Thread by @AnnaBower

It’s a chilly Friday morning in Manhattan, where Day 4 of Donald Trump’s criminal trial on 34 felony counts for falsification of business records is set to resume.

I’m here to cover the trial for @lawfare.

Follow this thread for updates ⬇️ 👇

We left off yesterday w/ the cross examination of David Pecker, the former tabloid publisher.

You can catch up on Pecker’s testimony in my thread below 🧵.

And if you appreciate our minute-to-minute coverage, please consider supporting our work: givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…

https://twitter.com/annabower/status/1783469682915176711

While Pecker is set to retake the stand for cross examination and re-direct, a second witness could be called to testify sometime today.

But it's not entirely clear who prosecutors intend to call next. Among the possibilities: Rhona Graff, Trump's former executive assistant; Hope Hicks, former White House Communications director; Karen McDougal, the former Playmate who received a so-called "hush money" payout from Pecker.

Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified business records with an intent commit, aid, or conceal another crime. But what other crime?

While we wait for things to get started, I suggest this helpful explainer from @qjurecic on the legal theories underlying charges: lawfaremedia.org/article/charti…

Donald Trump just arrived in court for Day 4 of his trial.

And, I have to say, his attire is something of a sartorial plot twist: He's wearing a blue tie.

I've been in court with Trump more than a dozen times and I can't recall an occasion when he hasn't opted for a red tie.

"All rise" as Justice Juan Merchan sweeps into the room, and so Day 4 begins.

After dealing with some miscellaneous matters, David Pecker is sworn in.

He's wearing a grey suit. He's still sporting the walrus-style mustache.

Now the jurors are ushered into the room, and Bove picks up where he left off yesterday, when he tried to elicit testimony regarding Pecker's previous statements--or lack thereof--about Hope Hicks' presence at the 2015 Trump Tower meeting.

That line of questioning drew an objection from the prosecution. And Justice Merchan admonished Bove, indicating that he didn't properly refresh Pecker's recollection and that the testimony he elicited as a result might mislead the jurors.

Before the jurors were brought in, Bove apologized to the judge for the confusion yesterday, saying that he would try again, this time by properly laying foundation.

And so with Pecker on the stand, Bove begins with his Hope Hicks inquiry.

You testified in federal grand jury proceedings, right? Yes.
And you were under oath? Yes.
And you recall being asked if you met w/ Donald Trump and Michael Cohen at Trump Tower?--
The latter question elicits an objection, and Merchan instructs Bove to refer to a specific part of the transcript to which he is referring.

Bove complies w/ the court’s instruction and directs Pecker to the transcript in front of him. Presumably, it's a copy of Pecker's 2018 federal grand jury testimony.

And during that testimony in August of 2018, you did not make any statements about Hope Hicks? Bove asks.

Another objection, which is sustained.

Now Bove decides to move on from Hope Hicks. He wants to talk about the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting, in which Pecker, Cohen, and Trump allegedly hatched a scheme to influence the election through hush money payments and negative media stories about Trump's opponents.

You testified on Tuesday that it was your objective to keep the August 2015 meeting “confidential”? Yes.
You said “highly, highly confidential”? Yes.
You testified about a WSJ article related to Karen McDougal? Yes.
That WSJ article came out before the election? Yes.

Bove then exhibits an excerpt of the WSJ article, which says that the National Enquirer has supported Trump’s presidential bid by publishing negative stories about his election.
So this was out there before the election, right? Yes.
And at that 2015 meeting, the concept of "catch and kill" was not discussed, right? Correct.
And there was no discussion of a financial element to any of it? Correct.

Bove moves to the next topic of his cross examination: Dino Sajudin, the former Trump Tower doorman who AMI paid $30,000 for a story regarding his claim that Trump fathered an illegitimate child.
Trump never paid you any money in connection with that agreement? Right.
And neither did Cohen? Right.

If the story about Trump was true, you said it would have been the biggest National Enquirer story ever? Yes.
And so if this story was true then you would’ve run it? Yes.
It made business sense, if true? Yes.
And you knew that to be the case as soon as you heard about it? Yes.

You didn’t give Sajudin the money right away, right? Right.
Because AMI wanted to vet the story, and that took time, right? Yes.
And sometime after this agreement, but before you paid him, Sajudin started to make threats about going elsewhere? Yes.
And that’s why you decided to give Sajudin $30,000? Yes.
Because it would be too great a loss to AMI if the story was true? Yes.

Now Bove turns to another aspect of the alleged hush-money scheme cooked up by Cohen, Trump, and Pecker: AMI's payment to Karen McDougal, who allegedly had an affair with Trump.
Trump did not pay you any money related to Karen McDougal? Right.
Nor did Michael Cohen? No.
When you first learned about this story, you knew she did not want to publish it? Right.
What she wanted to do was restart her career? Yes.
And after you learned that you thought it was an opportunity for AMI to help her do that? Yes.
She had worked for a magazine before? Yes.

As a part of its agreement with McDougal, AMI ultimately published 65 stories in McDougal’s name? Yes.
When AMI signed this agreement, you believed it had a legitimate business purpose, correct? I did.

There's a consistent theme throughout Bove's questions about the Trump Tower meeting, the Sajudin payout, and the McDougal payout. He's attempting to show the jury that AMI and Pecker had a business interest in these agreements--that they weren't executed to benefit the campaign. And he's trying to suggest that these types of "hush money" agreements are just "standard operating procedure" in the tabloid magazine industry. Indeed, that's the term Bove keeps using over and over again: "standard operating procedure."

Bove displays an exhibit that displays an invoice for the $125,000 payment Cohen agreed to pay as a reimbursement of sorts after AMI bought McDougal's life rights. (The payment was ultimately not made after Pecker reneged on the agreement.)

Using the invoice, Bove attempts to highlight potential inconsistencies in Pecker's statements.
Do you remember testifying that you saw this document at the time it was prepared in 2016? Pecker says yes, he did testify to that. But then Bove proffers a transcript of a meeting Pecker had in 2019 with state prosecutors.

Do you recall saying during that meeting that the first time you saw this invoice was in 2017, when you were going through document production for federal prosecutors?

Pecker pauses for a moment before replying. The statement in 2019 is correct, he finally concedes.

Bove again tries to attack Pecker's credibility, this time focusing on his recollection of a Jan. 6, 2017 meeting w/ Trump at Trump Tower. Yesterday, Pecker testified that Trump thanked him for Karen McDougal and "the doorman situation" at that meeting.

https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1783543780806721652

But Bove exhibits an FBI report summarizing an interview between Pecker and federal law enforcement officials in 2018. In that FBI interview, Bove says, do you recall saying that "Trump did not express any gratitude to Pecker or AMI” during the Jan. 6, 2017 Trump Tower meeting?

Pecker is confused. These are the FBI's notes, right? he asks Bove. Bove confirms that it's the FBI's report of the meeting conducted w/ Pecker 2018.

Pecker pushes back: The FBI notes could be wrong. I am not responsible for this report. I know what I said yesterday, I know what the truth is, I know what was said to me.

Still, Pecker ultimately acknowledges that the FBI notes are inconsistent w/ what he testified to yesterday.

With that, Judge Merchan announces that we're ready for our morning break.

Bove, for his part, estimates that he needs another hour to wrap up cross examination.

While we wait for cross examination to resume: Add a Mark Cuban reference to your Trump trials bingo card.

On cross examination this morning, Pecker acknowledged that he once agreed to send paparazzi to photograph a meeting between @mcuban and Michael Cohen. Cohen apparently thought that publication of the photos would impress Trump and "put pressure" on him to treat Cohen differently.

Bove is back to resume his cross examination. He begins by focusing on the non-prosecution agreement AMI reached with federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York in 2018. The non-pros related to AMI's hush money payment to McDougal.

https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1783571589339988303

If AMI had been indicted, that would have affected the value of its assets? Yes.
Indicted means charged correct? Yes.
But AMI wasn’t charged? Yes
You described this as a "non-prosecution agreement"? Yes.
And there are no charges in this agreement? Yes.

You testified yesterday that you admitted to a campaign violation? Yes.
But there is no admission of a violation in this agreement? Yes.
That’s why it’s called a non-prosecution agreement? Yes.
So no admission of any kind of campaign violation in this agreement, right? Right.

You testified yesterday about a statement of facts attached to this agreement? Yes.
And it was incorporated into the agreement? Yes.
And you reviewed and approved that agreement, right? Yes.
Bove displays the statement of facts, zooms in on paragraph 3.

And you testified that during the Aug. 15 Trump Tower meeting, there was no discussion of “catch-and-kill”? Yes.
And you testified that there was no discussion of a financial component between AMI and Trump and Cohen? Pecker: I testified that I would be the eyes and ears of the campaign, and I would notify Michael Cohen so they could be purchased and taken off the market.

Are you testifying *now* that there *was* a financial component discussed during the Aug. 15 meeting? Bove asks Pecker.

It's another effort by the defense to portray Pecker as an unreliable narrator.

But the question elicits an objection, which Merchan sustains.

Bove turns to a 2018 letter Pecker received from the federal elections commission. Yesterday, Pecker said that he spoke to Cohen about the letter. Cohen told Pecker not to worry about it because "Jeff Sessions is the AG and Trump has him in his pocket."

https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1783569681082671511

You knew that wasn’t right? Bove asks, referring to the idea that Sessions was in Trump's "pocket."

Yes, Pecker says, that’s why I said to Cohen that I was worried.

Because Trump didn't have Sessions in his "pocket"? Yes.

Cohen is prone to exaggeration? Yes.

Your attorneys argued to the FEC that you had not committed a campaign finance violation? Yes.
And you believed in 2021 that that was true, yes? Yes.
And that’s why you authorized your lawyers to make that argument to a federal agency? Yes.

Now we're back to the beautiful mind paper boxes (National Enquirer's version).

Bove reminds Pecker that he testified that Cohen had asked him about obtaining "boxes" of material about Trump from the National Enquirer.

https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1783512731141677350

And there was some concern from Michael Cohen about what would happen with these boxes if you left AMI? Yes.
But you weren’t suggesting that there was some trove of damaging information about Trump in the National Enquirer boxes? Right.
And there was nothing damaging in them? Yes, Pecker confirms, there was nothing.

Bove is done with his cross, and Joshua Steinglass pops up on behalf of the prosecution for re-direct.

Prior to the McDougal agreement, you spoke to outside counsel? Yes.
Did you tell outside counsel about Trump Tower meeting? No.
Did you tell them that Cohen had promised to reimburse you? No.

Steinglass refreshes Pecker’s recollection as to how much time AMI was billed for review of the McDougal contract. It was half an hour, Pecker confirms.

Then Steinglass launches into a series of questions about the context omitted from the plain text of the contract. The contract itself doesn’t mention anything about the agreement Pecker reached with Cohen and Trump at Trump Tower in 2015, for example.

You testified that after you entered the contract w/ McDougal, you agreed to sell Cohen her life rights? Yes.
The only reason you entered the McDougal contract in the first place is bc Cohen agreed to reimburse you? Right.

And you had a written agreement to sell McDougal’s life rights to Cohen? Yes.
And you had a conversation with legal counsel before Cohen paid you $125,000 pursuant to that agreement? Yes, Pecker says. After that conversation, I called Cohen and told him to rip up the agreement.

Speaking of Michael Cohen, he told you he didn't work for the campaign, he said he worked for the Trump Organization? Yes.
But you were aware that Cohen did campaign-related work? Yes.
He invited you to Trump's candidacy announcement? Yes.

You testified that there were "hundreds of thousands" of non-disclosure agreements executed by your tabloid magazines? Yes.

And how many of those NDAs involved coordination with a campaign to help a presidential candidate?

It's the only one, Pecker replies.

Prior to your August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower, did you ever preview positive stories you planned to run about a political candidate with his campaign? No.
Prior to 2015 meeting, did you ever agree to actively seek out damaging stories and report them to Trump? No.

What was your understanding about the aspect of the agreement reached that involved money? I would use the company's sources to look for damaging information about Trump, then inform Cohen about it. And Cohen or someone else would buy them so they wouldn't get published.

Before we break for lunch, Steinglass asks Pecker about the reason why he chose not to publish the McDougal story about her affair with Trump.

That story would have helped your bottom line, but you killed the story to help candidate Donald Trump?

That’s correct, Pecker says.

When you’re covering the trial of a former President, there’s not much time for lunch.

Though court breaks for more than an hour, the security situation means that it takes a while to get out of the courthouse and back.

Today, I had just enough time to grab a bowl of soup.

Trump has returned to his seat at the defense table, and the trial should resume momentarily.

In the meantime, if you appreciate our minute-to-minute coverage of the proceedings, I hope you'll consider supporting our work: givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…

And we're back, with Steinglass on direct.

Why did you reach out to Cohen when you learned that Stormy Daniels was shopping a story about sexual infidelity by Trump?

It went back to our agreement in 2015 that I would tip off Cohen about negative stories, Pecker says.

If Cohen heard it from someone else, he would have gone "ballistic," Pecker continues.

And you didn't want to have anything to do with paying for the story? Yes.

But you were still fulfilling your obligation to bring Cohen negative stories about Trump? Correct.

Steinglass asks Pecker a series of questions about the interview he sat for with the FBI in 2018.

Why? On cross examination, Bove tried to attack Pecker's credibility by suggesting that Pecker's statements to the FBI were inconsistent w/ his testimony at trial yesterday.

You didn't take notes during those interviews? No, I did not.

It was the FBI that took those notes? Yes.

Steinglass is trying to get the point across that it's the FBI's notes, not Pecker's recollection, that contains an error.

Now Bove is back up for re-cross.

McDougal didn’t want to publish her Trump story? Yes
She wanted to promote her image? Yes
She was a legitimate celebrity at that time?...Pecker looks dubious, and there’s a long pause, which prompts chuckles in the press overflow courtroom.

McDougal would not at that time be thought of as a legitimate celebrity, Pecker finally says.

Ouch.

You know Trump cares about his family? Yes
And so you know that those stories coming out in 2016 was something that was stressful to him? Objection, sustained.

And with that--after four days of testimony--Pecker is done. He climbs down from the witness stand.

The People call their next witness: Rhona Graff, Trump's former executive assistant and senior vice President of the Trump Organization.

Graff no longer works for the Trump Org, but she was there for 34 years.

She's appearing at her former boss's trial today under subpoena. She's joined by legal counsel, who are being paid for by the Trump Organization, she says.

Graff sets out some of the responsibilities she performed as Trump's executive assistant. She maintained his calendar, contacts, etc.

Susan Hoffinger, on behalf of the DA's office, asks Graff to review and identify email exhibits. Some of the emails involve Madeline Westerhout, one of Trump's assistants, and Graff.

Hoffinger also asks Graff to review exhibits that include the contacts of Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, which were entered into the Trump Org's outlook computer system.

Graff says she has a vague recollection of seeing Stormy Daniels in the reception area of Trump Tower around 2015. At the time, Graff knew she was an adult film actress.

Hoffinger displays exhibits showing calendar entries for Trump's schedule on Jan. 17, 2017. On that date, he was scheduled to have teleprompter practice and a photoshoot w/ WaPo in Trump Tower.

The purpose of this is to show that Trump was at Trump Tower on Jan. 17, 2017.

That's all from the prosecution.

Now Susan Necheles, for the defense, is up. She asks Graff about her work at the Trump Organization. Graff seems to have fond memories of her time working there.

Graff says that Trump's office was right next to hers. And she says that she has a "vague" memory of Trump saying that Stormy Daniels is someone who might be an interesting addition to his reality TV show, the Apprentice. It was "office chatter," she said.

Graff says that on the occasion she saw Stormy Daniels at Trump Tower, she "assumed" that Daniels was there to discuss being cast on The Apprentice.

You saw Tump sign checks? Yes.

And often he was multitasking when he did so? It depends, but it would happen, yes.

The only reason you're testifying today is because you worked at the Trump Org? Yes.

You have nothing personally to add to this? No, I don't

And you don't want to be here today? No

And legal fees are expensive? Yes

Is the payment of your legal fees by the Trump Org contingent on how you testify? No

And you're here to tell the truth? Yes

Graff is done.

After a brief recess, the People call their third witness: Gary Farro, who was a senior managing director at First Republic Bank.

First Republic plays a role in the story bc Cohen allegedly wired the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels using First Republic.

Farro says that he left First Republic last year after the bank was purchased by another financial institution. He now works at another bank.

Rebecca Mangold, for the prosecution, then asks Farro a series of questions about First Republic's policies and practices.

One of the types of transactions that requires additional review are transactions involving political candidates. The bank also wouldn't do business in the adult film industry, he testifies.

What's a shell corporation? Rebeccas Mangold asks on behalf of the prosecution.

It's an entity opened up to send out money and receive wires, but it doesn't have an actual business behind it, Farro says.

Farro says he knows Michael Cohen. After a colleague left the bank in 2015, Cohen was assigned to Farro.

Farro was told he was selected because of his knowledge and because of his ability to handle individuals who are a little "challenging."

Cohen had more than one account at First Republic, Farro says.

His accounts related to to his personal accounts and personal entities, not his work at the Trump organization.

Cohen was familiar w/ banking requirements and review process, Farro says.

Mangold displays a First Republic bank email dated Oct. 11, 2016. It's from Farro's assistant. "Michael Cohen just called for you, I let him know you were out of the office" He asked for you to give him a call, the email continues.

Two days later, Farro's assistant sent another email saying "Please return Michael Cohen's call when you are available regarding an important matter."

Farro called Cohen, who said he wanted to open a new LLC account. He said it was an account for real estate.

On Oct. 13, 2016, Farro sent an email to his team members instructing them that Cohen needed an account "immediately."

It wasn't unusual for Cohen to say that something needed to be done immediately.

Cohen wanted no address listed on the checks for the new account.

The LLC Cohen wanted a new account for was called "Resolution Consultants," and Farro's understanding was that it was supposed to be for real estate purposes.

The LLC was established in Delaware on Sept. 30, 2016.

Later on Oct. 13, one of Farro's team members sent Cohen an email with account paperwork attached, instructing him to complete the paperwork and return it to the bank.

Cohen filled out the paperwork. One one of the documents, the bank asked whether the account was associated with political fundraising or a political action committee. Cohen checked "no" on the paperwork.

Farro says the bank did all the work to establish the account but it never went live b/c Cohen didn't fund it. So the account was technically never opened.

Cohen initially didn't explain why he didn't fund the account. Cohen called later that month, on Oct. 26, to say he changed course and no longer wanted to open the Resolutions LLC account.

The new LLC was called Essential Consultants LLC. As with Resolutions LLC, Cohen indicated that the LLC was for real estate consulting purposes.

On the bank forms, Cohen similarly marked "no" in response to the question about political fundraising/political action committees.

Mangold announces that she's at a natural stopping point.

"We'll call it a week," Justice Merchan tells the jurors.

Merchan gives them the usual instructions before they leave: Don't talk to people about the case. Don't Google the case. Don't do independent research, etc.

And so the first week of Trump’s trial comes to an end.

“Way to end with a bang, huh?” one reporter quips as we exit the press room.

This focus on bank documents during the afternoon session is a reminder that even trials involving former presidents can get a little boring…

But there’s still plenty to talk about, including the conclusion of David Pecker’s testimony and what’s in store for next week.

At 6 p.m. ET, I’ll discuss with Ben Wittes and @TylerMcBrien.

Join us and subscribe:

@TylerMcBrien Thanks again to all who watched, read, and listened to our coverage this week!

And a special thanks to those who pitched in to support our work covering the Trump trials.

Our non-profit newsroom couldn’t do it without your help!

givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…