Thread by @AnnaBower

Hello from 100 Centre Street!

It’s Day 2 of Trump’s trial on 34 felony counts for falsification of business records.

I’ll be in the courtroom for @lawfare. @TylerMcBrien will be in the overflow courtroom live tweeting minute-to-minute coverage.

Follow along 🔔👇 🧵

Yesterday, we heard opening statements from both the prosecution and the defense.

David Pecker, former CEO of tabloid publisher American Media, testified for approximately half an hour before court wrapped up early for a juror's dental appointment.

I discussed Day 1 of the trial with Ben Wittes and @TylerMcBrien.

Around 3:30 p.m. today, we'll go live again to discuss Day 2.

You can subscribe to our YouTube channel and set notifications for our trial dispatch livestreams:

Today, we expect to hear more from witness David Pecker, the former CEO of AMI.

But first: Justice Merchan will hear argument this morning on the prosecution's motion to hold Trump in contempt of court for alleged violations of the court's gag order.

s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2454…

The prosecution's original motion for contempt alleged that Trump violated Merchan's gag order when he made several statements on Truth Social about potential witnesses in the case, including Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels.

DA Bragg asked Merchan to impose sanctions on Trump:

In a supplemental filing, prosecutors alleged that Trump violated the gag order 7 additional times.

In total, prosecutors say that Trump violated the gag order at least 10 times through posts on social media and his campaign website. For example:

s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2455…

As we await for the contempt hearing to begin, the prosecution team has arrived.

Matthew Coangelo, who delivered the prosecution's opening statement yesterday, is here w/ Christopher Conroy, Susan Hoffinger, and Josh Steinglass.

DA Bragg is seated in the front row of gallery.

Defendant and former President Donald Trump has now entered the courtroom for his contempt of court hearing.

"All rise" and Justice Merchan sweeps into the room.

But the parties immediately ask to approach the bench. After a brief, out-of-earshot discussion at the bench with Merchan, the defense and prosecution file out of the room to speak with the judge in private.

The parties are back.

Merchan launches into why we're here: On April 15, the prosecution filed a motion for contempt alleging 3 violations of the gag order. And on April 18, they alleged 7 more.

We're here to determine if the defendant should be held in contempt, he says.

The prosecution is up first.

Trump "wilfully and flagrantly" violated the court's gag order, Conroy tells Merchan.

And he did it again after court yesterday.

"The defendant violated the order again on camera. He did it right here...outside."

Sorry all, something weird is going on with Twitter. It's not working and glitching often. The internet service in the physical courtroom is also subpar. I'll live tweet when I can, but bear with me!

Hopefully @TylerMcBrien is having better luck with Twitter/internet in overflow

Chris Conroy, on behalf of the prosecution, just wrapped up his argument.

He went through the 10 posts that the prosecution alleges were made in violation of the gag order, and focused argument on persuading Merchant that the posts were "wilful" violations.

Todd Blanche is up for Trump.

"President Trump does in fact know what the gag order allows him to do and what it does not allow him to do," Blanche says.

And there was no wilful violation of the gag order here, Blanche continues.

Blanche points out that some of the posts by Trump are reposts. Trump has reposted things before that the prosecution never complained about, he says.

He adds that in the position of the defense is that reposting a news article or website is not a violation of the gag order.

Merchan: Tell me what case law you have to support the idea that a repost can't violate the gag order

Blanche: I don’t have any case law to support that

Blanche says that he's trying to argue that Trump's history of reposting has gone "unchecked" by the prosecution or court. That history goes to Trump's wilfulness, he says.

The point seems to be that Trump thought reposting was OK bc he's done it before w/o consequence.

“You’re losing all credibility with the court,” Merchan tells Blanche.

Merchan to Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche: You say the posts are ambiguous, you say he didn't know, but you're not offering me anything to support your argument. You're not giving me anything to hang my hat on.

Merchan to Blanche: The fact that the prosecution did not come running in here as some as your client posted things too close to the line is not probative of anything here.

So let's take our break. I'm going to reserve decision on this. We'll reconvene at 11 am.

We're on break for another minute or two, when the jury is set to return and David Pecker is expected to resume testimony.

In the meantime, if you've appreciated my coverage and @TylerMcBrien's live tweets, please consider supporting our work:

givebutter.com/c/trumptrials

Justice Merchan has returned to the courtroom as we resume trial proceedings.

David Pecker, the former tabloid publisher executive, is back on the stand.

Today he's wearing a charcoal suit, blue shirt, and a salmon pink tie.

The jury files in, and Merchan begins by clarifying the schedule for next week. No court on Monday, he says.

Josh Steinglass resumes Pecker's direct examination.

Pecker says he knows Trump. They met at Mar-a-Lago when Pecker was brought there by a Trump business associate.

Pecker says he's had a "great" relationship w/ Trump of the years.

At one point, Pecker launched a "Trump Style" magazine.

When Pecker acquired the National Enquirer, Trump called him and said congratulations it's a great magazine.

Pecker and Trump's relationship further evolved when Trump started hosting The Apprentice. They became friends.

Pecker says he called Trump "Donald" when they spoke.

In 2015, they started seeing each other once a month. They would also speak on the phone.

[This line of questioning is clearly oriented toward establishing that Pecker and Trump had a close, familiar relationship.]

Pecker testifies that he visited Trump at Trump Tower on multiple occasions.

He describes Trump's as a "knowledgeable" businessman, detail-oriented, a "micro-manager"...he looked at "all aspects" of what the issue was.

He had a "cautious" and "frugal" approach to business.

Pecker says he knows Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney.

They met at a bar mitzvah in early 2000.

He later met Cohen again when Trump introduced Pecker to Cohen in 2007. Pecker was told at that time to bring issues--such as stories about Trump or his family--to Cohen.

Pecker says that he began speaking with Cohen about once or twice a quarter.

But that contact with Cohen increased after Trump announced his run for presidency in 2015.

They spoke about once a week, sometimes multiple times a week.

Pecker says he also knows Hope Hicks, the former White House communications director.

Steinglass asks if Trump ever spoke to Pecker about his presidential hopes.

Pecker says yes.

As Pecker tells it, after celebrity Apprentice became popular, the National Enquirer did a poll in the magazine. Readers of the National Enquirer said they would like Donald Trump to be president. Pecker passed that information along to Trump.

The prosecution displays an emai Cohen sent Pecker ahead of Trump's announcement that he was running for President in 2015.

Cohen invited Pecker to the announcement at Trump Tower. No one deserves to be there more than you, Cohen wrote to Pecker.

In August of 2015, Pecker attended a meeting at Trump Tower. The meeting included Hope Hicks, Donald Trump, Michael Cohen, and Pecker.

Hope Hicks was coming in and out during the meeting, Pecker said.

Pecker didn't know what the meeting was about before he got there.

At that meeting, Pecker says, Trump and Cohen asked him what he could do and what his magazines could do to help the campaign.

"I said what I would do is I would run or publish positive stories about Mr. Trump and I would publish negative stories about his opponents."

"I would also be the 'eyes and ears,'" Pecker says.

He told Trump and Cohen that if he heard anything negative about Trump or "about women selling stories" then he would notify Michael Cohen so that he would be able to have the stories "killed."

Pecker also says that Bill and Hillary Clinton came up during the meeting.

Clinton stories were popular, so it was easy for Pecker to say that he would continue to run negative stories about Clinton in the National Enquirer. It was a "mutual benefit" for the campaign and Pecker.

Trump was "pleased" by the suggestion that Pecker would continue to publish negative Clinton stories.

"He was please, Michael Cohen was pleased," with the way Pecker suggested approaching the situation.

Now Steinglass asks Pecker to explain why he said it was "mutually beneficial" to publish positive stories about Trump and negative stories about his opponents.

Pecker says that for him it helped with magazine sales. For Trump it helped the campaign.

Steinglass: What was the purpose of notifying Cohen that there were women [or others] who wanted to come forward w/ a negative story about Trump?

Pecker says that it was so the stories could be bought up.

Pecker testifies that the agreement reached at the Trump Tower meeting was not put into writing. It was an "agreement among friends."

After the meeting, Pecker spoke w/ National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard about the agreement, telling him that it had to be "highly confidential."

"We're going to try to help the campaign, and to do that, we need to keep it as quiet as possible," Pecker told Howard at the time.

Steinglass asks if Pecker carried out the agreement by publishing positive stories about Trump.

Steinglass proffers an exhibit showing a series of National Enquirer headlines praising Trump.

Pecker explains how negative stories against Trump's opponents got published.

Michael Cohen would call and say "we" would like you to run a negative story about a political opponent (e.g.: Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio)

Pecker says they would then get information & "embellish" it.

When Cohen told Pecker "we" would like a negative story published, Pecker understood that to mean Cohen and Trump wanted the story published.

Now Steinglass displays an exhibit showing negative headlines in the National Enquirer about Trump's political opponents.

"Ben Carson Left Sponge in Patient's Brain," one headline proclaims.

"Ted Cruz Shamed by Porn Star," another reads.

Steinglass: Did there come a time when then-candidate Trump introduced you to Steve Bannon?

Pecker: Yes

Steve Bannon was a political consultant for Donald Trump, Pecker says. He was working on the campaign.

Trump told Pecker "I believe you and Steve would get along really well."

Bannon said he liked the articles Pecker ran in National Enquirer and had some other ideas.

Pecker sent Bannon a series of articles the National Enquirer ran about Clinton and Bannon reviewed them.

Bannon suggested based on the Hillary articles that a National Enquirer reporter should go on the Sean Hannity show to discuss those articles.

Steinglass asked if Bannon ever asked him to run any articles.

This elicits an objection and a lengthy out-of-earshot sidebar between counsel at the bench.

Justice Merchan instructs the jurors to take a brief break. They file out of the room.

Once their gone, Bove says that they object to the line of questioning because the prosecution is eliciting hearsay by asking about statements Bannon made to Pecker.

There's been no allegation that Bannon is a co-conspirator (which would allow his statements to be admitted).

In fact, Bove says, there's no conspiracy charged in the indictment.

Steinglass on behalf of the prosecution says that though the indictment does not itself allege a conspiracy, falsifying business records in the 1st degree requires an intent to aid or conceal another crime...

And one of the theories advanced by the prosecution, Steinglass continues, is that Trump caused the falsification of business records w/ intent to violate a New York state law provision that makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means...

Steinglass points out that the New York election law provision uses the term "conspire."

"The entire case is predicated on the idea that there was a conspiracy to influence the election in 2016," Steinglass says.

Merchan: My concern is that you didn't notify the defense that this type of question would be elicited.

Steinglass: I don't think there's a requirement that we provide notice, but we can stop asking questions about Steve Bannon.

Bove takes issue w/ suggestion that Bannon's work was part of an unlawful conspiracy. He says Bannon’s work was normal campaign work.

Steinglass: True, that in and of itself might not be criminal, but it’s part of the broader conspiracy & relevant to the existence of conspiracy

Merchan: I do agree with the prosecution that they do have to prove an intent to commit a crime and I’ve given them permission to advance three theories to do that.

[One of the theories Merchan gave them permission to advance at trial is the NY state election law provision.]

After a break, Pecker resumes his testimony.

Steinglass doesn't follow up on Steve Bannon.

Instead, he asks Pecker a series of questions about AMI's business practices regarding employee communications.

[This is likely to establish foundation to admit texts or emails.]

We're in an extended sidebar now as counsel argue over objections wrt the documents the prosecution wants to admit into evidence.

Jury still in the box. One juror is slumped over, looking extremely bored.

We're back. The documents are admitted over defense hearsay objections on grounds that they fall within the business records exception.

Steinglass for the prosecution asks Pecker if he knows a man named Dino Sajudin.

Yes, Pecker says. Sajudin was a former doorman at Trump Tower.

National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard came to Pecker w/ a tip from a source. Dino Sajudin was selling a story that Trump had fathered an illegitimate child w/ a maid at Trump Tower.

Pecker reached out to Cohen, who told him that the story was “absolutely not true.”

Pecker asked Dylan Howard to negotiate a price to buy the story to take it off the market. Meanwhile, Howard had the source of the story take a polygraph test to "vet" the story,.

Pecker doesn't reveal the results of the polygraph. But he says he called up Cohen and told him it would big story, we have to take it off the market.

Pecker agreed to pay Sajudin $30,000 for the story.

He says that if the story turned out to be true, it would be the biggest story in the National Enquirer "since the death of Elvis Presley."

Prosecutors display an exhibit. It's the "source agreement" w/ Dino Sajudin regarding the story that Trump allegedly fathered a child w/ a a housekeeper at Trump Tower.

In exchange for the $30,000, Sajudin agreed to let National Enquirer have an "exclusive" on the story.

The "exclusive" meant that Sajudin could not take the story elsewhere and that National Enquirer could decide whether to publish it.

Pecker testifies that Howard finished his vetting of the story and found it to be "1000%" untrue.

But Pecker still bought the story from Sajudin, he says, because if it was published elsewhere "that would have been very embarrassing for the campaign."

Steinglass: Is $30,000 a typical sum for a source exclusivity agreement?

Pecker: No, typically it's up to $10,000 for a celebrity story.

Steinglass: Then why pay so much?

"I made the decision to buy the story" bc of the embarrassment it would cause to the campaign & to Trump

Sometime before the 2016 election, Pecker went to Cohen and told him that the story wasn't true and that he wanted to release Sajudin from the exclusivity agreement.

Cohen asked him to wait until after the election.

Prosecution displays an email from Sajudin's attorney to Sajudin, stating that Sajudin was released from the exclusivity agreement.

It was sent on Dec. 9, 2016 -- after the 2016 Presidential election.

Steinglass: Do you know Karen McDougal?

Pecker: Yes, she was a Playboy model. Dylan Howard came to me in 2016 and said that he received a call about a playboy model who had a 1-year romantic relationship w/ Donald Trump.

Pecker and Dylan Howard discussed next steps. Pecker told Howard to vet the story out. Howard had a source who was an attorney for the Playboy model. Pecker instructed Howard to go out and interview the model. Pecker told Cohen about it & promised keep him updated on it.

Pecker said that at one point Cohen told him they shouldn't be talking about things on a landline. He told him to use Signal, the encrypted messaging app.

Pecker says he came to believe that Cohen had talked to Trump about Karen McDougal's claims. At one point, Trump called Pecker and said Cohen told me about Karen's claims. "What do you think?" Trump asked Pecker.

Pecker told Trump that Howard had interviewed McDougal. He told him that McDougal had lots of offers from media.

Pecker told him he should buy the story.

But Trump said he doesn't like to buy stories because "Anytime you do anything like this it always gets out."

I still think you should buy the story, Pecker told Trump.

"Let me think about it and I'lll have Michael Cohen call you back in a few days," Trump said.

And with that, we're calling it a day.

Merchan tells the jurors that we're done for the day, instructing them not to discuss the case with anyone or to do any independent legal research.

The trial will resume Thursday morning.

Thanks to all who followed along!

I'll be back in courtroom 1530 on Thursday morning.

And at 3:30 p.m. ET this afternoon, I'll discuss today's events live with @TylerMcBrien and Ben Wittes. Join us!

After a long day of live tweeting from court, @TylerMcBrien and I need a coffee and a snack before we record our live show at 3:30 ET.

And guess what? You can help buy our post-court coffee by supporting @lawfare’s trial coverage: givebutter.com/c/trumptrials