Thread by @TylerMcBrien

Good morning from 100 Centre St for DAY 6 (incl jury selection) of Trump’s NY criminal trial. I’ll be live tweeting it all for @lawfare alongside @AnnaBower

Follow this thread for updates 🧵⚖️

Yesterday, we heard opening statements and testimony from the prosecution’s first witness, David Pecker.

I spoke to @AnnaBower and Ben Wittes live on Trump’s Trials and Tribulations NY Dispatch.

Watch it here, or listen on the @lawfare podcast feed lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfar…

We’ll hear from Pecker again, but first, a hearing.

Prosecutors will try to persuade Justice Merchan to hold Trump in contempt of court for alleged violations of a gag order—and impose sanctions if he does.

The initial motion from 4/15 is here: s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2454…

After that initial filing, the prosecution tacked on addition alleged violations in a 4/18 supplemental affirmation to its motion, which you can find here: s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2455…

But enough “substance.”

Here’s what the people really want: Line Fashion.

The security circus here can make for some unfortunate situations.

For example, I am currently trapped in the men’s restroom with a handful of other reporters until we get the “all clear” to return to the courtroom.

Chalk it up to bad timing.

In addition to sanctions, the prosecution is also proposing an expansion of both the gag order and the protective order which established an anonymous jury to include "an additional restriction on speech with respect to prospective and sworn jurors."
s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2455…

DA argues that the violations were willful (see: Trump's many posts about the gag order) and that Trump "has recent experience in New York courts " re: gag orders. The judge in his recent civil case found him to be in civil contempt (though a different statute is at issue here)

To clarify, the hearing has not yet started, I'm just recapping the motion.

And here's the link to the @just_security piece screenshotted above: justsecurity.org/94878/why-trum…

Recall, the allegations will be weighed against the 4/1 order, which clarified and expanded the 3/26 order after Trump publicly attacked Justice Merchan's family member.

And no, unfortunately for Trump, there's no such thing as the April Fool's Defense.
s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2455…

9:20 a.m Joshua Steinglass, Susan Hoffinger, and Matthew Colangelo arrive for the prosecution.

Assistant DA Christopher Conroy is also here unpacking documents at the prosecution table.

Per the pool, "Trump has yet to emerge in the hallway as of 9:25 am."

9:29 p.m. Trump walks into the courtroom with his defense team.

It's a red tie today, folks. Make of that what you will.

For the defense, we have Todd Blanche to Trump's right, Emil Bove to his left, and Susan Necheles to Bove's left, in their usual seats. Pool photographers are snapping pics now.

9:33 a.m., all rise, Merchan is on the bench, and prosecution and defense make their introductions.

Steinglass immediately asks to approach.

Trump, having waived his right to be present at sidebars last week, remains seated at the defense table, alone.

We're still in sidebar.

Trump sits silently, a slight frown affixed to his face, as he closes his eyes occasionally.

Per the hallway pool, Trump spoke for four mins outside the courtroom, but he ignored gag order questions.

Sidebar has broken up.

Merchan reviews the purpose of the hearing—whether we'll find Trump in contempt "for one or all of these alleged violations," Merchan says. "I believe it's the People's burden. I'll hear you."

Conroy distributes documents to the bench.

"Each of the 10 posts...violate" the gag order, says Conroy.

8 of them were on TruthSocial, 2 of them were on the official campaign website.

These "pose a very real threat to the integrity of judicial proceedings," says Conroy.

Conroy is now talking about an alleged 11th violation: "For the record, yesterday, here in this building, right outside those doors...the defendant violated the order on camera...He did it right here, in the hallway outside."

He's reading a transcript of Trump's words.

Conroy says Trump did this all "willfully and flagrantly," and "the Court should now hold him in contempt for each of the ten posts."

Trump keeps closing his eyes periodically as Conroy speaks.

Conroy working his way through the list of the alleged violations, starting with a repost from Stormy Daniels' former lawyer Michael Avenatti.

Can you make a connection between that post and the stipulations of the gag order? Merchan asks.

By calling them sleaze bags, by going after their credibility, that’s part of the plan for this trial, it’s the defendant conditioning his followers, says Conroy.

Conroy makes the point several times about the timing of the post—five days before jury selection.

With apologies for the silence, Twitter is very glitchy this morning, but hopefully this works.

Conroy is still working his way through the list of allegations, adding context, and drawing explicit connections to the wording of the gag order.

He's discussing Jesse Watters.

Conroy says the Watters example is a hybrid of something someone else said—"They're catching undercover liberal activists lying to the judge"—with something that Trump added—"in order to get on the Trump jury."

"The burden here is on us," Conroy says, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these violations were made willfully.

"The order is clear," he says, and Trump violated it.

Twitter seems to be working again (as I knock on the wood of the courtroom pew).

All of the posts here are made in relation to this criminal proceeding, says Conroy. "We know that from the words...it's just very clear that they relate to this case."

"Throwing MAGA into a post doesn't make it political. It may make it more ominous," he says.

Conroy says the defense is trying to characterize Trump's posts as political, "and try to morph that into a massive exception to the order," which Merchan should reject.

There's no indication that Trump's claim that he's responding to attacks is anything more than an after the fact justification, says Conroy.

"[Trump] says whatever he needs to say to get the results that he wants. It's tortured at best," says Conroy, arguing that the defendant has plenty of leeway to talk about a great many other things.

Trump was "knowingly and willfully breaching the crystal clear unequivocal lines set by this court in the April 1 order to protect the integrity of this proceeding," says Conroy.

Now he's addressing Trump's argument for an order carve out for reposts, rather than original posts of his own.

Conroy says they're "not yet" seeking sanctions of jail time—only fines, ordered removal of the posts, and for the court to issue another warning that this won't be tolerated and that incarceration is an option "should it be necessary."

Blanche is up now.

"Just to set the record very straight and clear: Pres Trump does in fact know what the gag order allows him to do and not allow him to do."

There is no dispute that Trump is facing a "barrage of political attacks from all sides, including from" Daniels and Cohen.

Blanche stretches out the phrase "political attacks" for extra emphasis.

Blanche: "The witnesses themselves can constantly comment on whatever they want...and Trump in theory cannot respond."

Merchan clarifies the timing of a post from Cohen post, which would proceed Avenatti's post.

"We're gonna take one at a time, otherwise it's going to get really confusing," Merchan says to Blanche. He wants to get the timeline of these posts, reposts, and replies clear.

Blanche says that the witnesses are making money, documentaries, TV interviews about Trump, all while Trump is gagged and threatened with jail if he responds.

Merchan wants to get into what was actually said rather than interpret and "read between the lines."

Blanche argues that the mention of the pardon in Cohen's post is what makes it political in nature.

Merchan asks if Blanche has spoken to Avenatti (no), then asks, "How can you infer...what he means?"

What defense is saying is a) it's political and b) significantly, if he's talking about witnesses it can't have anything to do with these proceedings. Remember why the language in the order exists, says Blanche.

Merchan: "I remember."
Blanche; "I don't want to relive that."

"You refer to the repeated attacks, yet this first exhibit didn't happen until the day after the matter was brought to the appellate division," Merchan says. It's "not a recent attack, but a series of attacks, can you understand why I'm curious about that?"

Merchan asks impatiently if we can go onto exhibit 2.

"This was a response to what specific attack?" Merchan demands. "This is six years old, when [Trump] pulled it out."

The document is six years old, but Trump had posted "Look what was just found"

Merchan clarifies that he didn't get an answer about what specific attack exhibit 2 was in reference to, but Blanche says it's a response to repeated attacks.

Merchan: "Repeated is not specific. Give me one, give me the most recent one that he was responding to here."

Merchan is audibly and visibly irritated with Blanche now, as the judge says to him: "I'm asking the questions. I'm going to decide whether your client is in contempt or not...so please don't turn this around."

Merchan mentions that it's almost 10:30, and jurors are waiting.

On exhibit 3, Merchan asks: "So he's attacking Michael Cohen's credibility, like he was attacking [Stormy Daniel's] credibility?"

Blanche: "It's attacking the people and the system for not presecuting Mr Cohen for lying."

"There's two systems of justice in this courtroom, is that what you're saying?" asks Merchan.

"That's what his message is your honor," Blanche responds.

If you can't tell from my live tweets so far, this contempt hearing doesn't seem to be going well for the defense.

Blanche mentions two potential violations that the DA didn't bring up.

That suggests that somehow the people or the court does not take action on a violation, that the gag order is waived, that's just silly, Merchan says. That doesn't negate the validity of the gag order.

"It's not making a mockery of the gag order, your honor," Blanche says.
Merchan: "Then what is your argument?"

This isn't quite like watching a full blown car accident, but it's certainly like watching a fender bender.

When something is reposted, how does it get there (onto the client's account)? Merchan asks.

It requires some sort of action, Merchan clarifies. It's not passive.

Caselaw talks about passive conduct vs. what we're describing here.

Blanche clarifies that's not their position.

So it's your client's position that when he was reposting these things, he was not violating the gag order?...Are you testifying under oath that's your client's position? Merchan asks Blanche.

I'm going to revise my earlier tweet calling the contempt hearing a "fender bender."

This is a trainwreck.

Merchan jumps to exhibit 10, the Jesse Watters one, and points out that this wasn't a repost at all.

"He had to sit there, use quotation marks, [and] the shift key," Merchan says.

Blanche ties to end on this point: we are trying to comply with this gag order. Trump is being very careful.

But Merchan cuts in: "You're losing all credibility, I'll tell you right now."

"If anything, the court should make crystal clear what it means with the reposts" says Blanche, but Merchan says it's not ambiguous, and that Blanche isn't giving him any argument to counter that point.

Merchan makes an analogy about if Trump grabs a sign from someone outside, one that says horrible things about the witnesses or jury, and walks around with it.

Blanche takes issue with that analogy, bc he says a news article is at issue here.

Merchan says: What you shoulda done, is probably said my client is thinking of reposting things, it's not really clear in the gag order, so Judge Merchan is that allowed? But you didn't.

He'll reserve judgment on this, and we're about to take a quick break.

Cohen and Daniels are not criminal defendants in this case, Trump is, Conroy says, as he hands up one more of Trump's posts from 4/4 and reads it.

"See you at 11," Merchan says. We'll be going straight from 11am to 2pm when we're back.

But we break, Merchan says he came up with an AMI limiting instruction, which is basically a combination of the two submissions.

Some more color for you.

When Justice Merchan said to Blanche just a bit ago that "You're losing all credibility," there was an audible gasp from the press.

I'm hearing from a reporter that a member of the public who made it into the courtroom today has been detained. Unclear right now why.

11:03 a.m. both sides are back at their respective tables as we wait for Merchan to return to the bench.

Trump is discussing something with Bove, now to his left, and has also been chatting with Blanche, since they sat down.

It's 11:13 a.m., and no sign of Merchan yet.

It's not clear what the hold up is here from the usually punctual Merchan.

He could be getting ready to rule from the bench on the contempt motion, or it could be juror-related. We shall see.

11:19 a.m., Merchan is back.

Trump posted during the break about Justice Merchan, which is allowed under the gag order.

Aaaand, the audio/video feed in the press overflow room is frozen.

Phew, we got the feed back.

Pecker takes the stand...as the feed cuts out once again.

11:24, the jury is present and properly seated.

Before we continue, Merchan clarifies the schedule for next week. No meeting Monday, Tuesday will be a full day.

Steinglass now: When we broke yesterday we were talking about Bonnie Fuller, she was executive editor of star magazine.

Now we're talking about Trish Andrews, Pecker's assistant.

You don't remember your assistant's last name, Mr Pecker? Steinglass jokes.

Pecker says he knows Trump since the late 1980s.

Do you see him today in the courtroom, can you point him out? asks Steinglass.

Trump smirks in recognition.

Pecker met Trump at Mar-a-Lago, on the invitation of Dick Rivers, through a client of Pecker's.

Probably '88 or '89.

Pecker: "I've had a great relationship with Trump over the years," he wanted to create a magazine in late 80s called Trump Style, but Trump questioned who is gonna pay for it.

They launched the magazine on a quarterly basis, and they'd meet once a quarter.

According to Wikipedia, that's just one of four of Trump's magazines. In fact, "Trump magazines" has its own Wikipedia entry:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_mag…

Pecker bought National Enquirer in March 99, and one of the first calls he received was one of congratulations from Trump, who called it a "great magazine."

Steinglass asks if Pecker is familiar with the show The Apprentice, which Pecker is now describing.

"It was an instant success," Pecker says, and that he had conversations with Trump about show ratings and other content for free, which he published in Nat'l Enquirer.

"It was a mutually beneficial relationship," Pecker says. Their relationship grew closer after Trump launched The Celebrity Apprentice ~2003.

For "a lot of the content on the show, whether someone was gonna be fired or terminated," Trump would give Pecker that information "first."

Steinglass clarifies that this show was a competition to work for Trump, but that throughout the show Trump would say "You're fired."

Steinglass: "When you spoke with Mr. Trump, what would you call him?"

Pecker: "I would call him Donald."

Unfortunately, Pecker hasn't laughed yet, so I have no way to confirm or deny if Ben Wittes' impersonation on yesterday's @lawfare podcast was accurate.

But rest assured, I will remain vigilant and listen for it.

@lawfare Pecker would sometimes communicate to Trump via his assistant, Rona, and his bodyguard, Keith, though infrequently.

Pecker says that he has observed Trump's "business practices" over the years, sometimes from Trump's office, while Trump would sign and review invoices.

@lawfare Was the check stapled to the invoice, or somehow attached to it?

This is a good reminder of how central documents and records are to this case, a feature which Hoffinger said in jury selection might be a "slog." Then again, this is about falsification of business records.

@lawfare Steinglass: "How about [Trump's] approach to money?"

Pecker: "He was very cautious and very frugal."

@lawfare "I met Michael Cohen at a bar mitzvah," Pecker explains.

As a Jew, I am sure I have said this exact sentence before, though about a different Michael Cohen at a different bar mitzvah.

From 2015-17, Pecker would speak to Cohen maybe once a month, twice a quarter, sometimes more frequently.

After Trump announced his candidacy for president, this frequency increased to weekly, sometimes daily.

In early 2015, Pecker confirms he spoke to Trump about his interest in running for president.

As Pecker explains further, he speaks slowly, deliberately, pausing sometimes to get the story right.

When Trump launched The Apprentice + Celeb version, interest in Trump in Natl Enquirer skyrocketed.

Their research indicated that people viewed Trump as "the boss." They did a poll in Natl Enquirer about Trump running for president: 80% wanted him to run, and Pecker told Trump.

Steinglass asks the clerk to display the first exhibit (People's 151).

It's an email chain between Pecker and Cohen, on 6/2/15 Cohen invited Pecker to attend a press announcement Trump Tower.

"No one deserves to be there more than you," Cohen writes.

A couple of months later now, in mid-August '15, Pecker attended a meeting in Trump Tower w/ Trump, Cohen, and Hope Hicks.

Cohen called Pecker and told him "the boss" wanted to see him—that's how Cohen would refer to Trump, simply as "the boss."

New Jersey would beg to differ.

They asked Pecker what he and his magazines "could do to help the campaign."

Thinking about it, as I did previously...what I would do is run or publish positive stories of Trump and negative stories about his opponents, Pecker says.

"I would your eyes and ears," Pecker says. And anything he hears "in the marketplace," anything negative about Trump, or about "women selling stories" he would notify Cohen as he did over the last several years.

All this was so that Cohen could purchase the negative stories and "kill" them, so that they wouldn't be published, says Pecker.

You mentioned women in particular, Steinglass says. How did that come up?

Pecker says he was the person who thought that a lot of women would come out to sell their stories bc Trump was "well known as the most eligible bachelor and dated the most beautiful women."

I should note, for the record, a number of chuckles from the press when Pecker said Trump was "well known as the most eligible bachelor."

What about Bill and Hillary Clinton, did their names come up during this meeting?

Yes, says Pecker, Hillary running for president and Bill is a womanizer was one of their best selling topics. That Hillary "was an enabler for Bill with respect to all the womanizing" for example

Pecker says Trump was "pleased" at Pecker's suggestion that he could keep running stories about Hillary enabling Bill's womanizing, as was Cohen.

This meeting was "mutually beneficial" for Pecker, who explains that in writing positive stories about Trump and negative stories about opponents, it would only increase newsstand sales of Natl Enquirer for Pecker and help Trump's campaign in the process.

If he came upon negative stories of women or otherwise, Pecker would notify Trump thru Cohen, for the purpose of Cohen vetting the story, going to the potential publication, purchasing it, and killing it, Pecker says.

These agreements—pos stories for Trump, neg for opponents, and notifying Cohen—were never put into writing, "just an agreement among friends" in the meeting, which lasted 20-25 mins, Pecker says.

Pecker described the meeting to Dylan Howard, and that the "concept and agreement" must be kept "highly, highly confidetial." Told Howard to notify the east and west coast bureau chiefs of the Natl Enquirer, any stories that are out there about Trump to vet them & bring to Pecker

Pecker also told Howard why this should be secret: "We're gonna try to help the campaign, and to do that I want to keep this as quiet as possible."

That would kind of undermine the point, Steinglass says, but defense objects. Sustained, says Merchan.

Did you follow through? asks Steinglass.

Yes, says Pecker.

There's a document on Pecker's screen but we can't see it. They're articles and covers about Trump from Natl Enquirer btwn Aug 2015 and time of election.

It's a collection of headlines, not the story itself, and Merchan allows it in as evidence, though Bove asks for limiting instruction, which Merchan now gives.

A few choice examples:

DONALD TRUMP: THE MAN THE LEGEND

DONALD TRUMP GETS THE DUKE'S BLESSING

JFK'S SECRET SON ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP

DONALD DOMINATES!

OBAMA'S HALF-BROTHER-CHEERING ON DONALD AT DEBATE

CRUZIN' TO VICTORY! TED ENDORSES DONALD

Lawfare could take a lesson or two in engaging headline writing here I think.

Cohen would say to Pecker, we would like you to run a negative article on, let's say, Ted Cruz, then Cohen would send Pecker info about Cruz or Ben Carson or Marco Rubio, and that was the basis of the story, and the Natl Enquirer would "embellish it from there."

Steinglass clarifies Cohen said "we," and asks what Pecker thought he meant by we.

He assumed "we" meant Cohen and Trump, and Cohen repeatedly said he wasn't part of the campaign, didn't work for it, and was on the outside. Simply his personal attorney.

Pecker clarifies his understanding of Cohen's relationship to the campaign: "Michael was physically in every aspect of whatever the campaign was working on at least at the Trump Tower." Cohen "injected himself into it," meaning the campaign.

Back to exhibit 153A:

BUNGLING SURGEON BEN CARSON LEFT SPONGE IN PATIENT'S BRAIN!
(the headline and accompanying photo get a few laughs from the press)

It was published when Carson was gaining popularity at the time.

TED CRUZ SHAMED BY PORN STAR is the next exhibit, which Steinglass submits, I will note, without irony.

He would comment on them and "add content" based on information that Cohen had.

Pecker can't recall if Cohen shared the headlines with "the boss" before they were published.

Stienglass focuses on one: TED CRUZ SEX SCANDAL—5 SECRET MISTRESSES

I don't remember the details of it, Pecker says, but remembers it and discussing it with Cohen.

When another one hits the screen—DONALD TRUMP BLASTS TED CRUZ'S DAD FOR PHOTO WITH JFK ASSASSIN—a reporter leans over to me and says, "I remember that one."

Finally, People's 153C:

'FAMILY MAN' MARCO RUBIO'S LOVE CHILD STUNNER!

SENATOR MARCO RUBIO'S COCAINE CONNECTION!

SHADY LADY WHO COULD RUIN MARCO RUBIO!

I wonder if Cohen told the National Enquirer to add an exclamation point to every headline.

Pecker says he was introduced to Steve Bannon in Oct 2016.

Trump said he believed Pecker and Bannon "would get along very well"—Bannon liked the articles very much so far, and so Pecker boxed up some issues of the Natl Enquirer and sent them to Bannon's apartment.

Trump thought that Pecker and Bannon could work very well together, Pecker starts to say, but Bove objects, and it's sustained.

Did Bannon pitch articles to the nat'l enquirer? Objection—overruled.

Yes, says Pecker, Bannon suggested that the Natl Reporter reporter who wrote some Hillary articles should go on the Hannity show.

More back and forth, and Bove objects and requests a sidebar.

While I can't promise headlines as spicy as the National Enquirer has, I can promise spicy tweets.

So if you're enjoying this coverage from me and @AnnaBower's, we hope you'll consider contributing to our Trump trial fundraising campaign: givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…

Sidebar is over, and Merchan calls for a short break.

Some press make a run for the doors to go to the restroom, but we're stuck in the courtroom for now.

Bove explains the objection: the government is eliciting hearsay statements from Bannon; there's been no notice that govt considers Bannon to be part of a conspiracy; theres no conspiracy charged in the indictment; these are statements by campaign staff doing normal campaign work

Steinglass says there's a misperception about the law and what this case is about: It's true there's no conspiracy charge on the indictment, but falsifying biz records in 1st degree requires it to be done in service of another crime.

And that crime includes the words "any two or more persons who conspire"

Merchan agrees, but his concern is that DA didn't give any notice to defense.

Steinglass doesn't think there's a requirement to do so.

To clarify, the conspiracy is the predicate to the charges alleged in the indictment.

On Bannon: "There are 11 million pages of discovery, so the fact that someone's name is on a page is not adequate notice," says Bove.

Merchan says we're moving on, but agrees with the government and references the three theories he will allow the prosecution to pursue re: the predicate. Here they are, as a reminder.

Full order: s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2443…

On that last exchange, @lawofruby points out here that it was the first time that the DA specifically identified the crime that Trump was allegedly intending to commit or conceal by allegedly falsifying biz records

If all of this sounds confusing, that's because it is.

Maybe the prosecution hopes that the two lawyers on the jury will help the rest understand the legal particulars.

12:53 p.m. and we're back. Steinglass continues questioning Pecker, who is back on the stand.

Steinglass hands Pecker a thumbdrive, and he confirms that he reviewed the files contained within because it has Pecker's signature and the date he looked at it.

Pecker is holding the thumbdrive in two hands between his fingertips.

As Steinglass asks Pecker to confirm every tiny little detail, I'm reminded of an exchange I heard earlier in the hall between two reporters.

When one asked the other what do you think so far, the other said, "I think this is a good reminder that trials are boring."

A quick note on the contempt hearing earlier. As @qjurecic points out, the sanctions requested by the prosecution are the maximum allowed under the law:
Under NY law the gag order penalty can’t exceed $1k or 30 days in jail.
codes.findlaw.com/ny/judiciary-l…

We're in the midst of another sidebar at the moment.

Pecker is still on the stand, and Trump remains at the defense table.

Many thanks to @ClaireMeynial for catching this spicy headline I missed 🤌

We're back.

Objection is noted, and overruled, so the exhibits are allowed, but to the extent that there is any embedded hearsay within that, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, says Merchan.

Pecker says that Dylan Howard came to him with news of a source—a man named Dino was in the market, selling a story that Trump fathered an "illegitimate" girl with a maid at Trump Tower.

When Pecker learned about it, he "immediately called Michael Cohen," telling him what he learned, gave him Dino's name, and the name of the housekeeper.

He asked him to verify that name in the Trump org's payroll.

Cohen says it was "absolutely not true," but he'd check it out

Pecker says he notified Cohen about Dino's story as part of the agreement in the Aug 2015 meeting.

Cohen then called him back, said he verified the two names were on payroll, and asked Pecker to check out the story. Pecker then asked Dylan Howard to check out the story.

Pecker started to say something about a plan for Dino to take a polygraph but Steinglass cuts him off—"Don't say that."

Pecker told Howard to negotiate a price to "buy the story and take it off the market."

Pecker says that the source did take a polygraph test (for about $500), but Steinglass tells him not to divulge the results.

Pecker told Cohen that he felt it was important that the story be removed from the market, and offered to pay the $30,000 himself.

Cohen thanked him and said, "The boss will be very pleased."

Pecker understood that to mean Trump.

Apparently Cohen told Pecker that Trump would be wiling to take a DNA test to disprove the story, but Pecker told him that wouldn't be necessary.

Pecker bought the story for two reasons: so the source wouldn't shop it around to other outlets, and that if it was trure and he did publish it, it would result in the "biggest sale of the Natl Enquirer since the death of Elvis Presley," but clarifies that he'd pub post-election

Steinglass displays People's exhibit 154—a source agreement btwn Pecker and Dino Sajudin (the doorman who had the illegitimate child story) for $30,000 payable upon publication and an exclusivity period of three months after AMI publishes the exclusive.

A handwritten portion was added that AMI agreed not to name or identify the source in any published articles, dated 11/15/2015.

In layman's terms, Pecker says, AMI holds the article, and it's up to them whether they'll publish it or not. Paying $30,000 they have full exclusive, and the choice to publish it or not. During that time, Sajudin couldn't take the story elsewhere.

Steinglass puts on the screen a 12/17/15 amendment to the agreement (People's Exhibit 155). It said AMI will pay $30k in 5 days, before the story is run.

Pecker says it was unusual, yes, but it was bc Dylan finished the vetting of the story—hired PIs, reporters, etc—and discovered it was 100% false. But they still wanted to "lock it up" by paying the source, for fear of the story getting out, even if it was a false story.

So in the amendment, AMI agreed to pay the $30k in 5 days, extended the exclusivity period in perpetuity, and Sajudin agreed that he will not disclose the story to any third party except as required by law or court order. If he did, he'd be liable for $1 million.

Steinglass asks if that was a typical sum for a source?

No, Pecker says, it's usually from $250-$5k or up to $10k for a "bigger celebrity." But Pecker thought it might be "embarrassing for the campaign and Mr Trump."

The $1 million was also an atypical sum for damages, Pecker says, but he added it in based on conversations with Cohen.

Pecker also changed the exclusivity period from 90 days to in perpetuity based on that conversation as well.

Another exhibit flashes on screen, but Bove objects and it's quickly taken down.

It appeared to be an email, and all I caught was "wire payment."

Sidebar now.

Merchan: "Subject to the redaction that we discussed, the exhibit can be displayed."

Steinglass: "Good to go? Thank you."

He puts People's 164 back up. A 12/18/15 email with the subject line: "paperwork for wire payment for Dino Sajudin."

Dylan Howard is cc'd.

Another email re: the invoice for the payment references the "'Trump' non-published story."

Pecker said he communicated to Cohen that he determined the story wasn't true, that the doorman was very difficult to deal with, and that the doorman would shop the story around. Pecker suggested he release the source, but Cohen asked him not to release him until post-election.

Pecker says they eventually did release Sajudin from the source agreement.

Steinglass displays a 12/9/16 email btwn AMI general counsel and Sajudin which says "AMI has no objection to you trying to sell the story," releasing Sajudin from the source agreement.

Steinglass asks about Karen McDougal now, who Pecker describes as a "Playboy model."

Pecker said he heard that there was "a Playboy model who is trying to sell a story about a [romantic] relationship she had with Donald Trump for a year."

Trump's eyes remain closed as Pecker says this.

When Pecker learned from Howard about McDougal and her story, he called Cohen.

Pecker: "I didn't even finish the conversation when Cohen said 'untrue.' I said 'Hold on a second, I think this one is a little different,'" and suggested further vetting.

Apparently, Cohen told Pecker at one point: "We shouldn't be talking like this over a landline, we should be using Signal."

Somewhere, I suspect a marketing associate is putting together a pitch deck proposal for Michael Cohen as @signalapp brand ambassador.

@signalapp Pecker says that Trump told him directly that "I don't buy these stories," because any time you do they come out anyway.

Steinglass will come back to that.

Howard agreed to go to LA to interview
McDougal on 6/20, and Cohen repeatedly called Pecker to find out about the progress. Cohen was "very agitated" and seemed like he was getting a lot of pressure to get the answer right away. He kept calling, & each time seemed more anxious.

At 1:59 p.m., the ever punctual Merchan asks if this is a good time to break, and Steinglass agrees.

Merchan gives the jury instructions not to discuss the case at all.

And that's a wrap on a day filled with catch-and-kill schemes, a Playboy model, an illegitimate daughter, and a lying doorman.

"Damn today was juicy," I hear a reporter whisper behind me.

Join me and @AnnaBower at 3:30pm ET for a live discussion about everything that happened today, from the juicy to the mundane, on @lawfare's Trump's Trials & Tribulations, NY Trial Dispatch, April 23:

A coda from the hallway pool: Trump called the courtroom "totally freezing," called the gag order "totally unconstitutional," and finished with a rant about Joe Biden.

Happy Tuesday.