Good morning from the press line in front of the courthouse in Manhattan, where Donald Trump’s trial on 34 felony counts is set to resume at 9:30 ET.
I’ll be in Justice Merchan’s courtroom for @lawfare.
Follow this thread for updates 🧵👇 ⬇️
I’ll be in Justice Merchan’s courtroom for @lawfare.
Follow this thread for updates 🧵👇 ⬇️
Need to catch up on what's happened during the trial thus far?
Ben Wittes, @TylerMcBrien, and I have you covered.
Our neurotically detailed dispatch from the first two days of Trump's trial will tell you everything you need to know:
lawfaremedia.org/article/catch-…
Ben Wittes, @TylerMcBrien, and I have you covered.
Our neurotically detailed dispatch from the first two days of Trump's trial will tell you everything you need to know:
lawfaremedia.org/article/catch-…
When we left court on Tuesday afternoon, David Pecker—the former tabloid publisher—was on the stand.
Pecker's testimony is expected to resume today.
I expect that prosecutors will wrap up their direct and the defense will begin its cross examination.
Pecker's testimony is expected to resume today.
I expect that prosecutors will wrap up their direct and the defense will begin its cross examination.
https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1782792769624293438
I'm seated in the courtroom with a gaggle of press.
The room is large, which means it can be hard to see if you're seated in the back.
All of which is why one reporter brought his grandmother's opera glasses today. (He also brought a pair of birding binoculars, as backup.)
The room is large, which means it can be hard to see if you're seated in the back.
All of which is why one reporter brought his grandmother's opera glasses today. (He also brought a pair of birding binoculars, as backup.)
While we wait, a murmur travels down the row where I'm seated in the gallery.
What's that sound?
It's the sound of the New York courts press corps finding out that Harvey Weinstein's conviction has been overturned.
Furious typing ensues.
nytimes.com/live/2024/04/2…
What's that sound?
It's the sound of the New York courts press corps finding out that Harvey Weinstein's conviction has been overturned.
Furious typing ensues.
nytimes.com/live/2024/04/2…
Cameras are prohibited in the courtroom, but the press photography pool is allowed to take a few snaps of Trump before things get started.
Here he is during opening statements, in case you want a better idea of what the courtroom looks like.
Can you spot me in the background?
Here he is during opening statements, in case you want a better idea of what the courtroom looks like.
Can you spot me in the background?
At 9:29 am, Trump enters courtroom 1530 and takes a seat at the defense table.
He's joined by his attorneys, Todd Blanche, Emil Bove, and Susan Necheles.
The press photography pool files in to take Trump's photo.
He's joined by his attorneys, Todd Blanche, Emil Bove, and Susan Necheles.
The press photography pool files in to take Trump's photo.
"All rise" as Justice Juan Merchan enters the room.
And so Day 3 of the trial of a former American president begins.
And so Day 3 of the trial of a former American president begins.
We begin with some housekeeping matters.
Emil Bove, on behalf of Trump, rises to provide Justice Merchan with an update on some hearsay issues he previously raised.
The hearsay issue have to do with documents prosecutors want to admit as evidence. But the defense says those documents include "embedded hearsay" (or hearsay-within-hearsay.) If that sounds confusing, that's because it is!
Bottom line: Defense wants portions of the documents redacted.
Justice Merchan says, basically, that he'll deal with this later. He wants to get started with Pecker's testimony.
Emil Bove, on behalf of Trump, rises to provide Justice Merchan with an update on some hearsay issues he previously raised.
The hearsay issue have to do with documents prosecutors want to admit as evidence. But the defense says those documents include "embedded hearsay" (or hearsay-within-hearsay.) If that sounds confusing, that's because it is!
Bottom line: Defense wants portions of the documents redacted.
Justice Merchan says, basically, that he'll deal with this later. He wants to get started with Pecker's testimony.
Now Pecker is back on the stand, wearing a red tie today.
We're picking up where we left off on Tuesday: With the "catch and kill" scheme to prevent the publication of Karen McDougal's story.
McDougal is a former Playmate who was shopping a story about an affair w/ Trump.
We're picking up where we left off on Tuesday: With the "catch and kill" scheme to prevent the publication of Karen McDougal's story.
McDougal is a former Playmate who was shopping a story about an affair w/ Trump.
Pecker describes a three-way call he had w/ Cohen and National Enquirer editor-in-chief Dylan Howard.
There was discussion about acquiring the rights to McDougal’s story. Michael Cohen suggested that Pecker/Howard should try to buy the story.
There was discussion about acquiring the rights to McDougal’s story. Michael Cohen suggested that Pecker/Howard should try to buy the story.
Later, Pecker got a call from Trump. He was at an investor’s meeting in New Jersey.
When Pecker got on the phone, Trump said “I spoke to Michael.”
“Karen is a nice girl," he told Pecker. "Is it true that a Mexican group is looking to buy the story for $8 million dollars?"
When Pecker got on the phone, Trump said “I spoke to Michael.”
“Karen is a nice girl," he told Pecker. "Is it true that a Mexican group is looking to buy the story for $8 million dollars?"
Pecker said he didn’t think there was a “Mexican group” who was going to buy the story but he nonetheless told Trump “I think we should buy the story and take it off the market.”
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asks Pecker why he thought the story about Karen McDougal should be taken off the market.
I believed the story was true and it would be embarrassing to Trump and his campaign, Pecker says.
I believed the story was true and it would be embarrassing to Trump and his campaign, Pecker says.
On the call with Pecker, Trump told Pecker that he doesn’t buy stories because that always ends up getting out. But he said he would speak w/ Michael Cohen and call Pecker back.
That day or the next day, Cohen called Pecker and said “You should go ahead and buy this story.”
That day or the next day, Cohen called Pecker and said “You should go ahead and buy this story.”
Pecker told Cohen he would have Howard negotiate the deal.
“Who is going to pay for it?” he asked Cohen
Cohen said “Don’t worry, I’m your friend, The Boss will take care of it.”
Pecker took that to mean he would be reimbursed by Trump or the Trump organization.
“Who is going to pay for it?” he asked Cohen
Cohen said “Don’t worry, I’m your friend, The Boss will take care of it.”
Pecker took that to mean he would be reimbursed by Trump or the Trump organization.
Pecker instructed Howard to negotiate the deal. He spoke with Cohen at times to update him on the progress.
When they spoke, Pecker says, Cohen seemed "agitated."
“Why is this taking so long?” Why haven’t we reached an agreement? Cohen would ask Pecker.
When they spoke, Pecker says, Cohen seemed "agitated."
“Why is this taking so long?” Why haven’t we reached an agreement? Cohen would ask Pecker.
Once Howard negotiated a price of 150K from McDougal's camp for the story, Pecker spoke to Cohen.
Cohen said that Pecker should pay for it, but Pecker was hesitant. Who would reimburse him?
Cohen again said "Don’t worry about it, I’m your friend, The Boss will take care of it."
Cohen said that Pecker should pay for it, but Pecker was hesitant. Who would reimburse him?
Cohen again said "Don’t worry about it, I’m your friend, The Boss will take care of it."
Pecker testifies that he had concerns about the legality of AMI paying to kill a story involving a political candidate.
Why? He traces his concerns back to the early 2000s, when he had a similar catch-and-kill agreement w/ Arnold Schwarzenegger, who successfully ran for governor of California.
That experience cause Pecker to be "sensitive" about legal issues.
That experience cause Pecker to be "sensitive" about legal issues.
As a result of what happened with Schwarzenegger, Pecker wanted to be comfortable with the agreement they were going to prepare for Karen McDougal, particularly with respect to the potential campaign contribution legalities.
There came a time when someone at AMI consulted w/ an election law attorney before the McDougal agreement was finalized, Pecker says.
When Pecker spoke to Cohen to tell him that the deal had been finalized, he also informed him that AMI consulted with a campaign attorney.
When Pecker spoke to Cohen to tell him that the deal had been finalized, he also informed him that AMI consulted with a campaign attorney.
The campaign attorney reviewed the McDougal contract, Pecker says.
The prosecution exhibits the McDougal contract. The contract would includes the purchase of McDougal's life rights and the story of her affair w/ Trump. But it also included an agreement for her to write articles for Pecker's publications.
The prosecution exhibits the McDougal contract. The contract would includes the purchase of McDougal's life rights and the story of her affair w/ Trump. But it also included an agreement for her to write articles for Pecker's publications.
Pecker says that he wanted the contract to stipulate that McDougal would perform services (i.e., write articles) for AMI bc he wanted it to look like the 150K payment had "a basis for it."
But in fact his primary purpose was to buy her life rights (i.e., her Trump story).
But in fact his primary purpose was to buy her life rights (i.e., her Trump story).
Were the provisions of the contract that involved McDougal performing services for your publications put in there to disguise the true nature of the contract? Steinglass asks for the prosecution.
Yes, it was, Pecker replies.
Yes, it was, Pecker replies.
Who was aware of the contract on the Trump side?
"Michael Cohen," Pecker replies.
Did anyone else other than Michael Cohen have knowledge of this contract?
“Yes, I believe Donald Trump did," Pecker says.
"Michael Cohen," Pecker replies.
Did anyone else other than Michael Cohen have knowledge of this contract?
“Yes, I believe Donald Trump did," Pecker says.
Did you ever have any intention of printing McDougal’s story about Trump? No.
Was your primary purpose of buying the story to suppress information regarding a political candidate? Yes.
And you were aware it was subject to campaign finance laws? Yes.
Was your primary purpose of buying the story to suppress information regarding a political candidate? Yes.
And you were aware it was subject to campaign finance laws? Yes.
Steinglass: Were you aware that expenditures by corporations made for the purpose of influencing an election in coordination with or at the request of a political campaign are unlawful?
Pecker: I did.
Did you report to the FEC?
Pecker: No.
Pecker: I did.
Did you report to the FEC?
Pecker: No.
Pecker talks about how, after AMI executed the contract, Trump had an interest in obtaining "boxes" of material regarding Karen McDougal.
“He wanted those boxes.”
[As I listen to this exchange from the gallery, I couldn't help but wonder: What is it with this guy and boxes?]
“He wanted those boxes.”
[As I listen to this exchange from the gallery, I couldn't help but wonder: What is it with this guy and boxes?]
Cohen kept calling Pecker about the boxes.
Pecker asked why he wanted the boxes so badly.
“The Boss said if I got hit by a bus or the company was sold then he did not want someone else to publish those stories," Cohen told Pecker.
Pecker asked why he wanted the boxes so badly.
“The Boss said if I got hit by a bus or the company was sold then he did not want someone else to publish those stories," Cohen told Pecker.
Pecker talks about how he expected to be reimbursed for the payment to McDougal.
He spoke to Cohen about signing the rights of McDougal’s story over to Trump.
Pecker said that because McDougal would be writing for his magazines under the contract, he wanted Cohen/Trump to reimburse him for the life rights for $125,000. (Pecker considered McDougal's writing services to be worth about $25,000.)
He spoke to Cohen about signing the rights of McDougal’s story over to Trump.
Pecker said that because McDougal would be writing for his magazines under the contract, he wanted Cohen/Trump to reimburse him for the life rights for $125,000. (Pecker considered McDougal's writing services to be worth about $25,000.)
They had an agreement signed for the $125,000 reimbursement to Pecker, but it was never executed.
Why? Prior to execution of the agreement, Pecker spoke to legal counsel and determined that he no longer wanted to be reimbursed for AMI's payment for the McDougal story.
Why? Prior to execution of the agreement, Pecker spoke to legal counsel and determined that he no longer wanted to be reimbursed for AMI's payment for the McDougal story.
In October 2016, Pecker called Cohen and told him that the deal is off. I want you to rip up the agreement, he said to Cohen.
Cohen was upset, screaming at Pecker. “The Boss is going to be very angry with you," Cohen said.
Cohen was upset, screaming at Pecker. “The Boss is going to be very angry with you," Cohen said.
Pecker did not say why he decided he no longer wanted the reimbursement. But he said he made the decision after speaking with legal counsel. [Pecker does not have to reveal the legal advice he was given during that meeting bc it's privileged.]
https://x.com/KeithDB80/status/1783520372282777643
The jury is now on a break, and Pecker is waiting to resume his testimony.
But the parties are arguing some evidentiary issues related to the admissibility of text messages between Dylan Howard and one of his relatives. Defense objects on hearsay, confrontation clause grounds.
But the parties are arguing some evidentiary issues related to the admissibility of text messages between Dylan Howard and one of his relatives. Defense objects on hearsay, confrontation clause grounds.
One of the text messages from Howard to the relative, for example, reads as follows: “At least if he wins I’ll be pardoned for electoral fraud.”
Merchan says that for now he'll exclude the messages from being admitted into evidence. As far as he can tell, it's a private conversation, not a business record, and there's a confrontation clause issue bc neither person will be subject to cross examination.
Merchan says that for now he'll exclude the messages from being admitted into evidence. As far as he can tell, it's a private conversation, not a business record, and there's a confrontation clause issue bc neither person will be subject to cross examination.
Before Merchan brings Pecker & the jurors back in, he asks the parties if Pecker's testimony will wrap up today.
Prosecution estimates 2-3 hours more for direct examination. Bove, for Trump, says they won't finish cross exam today.
Expect Pecker back on the stand tomorrow.
Prosecution estimates 2-3 hours more for direct examination. Bove, for Trump, says they won't finish cross exam today.
Expect Pecker back on the stand tomorrow.
The jurors file back in, looking hungry (or is that just me?).
Pecker takes the stand, and we launch into a discussion of the infamous Access Hollywood tape.
Pecker takes the stand, and we launch into a discussion of the infamous Access Hollywood tape.
After the Access Hollywood tape was published, Pecker spoke to Cohen.
Cohen told Pecker the tape was "damaging" for the campaign and they were concerned about its impact.
Cohen told Pecker the tape was "damaging" for the campaign and they were concerned about its impact.
Days after the Access Hollywood tape came out, Pecker went to dinner with his wife. He received an urgent call from Dylan Howard.
Howard said that a woman name Stormy Daniels was trying to sell a story that she had a relationship w/ Donald Trump.
Howard told Pecker that they could acquire the story for $120,000 if they make a decision "right now."
Howard said that a woman name Stormy Daniels was trying to sell a story that she had a relationship w/ Donald Trump.
Howard told Pecker that they could acquire the story for $120,000 if they make a decision "right now."
Pecker told Howard that they couldn't pay $120,000.
"I don't want the National Enquirer to be associated with a porn star," Pecker says he told Howard that night.
Chuckles in the gallery.
"I don't want the National Enquirer to be associated with a porn star," Pecker says he told Howard that night.
Chuckles in the gallery.
Pecker later spoke to Michael Cohen, who asked him to pay for the story.
Pecker said I’m not paying for this story. “I am not going to be involved with a porn star," he said.
And after paying for the Dino Sajudin and Karen McDougal stories, we’re not paying anymore, Pecker told Cohen.
Pecker said I’m not paying for this story. “I am not going to be involved with a porn star," he said.
And after paying for the Dino Sajudin and Karen McDougal stories, we’re not paying anymore, Pecker told Cohen.
Pecker later found out that Dylan Howard had been speaking w/ Cohen, which angered Pecker bc he had instructed Howard to stay out of it.
But in late October, Howard came to Pecker's office and told him that there was an agreement between Daniels’s lawyer and Michael Cohen. But Cohen had twice failed to pay the agreed sum.
But in late October, Howard came to Pecker's office and told him that there was an agreement between Daniels’s lawyer and Michael Cohen. But Cohen had twice failed to pay the agreed sum.
Howard was upset because Daniels’s lawyer, Keith Davidson, had been a good source for him and he thought Cohen’s non-payment made him look bad.
So Pecker told Howard he would call Cohen. When they spoke, Cohen again asked Pecker to pay for the Daniels story. Pecker declined.
So Pecker told Howard he would call Cohen. When they spoke, Cohen again asked Pecker to pay for the Daniels story. Pecker declined.
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal published a story about the deal with Karen McDougal.
After the WSJ article came out, Pecker spoke to Trump on Nov. 5—3 days before election day. Trump was upset, saying “how could this happen.”
Trump thought Pecker leaked the story.
After the WSJ article came out, Pecker spoke to Trump on Nov. 5—3 days before election day. Trump was upset, saying “how could this happen.”
Trump thought Pecker leaked the story.
Pecker told Trump that there was “no way on earth” he or anyone at AMI leaked the story. But Pecker got the sense that Trump didn't believe him.
Trump was very "agitated" and the call ended abruptly.
Trump was very "agitated" and the call ended abruptly.
After the WSJ article about McDougal, AMI received a call from an attorney representing her. They wanted the confidentiality agreement amended so she could speak to the press.
Pecker spoke with Michael Cohen to see what he thought about amending the agreement.
Cohen "said it was a very bad idea, that the boss would be very angry," according to Pecker.
Cohen recommended not allowing McDougal to speak with the press.
Cohen "said it was a very bad idea, that the boss would be very angry," according to Pecker.
Cohen recommended not allowing McDougal to speak with the press.
Pecker didn't take Cohen's advice. He agreed to amend the confidentiality agreement with McDougal. The agreement was amended on Dec. 16, 2020. Trump, at that point, had already been elected president.
But sometime before Trump was elected, Pecker had meeting w/ Cohen at Trump tower. He was still asking Pecker about the boxes Trump wanted. Pecker said he didn't need to worry about the boxes, they didn't contain anything damaging.
Cohen also told Pecker he wasn’t reimbursed for the money owed to him on the Stormy Daniels payment. It was the first time Pecker learned that Cohen had paid Stormy Daniels out of his own funds. Pecker understood that Cohen was complaining that he had not been repaid.
Cohen said the bonuses for the Trump Organization would be paid at Christmas and he asked if Pecker would talk to "The Boss" and put in a good word for him.
At one point during the meeting, Trump entered the room. Cohen said to Trump “I’m talking to David about all the old Enquirer files," referring to the boxes.
"I looked at the files and we have nothing to be concerned about.”
At one point during the meeting, Trump entered the room. Cohen said to Trump “I’m talking to David about all the old Enquirer files," referring to the boxes.
"I looked at the files and we have nothing to be concerned about.”
Pecker asked Trump if he could walk to his office with him. In Trump's office, Pecker told him that Cohen was concerned about his bonus this year and that he has been working very hard.
“I believe he would throw himself in front of a bus for you," Pecker told Trump.
Trump said "I don’t know what you're talking about." Michael Cohen, Trump said, has multiple apartments in my buildings and owns taxi medallions. He told Pecker “don’t worry about it, I’ll take care of it.”
“I believe he would throw himself in front of a bus for you," Pecker told Trump.
Trump said "I don’t know what you're talking about." Michael Cohen, Trump said, has multiple apartments in my buildings and owns taxi medallions. He told Pecker “don’t worry about it, I’ll take care of it.”
Later, after Trump was president-elect, Pecker got a call summonsing him to Trump tower. He went.
When he arrived in Trump’s office, Trump was in a meeting with Sean Spicer, James Comey, and Reince Priebus. They were updating him on a shooting in Florida.
When he arrived in Trump’s office, Trump was in a meeting with Sean Spicer, James Comey, and Reince Priebus. They were updating him on a shooting in Florida.
Trump introduced Pecker to Comey, Spicer, and Priebus. Here’s David Pecker, Trump said. "He’s the owner and publisher of the National Enquirer, and he probably knows more than anyone in this room.”
Thankfully, no one laughed, Pecker says.
Thankfully, no one laughed, Pecker says.
After Spicer, Priebus, and Comey left, Trump asked “How’s our girl doing"--a reference to McDougal.
She's good, she's quiet, Pecker told him. She’s writing her articles.
Trump thanked Pecker for the McDougal deal and the "doorman situation."
She's good, she's quiet, Pecker told him. She’s writing her articles.
Trump thanked Pecker for the McDougal deal and the "doorman situation."
Did he say why he was so appreciative? Steinglass asks.
“He said the stories could be very embarrassing.”
Pecker took that to mean embarrassing to Trump, his family, and the campaign.
“He said the stories could be very embarrassing.”
Pecker took that to mean embarrassing to Trump, his family, and the campaign.
Did he ever say anything that made you think his concern was for his family rather than his campaign?
“I thought it was for the campaign.”
During his conversations w/ Cohen and Trump, concerns about family wasn’t mention. So I made the “assumption” that it was about the campaign, Pecker says.
“I thought it was for the campaign.”
During his conversations w/ Cohen and Trump, concerns about family wasn’t mention. So I made the “assumption” that it was about the campaign, Pecker says.
Pecker says that before Trump ran for election and story came up, he would talk about what his family and Melania would think.
But after Trump announced his candidacy, Pecker continues, he never mentioned anything how Melania or Ivanka or his family might react.
But after Trump announced his candidacy, Pecker continues, he never mentioned anything how Melania or Ivanka or his family might react.
At the end of the Trump Tower meeting, Trump said he would invite Pecker to the inauguration. He followed through on that promise.
But Pecker didn't go to Trump's inauguration. Why? Because his wife didn’t want to go.
But Pecker didn't go to Trump's inauguration. Why? Because his wife didn’t want to go.
We’re on lunch break until 2:15, which is good news because my stomach was growling.
And you know what else is growling? Ben Wittes’s dog shirt. (Ben, for those who don’t know, wears a dog shirt daily.)
You can support our work (& buy us lunch) here: ⬇️ givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…
And you know what else is growling? Ben Wittes’s dog shirt. (Ben, for those who don’t know, wears a dog shirt daily.)
You can support our work (& buy us lunch) here: ⬇️ givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…
We're back. Trump has returned to his seat at the defense table.
Among those joining him today? Boris Epshteyn, a Trump ally who was indicted in Arizona yesterday on charges related to the 2020 election.
I have yet to see any members of Trump's family in court.
Among those joining him today? Boris Epshteyn, a Trump ally who was indicted in Arizona yesterday on charges related to the 2020 election.
I have yet to see any members of Trump's family in court.
David Pecker returns to the witness stand. He's wearing a charcoal suit, a light pink collared shirt, and a red tie.
Then the jurors file into court.
Steinglass, for the prosecution, trots to the lectern to resume his direct examination.
Then the jurors file into court.
Steinglass, for the prosecution, trots to the lectern to resume his direct examination.
Sometime in 2017, Pecker says he got a call from then President Trump. Trump invited him to the White House for dinner. He also invited Pecker’s wife.
Pecker ended up accepting the invitation. He brought several business associates. Among them: Dylan Howard.
Pecker ended up accepting the invitation. He brought several business associates. Among them: Dylan Howard.
During the visit to the White House, Trump walked with Pecker to the Rose Garden.
Trump asked, “How’s Karen doing?” It was a reference to McDougal.
Pecker replied: She’s good, she’s quiet.
Trump asked, “How’s Karen doing?” It was a reference to McDougal.
Pecker replied: She’s good, she’s quiet.
That White House dinner was on July 11, 2017.
The next month, in August, Pecker met with Karen McDougal at an Italian restaurant in NY. Also at the meeting were Keith Davidson and Dylan Howard.
The meeting came about because Davidson called Howard and said he thought it was a good idea for everyone to meet.
The next month, in August, Pecker met with Karen McDougal at an Italian restaurant in NY. Also at the meeting were Keith Davidson and Dylan Howard.
The meeting came about because Davidson called Howard and said he thought it was a good idea for everyone to meet.
Pecker wanted to make sure that McDougal was "comfortable." He wanted her to remain in their “family." He wanted to make sure that they were complying with what they had promised her in the original agreement (regarding opportunities for her to do media appearances and publish articles.)
In 2018, Pecker received a letter from the federal election commission. He called Cohen “immediately” after receiving the letter.
Pecker told Cohen he was worried.
"Why are you worried?" Cohen asked. "Jeff Sessions is the AG and Donald Trump has him in his pocket," he said.
Pecker told Cohen he was worried.
"Why are you worried?" Cohen asked. "Jeff Sessions is the AG and Donald Trump has him in his pocket," he said.
Now Steinglass elicits testimony from Pecker regarding the non-prosecution agreement AMI reached with federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York in 2018. Steinglass has Pecker read several passages from the agreement aloud.
documentcloud.org/documents/5540…
documentcloud.org/documents/5540…
[Note: Before Pecker began reading aloud from the non-prosecution agreement, Merchan instructed the jury that they are not to consider the facts in the agreement as substantive evidence of Trump's culpability.
They are, he said, to "assist you in assessing David Pecker's credibility and to help provide context surrounding some of the events."]
They are, he said, to "assist you in assessing David Pecker's credibility and to help provide context surrounding some of the events."]
Do you have any ill will toward the defendant? Steinglass asks.
No. On the contrary, Pecker replies, Donald Trump was my mentor. He helped me in my career.
No. On the contrary, Pecker replies, Donald Trump was my mentor. He helped me in my career.
Pecker launches into a story about how, in 2001, all of his magazine offices were consolidated in one building in Boca Raton. That October, shortly after 9/11, his office received multiple anthrax letters.
One of the editors at his magazine inhaled anthrax and ended up dying. The FBI quarantined the building. All of the content they had stored inside—stories, photos—were quarantined.
One of the editors at his magazine inhaled anthrax and ended up dying. The FBI quarantined the building. All of the content they had stored inside—stories, photos—were quarantined.
I was in a very, very difficult place, Pecker says.
And “The first person who called me if I needed help was Donald Trump,”
Trump called him during that time and recommended an attorney, helped him in other ways.
And “The first person who called me if I needed help was Donald Trump,”
Trump called him during that time and recommended an attorney, helped him in other ways.
On that note, Steinglass announces that he has concluded the prosecution's direct.
Then Emil Bove strides to the lectern to begin his cross examination on behalf of Trump.
Then Emil Bove strides to the lectern to begin his cross examination on behalf of Trump.
Bove begins his cross examination by asking Pecker a series of questions about business practices in the tabloid magazine industry. You buy stories as a part of your standard business practice, right? And you’ve bought stories that aren’t about Trump? That kind of thing.
He’s trying to elicit testimony to support the defense theory of the case: That there’s nothing illegal about hush money payments. And that there’s nothing unusual about a campaign coordinating with friendly media entities. In the defense narrative, that's just standard operating procedure.
1998 was the first time you gave Trump a heads up about a potentially negative story, right? Yes.
So you provided Trump w/ a heads up about negative stories for 17 years? Yes.
Before this investigation started, you had never heard the phrase catch and kill? Right.
The first time you heard that term was from a prosecutor? Right.
So you provided Trump w/ a heads up about negative stories for 17 years? Yes.
Before this investigation started, you had never heard the phrase catch and kill? Right.
The first time you heard that term was from a prosecutor? Right.
Bove asks Pecker about other celebrities with whom he had a "mutually beneficial" relationship and for whom he has sought to publish positive stories or kill negative stories.
You had similar relationships w/ people other than Trump? Yes.
Meaning other people who you would publish positive stories about because it was mutually beneficial? Yes.
And you know that politicians often work w/ media? Yes.
That's standard operating procedure? Yes.
You had similar relationships w/ people other than Trump? Yes.
Meaning other people who you would publish positive stories about because it was mutually beneficial? Yes.
And you know that politicians often work w/ media? Yes.
That's standard operating procedure? Yes.
Pecker says he helped suppress a negative story about the actor Mark Wahlberg. Wahlberg had an argument with his wife. The story was “bubbling” and was going to come out, Pecker says.
Pecker also admits that he helped suppress a negative story about Rahm Emmanuel at the request of Emmanuel's brother, Ari.
Pecker also admits that he helped suppress a negative story about Rahm Emmanuel at the request of Emmanuel's brother, Ari.
Moving on, Bove tries to focus the jurors on (1) the fact that the events underlying this prosecution occurred long ago, and (2) potential inconsistencies in Pecker's testimony and recollections.
Pecker admits, for example, that he initially testified to a grand jury that the pivotal August 2015 Trump Tower meeting occurred during the first week of August. At trial, he testified that meeting occurred in the middle of August.
Did you know Trump was at a debate at that time, so he couldn’t have been present for that meeting? I did not know he was at a debate, Pecker says.
Did you know Trump was at a debate at that time, so he couldn’t have been present for that meeting? I did not know he was at a debate, Pecker says.
These events were a long time ago? Yes.
And you spoke to people who have given you information that has helped you put together some of the dates? Pecker says prosecutors always told him to testify to the best of his recollection.
And you spoke to people who have given you information that has helped you put together some of the dates? Pecker says prosecutors always told him to testify to the best of his recollection.
You testified at trial that Hope Hicks was “in and out” of that August 2015 meeting? Yes.
The first time you testified about this meeting was in 2018, right? Yes.
With federal prosecutors? Yes.
And you were warned that it was a crime to withhold information? Yes.
You understood it was serious? Yes.
The first time you testified about this meeting was in 2018, right? Yes.
With federal prosecutors? Yes.
And you were warned that it was a crime to withhold information? Yes.
You understood it was serious? Yes.
And in that interview in July of 2018, you did not tell *anyone* that Hope Hicks was present at the August 2015 meeting, correct?
This elicits an objection. Merchan invites the parties to the bench for a sidebar out of earshot of the jurors. He sustains the objection.
This elicits an objection. Merchan invites the parties to the bench for a sidebar out of earshot of the jurors. He sustains the objection.
Bove tries again. He proffers a report from the meeting Pecker had in July 2018. At that meeting, you were specifically asked about what happened in August 2015 at Trump Tower, right? Yes.
And that document doesn't indicate that you said Hope Hicks was at that meeting, correct? Pecker agrees.
And that document doesn't indicate that you said Hope Hicks was at that meeting, correct? Pecker agrees.
Bove: You also testified before a federal grand jury after that meeting, correct? Prosecutors object and ask to approach the bench. An out-of-earshot sidebar ensues.
When the parties return from the bench, Merchan tells the jurors that we're going to break for the day.
When the parties return from the bench, Merchan tells the jurors that we're going to break for the day.
Once the jurors are out of the room, the parties discuss prosecutors' objection to Bove's line of questioning regarding Pecker's previous statements about Hope Hicks' presence at the 2015 Trump Tower meeting.
Merchan gets frustrated with Bove. Basically, he thinks Bove didn't properly refresh Pecker's recollection and that the testimony he elicited as a result might mislead the jurors. He says he'll try to cure potential misperceptions with a jury instruction before we begin tomorrow morning.
Merchan gets frustrated with Bove. Basically, he thinks Bove didn't properly refresh Pecker's recollection and that the testimony he elicited as a result might mislead the jurors. He says he'll try to cure potential misperceptions with a jury instruction before we begin tomorrow morning.
And with that, court is out for the day.
But Ben Wittes and I aren't done with our coverage just yet!
At 5:30 ET, we'll go live on @lawfare's YouTube channel to discuss what happened on Day 3 of Trump's trial.
Join us then, and subscribe:
But Ben Wittes and I aren't done with our coverage just yet!
At 5:30 ET, we'll go live on @lawfare's YouTube channel to discuss what happened on Day 3 of Trump's trial.
Join us then, and subscribe:
@lawfare As ever, this thread is powered by @lawfare.
If you appreciate our non-profit, non-partisan reporting and analysis of Trump’s criminal trials, we hope you’ll consider donating to support our work!
And many thanks to those who have already done so.
givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…
If you appreciate our non-profit, non-partisan reporting and analysis of Trump’s criminal trials, we hope you’ll consider donating to support our work!
And many thanks to those who have already done so.
givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
