I’ll be watching three legal stories unfold Monday: the real opening of the Manhattan DA’s trial; the hearing on whether to cancel Trump’s $175 million bond; & the public filing of witness statements in the MAL docs case.
But the thing I keep thinking about is who the first witness will be. And if I’m telling this story chronologically, the person I’d call first is this guy on the right, former American Media chairman David Pecker:
According to the Manhattan DA’s statement of facts accompanying the indictment, the story begins with Trump’s infamous ride down the elevator in June 2015, when he declared his candidacy for president.
But “soon after,” in August 2015, Trump and Cohen met with Pecker, who offered to serve as the campaign’s “eyes and ears” to help Trump—and hurt his rivals—through the National Enquirer’s coverage.
That American Media made good on its promises is important, especially since it admitted to certain conduct through a non-prosecution agreement with DOJ in 2018 and this “conciliation agreement” with the Federal Election Commission in 2021:
But even more significant? Pecker can testify that Trump not only understood but heartily endorsed his publication’s offer to “catch and kill” negative stories about him, especially as they pertained to Trump’s alleged extramarital affairs.
And given how few people outside Michael Cohen directly communicated with Trump about the scheme at issue, Pecker’s testimony could be critical in establishing Trump’s intent and knowledge. FIN.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
NEW: Comey moves to dismiss on grounds of multiple alleged instances of grand jury misconduct, stating that because the two-count indictment was never presented to the full grand jury, there was no actual indictment within the five-year statute of limitations for the two charged crimes.
This is hardly Comey's only effort to dismiss the indictment. He has two fully briefed and already argued motions to dismiss: one on grounds of selective/vindictive prosecution and the other due to Lindsay Halligan's allegedly unlawful appointment.
Some expected that Comey would wait for Judge Michael Nachmanoff to decide whether, as a magistrate judge previously ruled, he should get the transcripts and other grand jury materials.
NEW: In order to prove vindictive prosecution, a defendant has to show they have been charged due to a genuine animus toward them on account of their exercise of constitutional or statutory rights. That's usually a very tough road to hoe. 1/
Enter Tish James (and her legal team, led by Abbe Lowell). Their brief tonight cites to an Exhibit A, a 112-page compilation of 360 of Trump's public statements dating back to the day after she opened her investigation of the Trump Org and him. 2/
That exhibit reflects a LOT of work but everything in it was already public. What I don't recall seeing before is Exhibit G, an August 2025 letter to Lowell from DOJ's "special attorney for mortgage fraud" Ed Martin. 3/
As I was looking for information about the appointment of Kelly Hayes, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, I found an interesting DOJ press release. It describes how U.S. Attorney vacancies should be filled. 1/
Specifically, it explains: “Pursuant to the Vacancy Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 546, the Attorney General has the authority to name a U.S. Attorney to serve on an interim basis for up to 120 days.” 2/
The press release continues, “After that time, if a successor isn’t nominated and confirmed, it falls to the district court to appoint a U.S. Attorney to serve until the confirmation of his or her successor.” 3/
On February 27, Attorney General Bondi told Kash Patel she'd learned the NY field office was sittting on thousands of pages of Epstein records in a sharp letter. 1/
And then she gave a directive: "By 8:00 a.m. tomorrow, February 28, the FBI will deliver the full and complete Epstein files to my office, including all records, documents, audio and video recordings, and materials related to Jeffrey Epstein and his clients, regardless of how such information was obtained." 2/
Bondi continued, "There will be no withholdings or limitations to my or your access. The Department of Justice will ensure that any public disclosure of these files will be done in a manner to protect the privacy of victims and in accordance with law." 3/
NOW: House Judiciary Committee is voting on Rep. Raskin's motion to subpoena four major banks for their suspicious activity reports concerning Epstein's transactions; Rep. Massie votes with Democrats against tabling the motion. 1/
These are documents that Sen. Ron Wyden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, has been seeking from Treasury without success for months. 2/
The effort to subpoena to the banks just failed; by a vote of 20-19, the motion to table won. 3/
The idea that district courts' refusal to unseal grand jury testimony is a barrier on the release on any further Epstein-related information, whether to Congress itself or the public, is a fallacy. 1/
There is a host of information in the DOJ's possession that with or without redactions could be shared. For example, the FBI's own FOIA reading room has a 22-part file concerning Epstein that can be accessed online. 2/
Those materials are heavily redacted, but they also include handwritten notes from the FBI's interviews with several survivors and other records reflecting the 2006-2007 investigation. 3/