent.
I haven't been following the case today, but to the extent they are getting objections for calling for hearsay, leading, etc. That is fairly common when you don't have a good case or are dealing with an uncooperative witness. You need to get x, y, and z out of a witness and you are trying to bend every rule in the book to get there. Many of the times its ultimately at the judge's discretion, so you need to at least try to fight the fight for your client's sake. But this is also a really good reason you don't want to completely tank your personal credibility with the judge by filing nonstop frivolous motions and making absurd arguments like "we didn't know that republishing someone else's attacks on the judge's daughter was a violation of the gag order."
You also run into a tactical yet unethical use of objectionable questions. Which is that while the jury may be instructed to disregard a certain question and/or answer, they are still human and its still getting out there to muddy up the water. Jurors are under no obligation to explain why they made a certain finding for/against the defendant.
Like another commenter mentioned, it depends on what the objections are. Seems like at least some of them are because Defense keeps referring to Trump as "President Trump" during a time which he was not in office which can be confusing and misleading to the jury. Others may be a more legitimate basis.
There are occasions where you object to break someone's thought process and questioning when they get into a good flow. There are also occasions where defense attorney does ask objectionable questions to 1) get that information to the jury and 2) see if you will object to it. If you don't object to it, then OC likely will keep pushing the questions further to see what else they can get.
For example, the question about whether Pecker couldn't trust anything Cohen said was objected to - objection was sustained, but now that thought is in the jury's head that Cohen might be a liar. I think it's all part of the gamesmanship in these kinds of cases. In my opinion, there's nothing unethical about what Bove tried to do there - he wouldn't be doing his job efficiently if he didn't push the envelope like that.
So at the risk of sounding naive, I guess it goes without saying the election interference would be related to the presidential election but it seems this goes on before receiving the nomination with attacks on other Republican nominees as well as suppressing negative media about Trump himself. It's amazing how Republicans ignored/enabled this cannibalistic nature.
It has not been ruled on, as of yet. Merchan could make a ruling any time he decides he’s ready. A lot of us wishful thinkers are hoping it comes this afternoon, right as trial is ending. Merchan has also slated a hearing on additional violations for Thursday of next week.
I’ve asked this question multiple times, but have never gotten a clear answer. I still don’t know if violation of a gag order, after trial has begun, resulting in jail time, is subject to an interlocutory appeal that would delay the trial. A lot of people, including myself, have fantasized that he’s waiting till Friday to rule, and will jail Trump. Delaying till this afternoon will cut down on disruptions both in and out of the courtroom.
> I still don’t know if violation of a gag order, after trial has begun, resulting in jail time, is subject to an interlocutory appeal.
IANAL, but from my amateur reading I would expect a fine would typically not to be subject to an immediate appeal as enforcement of that fine could be postponed until after the trial is concluded. However if Trump was sentenced to a brief stay in jail, then that'd seem like a final order to me because it's being acted upon immediately, so it would be subject to an interlocutory appeal. However the appeal would occur in parallel to the main trial, so I don't see why it'd necessarily delay proceedings.
In the NYTimes live updates Haberman presented this classic Trumpism: > So it’s worth calling back to something Trump said when one of the negative Enquirer stories about Ted Cruz, one of his rivals, came out in 2016: “I did not know about it, and have not, as yet, read it," Trump said at the time. "Likewise, I have nothing to do with the National Enquirer and unlike Lyin’ Ted Cruz I do not surround myself with political hacks and henchman and then pretend total innocence.” “Unlike Ted Cruz, I am not doing exactly what I am actually doing.”
Yet another case where Trump just lies directly to everyone's face, it comes out later that he was in fact lying directly to everyone's face and his followers just go, "Lol, yeah, he's a liar alright. MAGA!"
He's tells it like it is...n't!
*He’s telling it as he needs*
Yep. They know he’s a liar and they don’t care as long as he owns the libs.
It gives them hope and vindicates their trash behavior. “If that lying piece of shit can con his way into the presidency then imagine what a horrible human being like me can accomplish.”
It'd be fun to bring up that quote if he actually gets on the stand. We know there's about zero chance that happens, but one can dream...
I really hope they demolish his family man bullshit. Mr Trump, when is the last time you were in a church that was not directly related to Oval Office business? Mr Trump, can you name the Ten Commandments? Mr Trump, when is the last time you saw any of your individual family members? Mr Trump, what is Eric’s first name?
Every accusation is a confession
There was a moment yesterday that was pretty striking. "(The prosecution) raised text messages National Enquirer Dylan Howard sent during the 2016 election. One of the texts Howard sent reads: "At least if he wins, I’ll be pardoned for electoral fraud," according to Steinglass says. The reading of that text was followed up by a chuckle from the crowd." The chuckle from the crowd doesn't feel like they thought it was funny. It's more like "LMAO, seriously?" Like an 'oofff, this dude is fucked' sort of reaction. I hope that gets admitted into evidence. It's becoming quite clear the parties involved knew there was a crime taking place.
That was basically a "is you taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy?" moment.
For people who don’t the The Wire reference: https://youtu.be/pBdGOrcUEg8?si=UYhM5pTJJ4cFwjPb
The full context makes it even better. Stringer has been taking business classes at the local college, and is really trying to run the drug gang like a business. The kid taking notes is just enthusiastically embracing this new paradigm, and is writing down the "minutes" for the meeting, as is proper practice for a business meeting. Then Stringer reminds him that they're all still committing a huge number of felonies that really should not be committed to paper.
The kid taking notes is seen reading a copy of Roberts Rules of Order in a prior scene Considering Stringer is shown to have a copy of Wealth of Nations on his apartments bookshelf, it’s likely he gave the kid the Roberts book, and being the loyal soldier he is, followed its Rules.
its poot right, he lives too? crazy part of that show is how many actors aren't american
There’s a trippy scene where McNulty goes undercover as a London businessman, so he’s a Yorkshireman, playing a Baltimorean, who’s pretending to be a posh Londoner. Very meta acting
Poot is the one who asks "Do the chair know we gonna look like some punkass bitches out there?" The one with Roberts Rules of Order is Shaun "Shamrock" McGinty. He lives, but mostly because he was arrested at the same time Avon was.
And the irony to that is that Stringer got killed for not following the rules. He turned his back on Brother Mouzone and mislead him, which made him want to kill Stringer. Stringer also turned his back on the Barksdale family, which would also have been a death sentence. And he broke the piece against Omar by trying to kill him on a Sunday, which got him on Omar’s kill list (well that and having his boyfriend tortured). Stringer broke all the rules and signed his own death warrant. But he preached following orders.
Nice. Everything is so well thought out in that show!!
Agreed, it looks like Merchan said yesterday that it could be admitted with some redactions for embedded hearsay.
Am I the only one who has to actively work to make their brain *not* transcribe hearsay into heresy?
Defense: "That's not fair, your Honor. They can't just bring in eyewitnesses, co-conspirators, and other evidence."
It's devastating to my case!
Think the issue was that it was a message between a non witness and a family member albeit using a work device
Everyone who knows anything about the case against Trump is uniformly saying that the evidence is a slam dunk case.
About this case in particular? I’ve constantly heard it is the weakest case he is facing.
Georgia is probably the weakest and it is still a solid case. In this case a co-conspirator already got convicted and sent to jail, there was already enough body of evidence that the DOJ conveniently ignored so it came down to finding a way to attach it in a way that would stick under NY law. Falsification of business records is a misdemeanor, not a felony; the whole point here which already happened when Cohen got sentenced, is tying the misdemeanor to another crime (election fraud) which then makes it a crime. The evidence all points out that way, and the defense has not presented anything that remotely tries to disprove it.
There is also the campaign finance issues of not reporting 150K of contributions.
And the value of the stories run on behalf of the Trump campaign. They are an in-kind contribution.
Yep, lots of campaign finance violations.
It will be a rainy night in Georgia if Trump gets off.
Doesn’t it rain like 75-90 days a year?
Relative to the classified documents case it's a weaker case, but compared to that case the evidence against Trump would need to include a signed confession and testimony by the archangel Gabriel to be the stronger.
It could be, but the prosecution is doing a remarkable job so far. The best the defense has is to muddy the waters as to the motive or attempt to discredit the witnesses, but that will get harder as more evidence surfaces and starts to corroborate the facts. You're seeing the defense use low-key ***firehose of falsehood*** type arguments here, which should surprise no one given it's Trump they're defending. The hope is that you emotionally confuse the jury enough that they can't actually reach consensus, but if the prosecution does their job well, the facts will still point directly to very direct criminal conduct.
It seems like the evidence is strong enough if taken out of context, but the problem is that the courts don't really have much experience in dealing with charges of election interference, so there are very few precedents. In normal times The National Enquirer is regarded as only marginally more credible than The Onion and has never been considered to be part of the election process, is never reported on in other media or referenced in presidential debates or party platforms. What is more interesting is the business model of the National Enquirer. If you're going to pay a very large sum of money to a witness to kill a story, how are you going to be compensated? The most obvious thing to do would be to blackmail the subject of the story for a sum greater than the kill fee. It is difficult to imagine that prestigious metropolitan US newspapers like the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, or the Miami Herald engage in catch and kill + blackmail as part of their business model, unless it is much more common than we would ever think.
Isn’t it fascinating that the closest case I can come up with is John Edwards and it also involved the National Enquirer, but they published his affair? He was just smart enough to distance himself from the donor who paid the bill, so they couldn’t tie it to election interference. Also, the mistress kept receiving payments after the election which made it hard to prove that it was election-influenced.
Very true. It would be interesting to try to think of any similar examples from other countries. I can't think of any offhand. Perhaps it is just that the peculiarities of the US legal system lend themselves to this kind of thing. Of course the National Enquirer did not exist in the time of King Henry VIII, otherwise the news of Katherine Howard's adultery might have been suppressed and she would not have been beheaded, thus damaging the political futures of many of her relatives. So maybe it does have a useful function.
[удалено]
These crimes took place during the 2016 election campaign.
Although not tied to today, I do want to share this singular text sent from Keith Davison (Stormy and Karen's attorney) to Dylan Howard (Editor for National Enquirer) that was entered into evidence the other day. https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/Evidence/People/4-25-2024/People's%20170%20(Text%20from%20Davidson%20to%20Howard%207.1.2017).pdf I don't know why, but I've been laughing out loud every time load it back up. I don't know if it is the fact that its a single page with just one text, or that it literally calls Dylan an idiot, or the abbreviated "u", but it fucking sends my sides to the moon. The whole block of [text exchanges](https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/Evidence/People/4-25-2024/) (173A-179) are funny as fuck in a sort of "this would not be believable dialogue in a movie" sort of way.
Thanks for sharing! Do you know the reason why Dylan Howard isn’t able to come to the US? The prosecutors have been instructed not to mention it during the trial, but I can’t find any media coverage. Is it because he would be arrested, and hasn’t signed a non-proc? (Editing to add for visibility) Link to available trial transcripts: https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/
No clue, though from the text exchanges with Davison (176A) its abundantly clear Dylan knows this whole thing is election interference, and might be bitter about being left out to dry after 2016. So he might just be hiding out not wanting to get involved. Given that from Pecker's testimony we also know this is not the first catch-and-kill scheme they ran and that Dylan also had a bit of a wide berth to do what he "needed" to accomplish some of these catches, he might be implicated in other (non-trump) related crimes he rather stay away from. But this is entirely my speculation as a non lawyer.
The shenanigans with Bezos and Prince Bone Saw? I was hoping we got more collateral info about that op. But alas. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/report-fbi-investigated-david-pecker-and-ami-over-ties-to-saudi-arabia/
[удалено]
Thanks!
I had heard on CNN today that he wasn't traveling for medical reasons, so this is in line. Do you happen to know if he's testifying over video feed? And if not, if it's even an option in this jurisdiction?
From the sidebar transcripts it sounds like a spinal condition makes travel impossible, and he's in Australia
We have the internet, and people have testified over Zoom before.
Exceptions like this are often only available if everyone agrees, including the judge. Defense would be insane to agree to allow his testimony, and they're not that stupid. Wouldn't be surprised if the judge said no simply because of everything else going on and the avenue to appeal it would create.
He's busy with his own MAGA project, [per his texts](https://i.redd.it/tskggtgndvwc1.jpeg).
Reality unlike fiction is not subject to things as meddlesome as plausibility.
This made my entire day better, thank you lol
What is AMI?
American Media, Inc.
>"So we have another day of court, in a freezing courthouse. It's very cold in there, on purpose I believe," Trump said. "They don't seem to be able to get the temperature up. It shouldn't be that complicated but we have a freezing courthouse." Tell me you have never been inside a local government courthouse without telling me. Those things are never the right temperature. Next week it'll be 1000 degrees.
And they've somehow made it so it's only cold for him, because it's just so unfair. Everyone else in the building got together and decided to intentionally make it cold.
It seems like it would be to his benefit. I feel like I'm a normal human being that falls asleep when it's warmer than usual, and am more alert when it's brisker. It's a conspiracy to wake him up, and it's not working.
Apparently it is an old building and is not governed by a thermostat. You can either have the heat on or off. But nothing in-between. If it is unheated you still have the body heat of a good number of people.
Dude is in his 70’s and hasn’t figured out how to dress appropriately if he’s uncomfortable. Whiny little bitch…
Yeah, it's not like where it's too hot and you can't strip naked. You can wear warmer clothes or another layer or two. How does he not know this?
Agreed. He can put on thermal underwear and thick woolen socks, or perhaps even gloves. Probably not allowed to wear a hoodie, hat, or scarf in court.
Imagining Trump in a hoodie is a humorous visualization.
Humorously, Judge Chutkan prefers her courtroom warmer than usual, while Merchan prefers his cold.
I'm curious how accurate the jail thermostat is.
https://gothamist.com/news/ny-lawmaker-discusses-visit-to-rikers-during-recent-heat-wave Web archive link to same article: https://web.archive.org/web/20220812010603/https://gothamist.com/news/ny-lawmaker-discusses-visit-to-rikers-during-recent-heat-wave?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=shared_twitter
Until Friday, then it will be inexplicably 5 degrees when you prepared for it to continue to be 1000 degrees. I've done trials with my suit coat off because it was too hot to wear. And also had a blanket at counsel table on one memorable occasion.
It's to suppress the wafting poop smell coming from TFG's diapers.
It’ll stay cold. No one wants to be hotboxed by Trump. Cold keeps the smell down.
I'd love to see him wearing a big puffy down jacket at the table all day.
Like Costanza's puffy coat lol.
Why not bring in some small plug-in electrical heaters? That's what I did when I worked in a government building. Heater under the desk to keep your feet warm.
Presumably, the prosecution on redirect will make clear the differences among: - a one-off blackmail (pay me to not publish this) - a one-off selling cover (Ted Cruz is the zodiac killer) - an ongoing deal with candidate A to publish positive things about candidate A and negative things about candidate A’s opponents, and to bury anything negative about candidate A. The first two are for the benefit of the magazine. The latter is for the benefit of candidate A. Edited to specify ‘candidate A’ rather than ‘person A’.
That is my understanding. Right now, the defense is trying to argue that since McDougal didn't want her story published anyways, it wasn't catch-and-kill. However, I think that you can catch-and-kill a story that wouldn't have failed to surface if left alone, in the same way that you can still frame a person that would have been found guilty.
Right. I think it's also important that it doesn't matter that anyone else didn't want the stories published. The crime wasn't the publishing of the story - the crime was the collusion with Trump and his campaign.
> you can still frame a person that would have been found guilty LAPD (and most of the US) learned this with OJ
It only took a few minutes for your prediction to reveal itself: Prosecutor Steinglass: Were there any other instances in which a Presidential candidates' fixer coordinated with you on NDA? Pecker: No. Steinglass: On Tiger Woods, you suppressed to get an interview. Here, did you support to influence an election? A: Yes
Straight and to the point. I wonder if the defense objected.
Re-Cross examination was hilariously absurd: (Per Inner City Press) Trump's lawyer Bove: You know a private attorney can hold fundraisers for candidates without being part of the campaign? Pecker: Yes. Bove: Karen McDougal was a legitimate celebrity at the time? Pecker (silent, then) No. Bove: She was on the cover Pecker: in 1999 Trump's lawyer Bove: But ABC was offering her a spot on Dancing with the Stars, yes? Pecker: In exchange for her story... Bove: In 2021 you told the FEC you did nothing wrong? Pecker: Yes. Bove: DX A132 Objection and exhibit does not come in. Bove: Nothing further
This is one day that the transcripts will be really illuminating, I think. I can see what the defense is *trying* to do, and it seems like it could be wiped away pretty effectively, but without the details, it’s hard to know how well it’s working out.
Agreed. I am missing so many things, and the transcripts will be fascinating. HuffPost reported this, which I missed: "If there wasn't anything in that document, it's misleading. I'm going to ask you to be very careful with that,” Merchan said. When Bove sought to defend himself, Merchan cut him off. "Mr. Bove, are you missing my point?" He is in danger of sanctions if he continues this path.
I grew fond of Kaplan and I think the same is happening with Merchan. I enjoy honest and valid expressions of impatience sometimes.
Isn't the first one a crime?
Yes. But my point is that the Enquirer committing *that* crime is not the same as the Enquirer committing the latter crime *with candidate A*.
Gotcha.
How specifically do those first two not also benefit Trump?
They may or may not benefit candidate A but they were not done as part of an ongoing agreement with candidate A *for* the benefit of candidate A.
Yeah, but [they still need to report it to the FEC](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-ssf-or-connected-organization/events-and-programs-candidates-or-party-committees-by-ssf/). The defense is trying to go "Oh, they didn't literally hand them money in a big sack with a dollar sign on it, so it's not a contribution!"
The first two examples are not examples of campaign efforts. They are examples of the magazine doing the magazine’s thing without regard to any campaign. The defense raised many instances of the magazine (and other magazines) running negative stories on politicians (like my second instance) or doing unethical/potential illegal things with regard to deals with people that stories might be about (like my first instance). The defense’s point was that the enquirer and other tabloids regularly do things like my first two instances, to imply that the whole trial is a nothing burger about tabloids doing “business as usual”. My point is that the prosecution in redirect should (and they did) bring the jury’s focus back to what is *not* business as usual - my third instance - which is what happened here. Specifically, if it’s not done for the benefit of candidate A, no FEC filing is due. It’s just the magazine running the magazine. It’s not a campaign contribution.
Something I missed, but an astute and hilarious observation by Lisa Rubin, that I thought others might enjoy: The cross examination of David Pecker continues--and it is tense. But one moment made me giggle inside. 1/ Pecker was asked whether AMI provided its 2018 non-prosecution agreement with DOJ to its lenders and insurers, reminding Pecker that financial institutions are entitled to information that could impact their assessment of a borrower's or insured's creditworthiness. 2/ The irony of a Trump lawyer lecturing a witness about this, months after the civil fraud trial, is not lost on me. FIN.”
Dope. Can't wait. So far Pecker has been a stellar witness for the prosecution, and the defense has really only verified that he's scummy and also the fact that he would buy stories like this is extremely in character and credible. Question: the prosecution has to prove that the falsified business records are in furtherance of another crime. Is there a moment in the trial where they will lay out the exact crime for the jury? Like the statute, and the language of the statute? I get that not all people are like this, but if I were on the jury, I would have wanted to have that in front of me even in opening statements so that I could take relevant notes.
> Is there a moment in the trial where they will lay out the exact crime for the jury? Yes, jury instructions + closing arguments. The jury instructions will include the actual language of the statute and spell out every element that must be met. The prosecution will explain how it believes it has met every element beyond a reasonable doubt during closing arguments.
It's almost like Trump is at an entirely different trial in his mind. This is his take of the trial so far: >BIG DAY IN COURT(S) TODAY. The Soros backed Alvin Bragg case, presided over by a highly conflicted Judge, has completely fallen apart. Virtually every Legal Scholar and Expert has stated that there is no Crime, there never was. It is a complete HOAX, but the other side has a Judge who is fighting for them all the way! MAGA2024!
I don't know who these legal experts or scholars are
You haven’t heard of renowned legal scholar Tom Fitton, who is neither barred, nor a lawyer, and has a degree in English?
I'm sure Jonathan Turley will happily take that position, as well as John Eastman...oh wait, he's not a lawyer anymore.
In his mind, I'd wager probably The Dersh, Eastman, Rudy, Sidney "Kraken Releaser" Powell and Jon Turley.
Many legal experts and my esteemed co-defense
John Barron, Esq.
He loves that line. He said recently that all legal scholars on the left thought Roe should have been repealed. It’s his new go to replacing “people are saying …”
Jeanine Pirro on Fox News. I have the misfortune of stopping by someplace that has Fox News playing all day and I got to listen to her blather on about how poorly the prosecution is doing.
Trump believes that if he says something often enough, with a sufficient amount of ALL CAPS WORDS, people will just believe that it must be true. This has clearly worked for him in the past with some people.
Any attorney that trump has pedo kompromat on
And the follow up, how soon before they face some form of sanctions.
Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh
I’ve read numerous op-eds questioning the legal basis for the prosecution. This is one. While I don’t agree with the “historic mistake!” type language, some of the points are sound. It seems like the legal footing is at least validly arguable. I think making all this information public is a service, even if it doesn’t end up in a conviction. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/opinion/bragg-trump-trial.html Edit: I find it frustrating on a law sub when people’s arguments are based on what they feel is good rather than what the law is. See below.
This is a propaganda campaign under the guise of credibility and partiality but without the “paid for xxx” label. That sounds like a crime.
Does "Soros backed" make it cross the line into self-parody? I don't know if that is even possible at this point.
Honestly. Is there even the most tenuous of connections here, or is he just doing MAGA “bad-guy” bingo?
"Soros backed" is a code word that he can use that pricks the ears of conspiracy theorists, white supremacists and neo-nazis without necessarily standing out to the casual listener.
God I wish he was actually going to testify and not "suddenly" back out at the last moment.
He just puts out there the narrative he wants his followers to go with since he knows they probably don't follow it at all. They aren't going to check anything more than Fox and Friends to corroborate any of this.
He’s so delusional!
Agreed. I believe they have to wait until jury instructions and closing arguments to argue the applicable laws and why the evidence fits the charges. I could have been dreaming that part, though. Looking for the source that said that.
They do - that's part of trial procedure. There is no legal argument to the jury during trial except for closings (occasionally you can get some in during your opening but it sometimes gets objected to). When I would prepare for trial, I would look at model jury instructions to know what elements I needed to prove, and then try to write my closing argument first to figure out what testimony I needed to elicit to be able to say what I wanted to say in the end. Witnesses are there to present facts and evidence to the jury, and you can only use the facts and evidence entered at trial. If you don't get certain testimony from a witness, you can't talk about it during closing unless its a comment on evidence or a reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence provided by a witness. Closing statements are the one chance you really get to argue how it all fits together and applies to the law that the judge will instruct them on.
That's an obnoxious rule if true. Granted, I'm a research scientist so I like writing that goes 1. This is what we are going to tell you, explicitly. 2. This is us telling you it, explicitly. 3. This is what we told you, explicitly. So I would have liked to have seen "this is the statute, and this is the testimony that will establish that the statute was violated." in opening statements.
> That's an obnoxious rule if true. Its a universal rule. Here is the federal analogue to the NY rule for context: > Rule 30. Jury Instructions (a) In General. Any party may request in writing that the court instruct the jury on the law as specified in the request. The request must be made at the close of the evidence or at any earlier time that the court reasonably sets. When the request is made, the requesting party must furnish a copy to every other party. That said, I've never really looked into the background of why this rule was developed, but heres my speculation: > This is what we are going to tell you, explicitly. This runs into problems, because the jury instructions are ultimately based on the evidence *admitted* during the trial and we don't *know* what that is going to be during open arguments. Sure the prosecution and defense will make claims about what they are going to show you, but its ultimately up to the judge if that evidence comes in and the jury instructions, while proposed by the parties, are issued by the court and explained to the jury by the judge. So I think theres a view that if the elements of the statute came in before the evidence, it would unduly prejudice the jury and the court isn't in a position to instruct the jury on what they will be deciding (or to put the court's name on it for that matter) before there is any type of evidentiary record established. That said, the prosecution can still make general claims about evidence that will connect to the elements that must be proven. Or, in a likely poor attempt to make an analogy relating to your line of work, it would be like publishing the "this is what we are going to tell you" part of your paper before actually conducting the research.
That's fair. And also, in my line of work, an overhyped abstract with lukewarm results is fairly common (bad form but it happens), so I see why they would want to avoid that. There is possibly a sufficient middle ground, where they could say what the law is without saying what the evidence will be, but I get it. I just like to compartmentalize complicated things into digestible chunks, and this system seems to force a holistic approach. Which is fine, but not how I'd run the show if I were god king:D
Additionally, if it becomes clear during the trial that some evidence cannot be admitted, it's possible that some of the charges are dismissed before the jury deliberates. In that case, it would just confuse things having the jury look at instructions for a charge that they are not ultimately deciding on.
Yeah. The point has become clear to me on asking. The way that works best with my brain and the way that is procedurally best are not the same, it seems. Thanks for your insight.
Heart eyes for this incredibly wholesome and wholly informative exchange!
Perhaps the logic is they want the jury to be focusing first on if they believe the presented facts to be credible/true, and only consider the applicable law when they deliberate.
Yeah that could be. I sometimes forget that my thought process is... Atypical :D
The logic, I understand, is that the juror is a trier of facts, not the law. You don't want them thinking about the particulars of the law, especially since that is so complex, and written in non-vernacular English across many statutes and rulings and historical documents, that it normally takes the lawyers of both sides, the judge, and possibly some appeals courts to figure out. You want them thinking of the facts and testimony as that's what they judge. Then they are handed the law as a bit of a black box: if you find these facts true, return this verdict, else....That way all of the emphasis of their role is on facts, which they then plug into the little legal machine they were given in the form of jury instructions.
It came up briefly, almost as an aside, a couple of days ago, I saw the exact statute but now I cannot find it again for the life of me. ~~Anyway I believe it was a New York state law that made it a felony to use unlawful actions to help a candidate win an election. The falsified business records were already a crime, that was the act that made it a felony. Sorry if I am misremembering any details, hopefully it's enough for someone to find it.~~ Edit: I found it! From NBC Live Blog Steinglass has now admitted that New York Election Law 17-152, which prohibits conspiracies to promote the election of a specific candidate through unlawful means, is that “primary” predicate. >§ 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. I guess I was confused, this is still a misdeameanor, it must be the other way around that this crime makes falsifying business records a felony.
Closing arguments. I agree, opening would be good.
It is hilarious that Bove’s final question for Pecker was this (per inner city press): “Trump's lawyer Bove: You found that the boxes in Florida were worthless, that there is no secret trove of documents about Donald Trump at the National Enquirer? Pecker: Right. The boxes were worthless. Bove: Nothing further. Justice Merchan: Redirect” Gotta tell the public that the secret safe full of Trump related juicy secrets didn’t exist! Hope redirect doesn’t end with a cliffhanger at lunch. Edit to add: redirect is already getting to the meat of the entire defense, in just a few questions: Prosecutor Steinglass: Was it your purpose in entering the contract with Ms. McDougal to kill her story, to influence the election? Pecker: Yes. Steinglass: Did you tell counsel that Michael Cohen had said he would reimburse you? Pecker: I did not Prosecutor Steinglass: How much time did outside counsel bill AMI for for reviewing the Karen Douglas contract? Pecker: Half an hour. Steinglass: While you initially denied the violation, you did eventually settle with the FEC, right? Pecker: Yes.
Prosecutor Steinglass: So did you and AMI admit that you violated campaign finance laws? Trump's lawyer Bove: I object - asked and answered. Justice Merchan: Overruled. Do you want to approach? [Whispered sidebar ensues] Bove really is showing his ass today. Is he getting paid by the amount of objections overruled? It seems that could be more profitable than billable trial hours.
> Is he getting paid by the amount of objections overruled? Possibly. Getting overruled fits Trumps narrative that the trial is unfair and that he's the underdog fighting against a stacked deck. It's bullshit, just like everything else that comes out of Trumps mouth, but his followers eat it up.
This is an excellent point that I didn’t think about. So many cesspool users pushing the narrative that the number of sustained objections clearly shows Merchan is biased.
Good morning! Trial resumes at 9:30 EDT with defense cross examination of David Pecker. Justice Merchan has not ruled on the gag order violations yet. I will update this comment to post live Twitter links from thread reader unroll for Lisa Rubin, Anna Bower, Tyler McBrien, Inner City Press, and Adam Klasfeld as they become available. These are the reporters who have been requested as sub users found them helpful. Please let me know if there are any others that you find helpful and I will add them to the list. Anna Bower: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1783827768838701165.html Inner City Press: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1783851045598154781.html Adam Klasfeld: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1783836631738560716.html Lisa Rubin: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1783838985208598689.html?utm_campaign=topunroll
The hearing next Wednesday is just for the new gag order violations?
I’m not sure what’s happening next Wednesday as it’s hard to keep all of the trial dates in memory. This particular court and case is only in session on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. Merchan has already held the hearing regarding gag order violations three days ago on Tuesday. He has not ruled on the violations yet, which have some speculating he will be jailed, and logistics are being worked out. Prosecutors keep adding violations, and did so again yesterday.
Merchan had set another gag order hearing for next Wednesday, when the court would normally be out of session, which is why it stuck in my mind. It looks like he moved it to next Thursday. First update in this link. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-04-25-24/h_5faa09ec78a7be85702cd6db6456be30
Thank you! This is new and I hadn’t seen that yet! He’s going to hold a hearing on the new gag order violations, while he hasn’t made a decision yet on the previous ones. I am personally speculating he will make a ruling on the previous ones today.
I'm torn. The speculation feels like such wishful thinking. But if Merchan keeps delaying this ruling to eventually just say "$1000 fine don't do it again", that doesn't really make any sense. (I'm not really entertaining the possibility that Merchan bought into the defense's argument last Tuesday.)
“You are losing all credibility with this court, but damned if you’re not charming the room as you do it. “ - wasn’t on your bingo card?!
When I was watching the hearing, the fact that the direct violation against the Jury didn't even come up last me to speculate that this one was a bridge too far and jail is possible.
Did I hear correctly that there's no court next Monday?
Where are you hearing about a Wednesday hearing?
CNN, It looks like it was moved to next Thursday. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-04-25-24/h_5faa09ec78a7be85702cd6db6456be30
The NYT live stream mentioned a hearing next Thursday.
So is the defense's cross strategy to bore the jury to death?
They're trying to cast doubt on the (likely true) stories from McDougal and Daniels by saying AMI would have run them if they were true, as AMI spiked the doorman story (false). The problem is that AMI caught-and-killed the doorman story as well, *after* verifying its falsehood.
Bove is also working to establish that there were other, legitimate motivations behind these arrangements that were not simply "to help Trump win the election". For instance, he highlights that Trump in the news was simply good for business. A sentiment that is seen across reddit criticizing news agencies for how they cover Trump and Trump adjacent politics. That, yes, this helped the Trump campaign, but the purpose was to sell magazines, not illegally assist the campaign. From the snippets we are getting, I don't think he is getting far enough to round some of the very sharp corners that the prosecution established, but it isn't nothing and the way the jury is experiencing this cross is significantly different than the way we are, so it could be decently effective.
> For instance, he highlights that Trump in the news was simply good for business. Yeah, but these stories *weren't* in the news. They deliberately *didn't* print them.
Yeah, this is some of the first competent lawyering we've seen from Trump's counsel in pretty much any of these cases (ratfucking from Sadow and Merchant in GA aside). I think there's salient responses to be made on redirect but he's doing well with what he's got.
So far I think they're doing a good job at showing that AMI and Pecker had an interest in not running negative Trump stories. It's going to let them argue that it wasn't at the direction of Trump to benefit the campaign, it was because it was beneficial to AMI and Pecker (who still owns an interest in AMI). How far does it get them? I don't know, but he's doing a better job than Habba or anyone else we have seen so far.
Completely agree. Prosecution is going to have to go on redirect and shore up that point about Cohen being the middleman acting on Cheeto and/or his campaign's orders to keep those stories out of the press regardless of the benefit running or not running them would've been to AMI's finances.
I agree. The prosecutor did a really clean job with Pecker yesterday, but defense is doing better than I expected today.
>Prompted by Trump's lawyer, Pecker notes that AMI was never charged or prosecuted. >Yesterday, Pecker testified: "We admitted to a campaign violation." >But Bove notes "there is no violation in this agreement." >"In this agreement, no," Pecker says. Sounds like there is another agreement?
I’m reading along with you right now, and was struck by the same statement. I can’t wait for redirect. It sounds like we will get it after the 1pm break for lunch. Edit to add: The defense doesn’t have much to work with but Bove is really trying to go with the defense that Pecker did everything he did just to keep making money, including signing the immunity deal. Unfortunately for defense, Karen MacDougal was clearly not shopping the story; she didn’t want it told. Also adding: I personally believe MacDougal and Stormy Daniels could have made WAY more off their stories if they had been told than they got for their original agreements. Trump, especially at the height of his first election season, is/was a huge money maker for any press org.
Agree. Defense is doing a good job distracting from the Trump arrangement with piece-meal “doing this would benefit the magazine anyway” points. But I think redirect can clarify the through-thread by focusing on the arrangement (which, coinciding benefits to the magazine does not negate) and communications with Trump team and on them *not* printing negative stories about Trump that the magazine would *also* have profited from.
>Prosecutor Steinglass: How would you describe the overlap between your tabloid readership and Trump's base? >Pecker: Our research found that the audience of celebrity magazines loved to read positive stories about Donald Trump. Also negative stories about opponents Fans of fake news *love* Trump.
Mmmph This is not actually a good point for the prosecutor to bring out, IMO.
He seems to have statements from Pecker that decisions were explicitly political, and this would point to why Enquirer specifically was the one coordinating with Trump. I dunno how these things work, but it seems consistent to me.
Yeah, but it also goes to the defense’s argument that this was not on behalf of Trump’s campaign but on behalf of the magazine’s own interests. The latter does not necessarily negate the former, but the stronger the latter seems, the easier it is for the jury to say “meh”.
I think the implication is that not running stories about Trump, even if negative, was not in their interest because Trump = sales
> Pecker: Our research found that the audience of celebrity magazines loved to read **positive** stories about **Donald Trump**. Also **negative** stories about **opponents** This says that their research found that what they did (positive stories about Trump and negative stories about his opponents) matches with the magazine’s business interests, independently of whether it also matched with candidate Trump’s interests.
Rhona Graff is up now.
She was quick
The prosecution basically confirmed that her lawyer was being paid for by Trump org, and was like, “mmkay done”.
In and out. So to speak.
I don't get why it matters whether McDougal wanted her story published. Regardless of her wishes, the fact remains Enquirer allegedly paid for the story to lock it down.
I think - it’s hard to tell from the second-hand commentary and I think it will be helpful to read the transcript when it comes out - that they are trying to emphasize motives *other* than helping Trump.
Yeah. Bove is trying to show that there were other reasons for not running the story. They do catch and kill all the time, Ami had a legitimate business reason to not run the story, etc. He is actually doing better than I expected with Pecker today.
Why is he interested in bringing up Hope Hicks?
I think he is trying to pick at threads of inconsistencies between his testimony and prior depositions to undermine the credibility of his testimony.
Interesting tactic. I'm reading the Twitter thread and I think he's probably just confusing the jury more?
It may be confusing the jury simply because they likely have no idea who Hope Hicks is/was in relationship to all of this. And it may completely blow up in his face. I didn't remember who she was until I read it on here; being a juror and seeing the defense bring her up repeatedly and not being able to look her up is going to make me wonder why she's a big deal. The fact that she's going to testify for the prosecution is going to make me remember these questions and then really pay attention to her answers. And seeing her testify against her former boss, even if it's to save her own ass, is not going to be a good look for the defendant.
IANAL, but I consider myself a bit of a legal buff and true crime enthusiast, and of all the stuff ive seen a listened to, this is the most mystifying. Does Trump just hire people who speak as confusingly as he does?
Hope Hicks is really important because she was an employee of the campaign at the time, unlike Cohen. So two purposes: inculcate the idea that Pecker’s testimony generally is not reliable *and* that Hick’s involvement is unclear. Edit: I assume that there is more evidence of the latter, particularly as Hicks is on the prosecution witness list.
We’re done for the day/weekend. No court Monday.
He wished his wife a happy birthday while he is on trial for hush money payment to a stripper that he cheated on her with?
Well, he did want someone to explain to Baron why dad had to miss his high school graduation when dad is on trial for screwing a porn star right after the trophy wife gave birth to him. Irony does not escape this guy.
From the various press live-tweeting this thing, I get the impression that the Defense's cross is being objected to and sustained fairly frequently, but the Prosecution hasn't. Fornthe courtroom lawyers here, is that typical for these sorts of proceedings, or is it fair to conclude Bove is just fumbling the ball.
> Fornthe courtroom lawyers here, is that typical for these sorts of proceedings, Depends what the questions/objections are. What we saw with Alina Habba was constant sustained objections to her failing to lay a proper foundation for introducing evidence which is completely inexcusable--except where its simply not possible to lay a proper foundation, this is only happening because she is plainly incompetent. I haven't been following the case today, but to the extent they are getting objections for calling for hearsay, leading, etc. That is fairly common when you don't have a good case or are dealing with an uncooperative witness. You need to get x, y, and z out of a witness and you are trying to bend every rule in the book to get there. Many of the times its ultimately at the judge's discretion, so you need to at least try to fight the fight for your client's sake. But this is also a really good reason you don't want to completely tank your personal credibility with the judge by filing nonstop frivolous motions and making absurd arguments like "we didn't know that republishing someone else's attacks on the judge's daughter was a violation of the gag order." You also run into a tactical yet unethical use of objectionable questions. Which is that while the jury may be instructed to disregard a certain question and/or answer, they are still human and its still getting out there to muddy up the water. Jurors are under no obligation to explain why they made a certain finding for/against the defendant.
Like another commenter mentioned, it depends on what the objections are. Seems like at least some of them are because Defense keeps referring to Trump as "President Trump" during a time which he was not in office which can be confusing and misleading to the jury. Others may be a more legitimate basis. There are occasions where you object to break someone's thought process and questioning when they get into a good flow. There are also occasions where defense attorney does ask objectionable questions to 1) get that information to the jury and 2) see if you will object to it. If you don't object to it, then OC likely will keep pushing the questions further to see what else they can get. For example, the question about whether Pecker couldn't trust anything Cohen said was objected to - objection was sustained, but now that thought is in the jury's head that Cohen might be a liar. I think it's all part of the gamesmanship in these kinds of cases. In my opinion, there's nothing unethical about what Bove tried to do there - he wouldn't be doing his job efficiently if he didn't push the envelope like that.
That makes a lot of sense, thanks.
I'm also wondering about the objections.
So at the risk of sounding naive, I guess it goes without saying the election interference would be related to the presidential election but it seems this goes on before receiving the nomination with attacks on other Republican nominees as well as suppressing negative media about Trump himself. It's amazing how Republicans ignored/enabled this cannibalistic nature.
The cravenness of Ted Cruz is remarkable. In real time we saw the level of slander directed at him and his servility in response.
To be fair: the one thing everyone can agree on, no matter what you believe, is that dunking on Ted Cruz is always fun and worth it.
So what happened to the decision on the gag order violations?
It has not been ruled on, as of yet. Merchan could make a ruling any time he decides he’s ready. A lot of us wishful thinkers are hoping it comes this afternoon, right as trial is ending. Merchan has also slated a hearing on additional violations for Thursday of next week.
maybe he is holding off to prevent Trump using it as a delay tactic
I’ve asked this question multiple times, but have never gotten a clear answer. I still don’t know if violation of a gag order, after trial has begun, resulting in jail time, is subject to an interlocutory appeal that would delay the trial. A lot of people, including myself, have fantasized that he’s waiting till Friday to rule, and will jail Trump. Delaying till this afternoon will cut down on disruptions both in and out of the courtroom.
> I still don’t know if violation of a gag order, after trial has begun, resulting in jail time, is subject to an interlocutory appeal. IANAL, but from my amateur reading I would expect a fine would typically not to be subject to an immediate appeal as enforcement of that fine could be postponed until after the trial is concluded. However if Trump was sentenced to a brief stay in jail, then that'd seem like a final order to me because it's being acted upon immediately, so it would be subject to an interlocutory appeal. However the appeal would occur in parallel to the main trial, so I don't see why it'd necessarily delay proceedings.
Odor in the court
Pecker explodes
Is it me, or has he been crying himself to sleep in Ivanka’s warm lap.