This morning, many of us are emerging from the late coverage last night after the conviction of former President Donald Trump on 34 felonies. I was in the courtroom for the verdict, which hit like a thunderclap (particularly after a strange snafu with the judge). The question that everyone is asking: what happens next?
The scene in the court was a madhouse. Judge Juan Merchan told the court that the jury had not reached a verdict and would be dismissed for the day. Many reporters in the overflow courtroom were leaving when Merchan suddenly said that there was a verdict. People came running back into the courtroom. That was followed by 34 guilty verdicts.
I am obviously saddened by the verdict, but not surprised. Until the very end, I was hopeful that there would be a hung jury, a result that could restore some integrity to the New York criminal justice system. However, I previously noted that the jury instructions made conviction much more likely. I referred to the deliberations as a legal “canned hunt” due to instructions that made conviction a near certainty.
You could feel the weight of history in the courtroom, though we still have to see what history was made. For some, it was the conviction of the first president of a felony. For others, it was the key moment where the weaponization of the criminal system became clear and inescapable. It was both, obviously. Yet, the trial fulfilled narratives on both sides.
I ran outside to join the coverage. (One humorous moment was an officer screaming at reporters piling out of the courtroom to “walk not run.” It did not work.) It looked like the final judgment with everyone panicking to find an exit.
The scene outside the courtroom was surreal. The Trump supporters were outraged. The anti-Trump protesters were ecstatic, dancing and celebrating in the street.
While I have written a book about what I have called “the age of rage,” I am always shocked by such scenes. There is a dehumanizing element of these moments as people celebrate not just the first conviction of a president but a person. Rage is addictive and contagious. That was vividly evident outside the courtroom.
So, what happens next?
Obviously, appeals will be taken. As I said last night, we must keep the faith. Indeed, moments like this require us to take a leap of faith in a nation that remains committed to the rule of law. Manhattan is neither the entirety of the country nor the legal system. I believe that these convictions will be overturned, but it will take time. Judge Merchan committed, in my view, layers of reversible error. Eventually, this case may reach the United States Supreme Court.
It has been suggested that an appeal could be taken directly to the Supreme Court. I find that doubtful after the Supreme Court rejected an expedited process for Special Counsel Jack Smith in his federal prosecutions. It will work first through the New York appellate system.
As for the criminal process, Trump will have to meet with a probation officer for an interview. That officer will make recommendations to the court.
There is a possibility of a jail sentence for felonies that come with up to four years for each offense. Any jail sentences would almost certainly run concurrently. However, any jail sentence would be ridiculous in Manhattan for an elderly first-offender in a non-violent offense.
Consistent with his past commentary, MSNBC legal analyst and former Mueller aide Andrew Weissmann predicted that Merchan will give Trump jail time. He is not alone as legal analysts seemed to get caught up in a thrill-kill conviction.
It is much more likely that Merchan will impose a sentence without a jail sentence, though with fines. The most appropriate, in my view, would be a conditional discharge that requires Trump not to commit a new crime or face potential imprisonment.
Merchan could also tailor a sentence to require home confinement or even weekend jailing. Those options would raise serious conflicts with his campaigning and obviously, if elected, serving as president. Even the probation process will be awkward since a convicted defendant ordinarily has to get approval for any travel outside of the state from his probation officer.
Sentences can also include community service, counseling and other requirements.
After his ruling in this trial, it is impossible to rule anything out. However, any jail sentence would add even more outrage to an abuse of the criminal law system.
Former President Trump’s legal team was slated to call on a former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission to testify in the NY v. Trump case, but the expert’s testimony was not heard after the presiding judge curbed the scope of what he could discuss before the jury.
“Judge Merchan has so restricted my testimony that defense has decided not to call me. Now, it’s elementary that the judge instructs the jury on the law, so I understand his reluctance,” former FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith posted on X on Monday.
“But the Federal Election Campaign Act is very complex. Even Antonin Scalia – a pretty smart guy, even you hate him – once said ‘this [campaign finance] law is so intricate that I can’t figure it out.’ Picture a jury in a product liability case trying to figure out if a complex machine was negligently designed, based only on a boilerplate recitation of the general definition of ‘negligence.’ They’d be lost without knowing technology & industry norms,” he continued.
Smith is an election law expert who Trump has called the “Rolls-Royce” of experts in his field, but he will not testify after Judge Juan Merchan ruled that Smith could speak before the court on the basic definitions surrounding election law but not expand beyond that scope.
Former President Trump sits in the courtroom during his trial at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City on May 21, 2024. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree in the case. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg must prove to the jury that not only did Trump falsify the business records related to payments to former porn actress Stormy Daniels but that he did so in furtherance of another crime: conspiracy to promote or prevent election.
Smith served as an FEC commissioner and chair between 2000 and 2005. The FEC is the U.S. agency dedicated to enforcing campaign finance laws. His testimony was slated to shed light on prosecutors’ allegations that Trump falsified business records, which is a misdemeanor that has already passed the statute of limitations, in order to cover up an election violation.
Smith wrote on social media that while the prosecution’s star witness, Michael Cohen, was allowed to go “on at length about whether and how his activity violated” the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), he was barred from broadening the scope of his previously anticipated testimony, which “effectively” led to the jury getting “its instructions on FECA from Michael Cohen!”
Bradley Smith was supposed to be a defense witness in the NY v. Trump case. (Douglas Graham/Roll Call/Getty Images/File)
Smith spoke with the Washington Examiner on Monday and discussed what he would have said in court if he testified.
“Judges instruct the juries on the law,” Smith told the outlet. “And they don’t want a battle of competing experts saying here’s what the law is. They feel it’s their province to make that determination. The problem, of course, is that campaign finance law is extremely complex and just reading the statute to people isn’t really going to help them very much.”
Smith said he anticipated “to lay out the ways the law has been interpreted in ways that might not be obvious” while noting election laws are very complicated matters.
Michael Cohen is questioned by prosecutor Susan Hoffinger on redirect during former President Trump’s criminal trial in New York City on May 20, 2024. (Reuters/Jane Rosenberg)
“You read the law, and it says that anything intended for the purpose of influencing an election is a contribution or an expenditure,” Smith said. “But that’s not in fact the entirety of the law. There is the obscure, and separate from the definitional part, idea of personal use, which is a separate part of the law that says you can’t divert campaign funds to personal use. That has a number of specific prohibitions, like you can’t buy a country club membership, you can’t normally pay yourself a salary or living expenses, you can’t go on vacation, all these kinds of things. And then it includes a broader, general prohibition that says you can’t divert [campaign funds] to any obligation that would exist even if you were not running for office.”
“We would have liked to flag that exception for the jury and talk a little bit about what it means,” Smith said. “And also, we would have talked about ‘for the purpose of influencing an election’ is not a subjective test, like, ‘What was my intention?’ It’s an objective test.”
Michael Cohen and former President Trump (Getty Images)
The case surrounding Trump’s payments is one that both the Justice Department and FEC rejected to prosecute in recent years. The Justice Department in 2019 “effectively concluded” its investigation into Trump’s payments. While in 2021, the Federal Elections Commission announced that it had dropped a case looking into whether Trump had violated election laws for the payment to Daniels.
Smith has previously joined Fox News, where he also noted that the “Federal Election Commission chose not to act on this.”
Bradley Smith testifies during a House subcommittee hearing on lobbying reform on March 1, 2007. (Bill Clark/Roll Call/Getty Images)
“DA Bragg in this case waited, I think it was almost a year, before even bringing the charges. And I think that’s because the charges were flimsy. And as you point out, they’ve been, you know, the prior DA had said, ‘No, we’re not going to bring this.’ The DOJ said no. The Federal Election Commission said no. And when he got increased political pressure, he brought the case,” Smith told Fox News host Mark Levin earlier this year before the trial kicked off.
Smith also wrote an opinion piece published by The Federalist last month, when the trial kicked off, arguing that Bragg’s office had “one big problem” with the case.
Former President Trump sits in the courtroom in New York City on May 21, 2024. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
“The [prosecution’s] theory is that Trump’s payments to Daniels were campaign expenditures and thus needed to be publicly reported as such. By not reporting the expenditure, the theory goes, Trump prevented the public from knowing information that might have influenced their votes,” he wrote in the opinion piece.
“There is one big problem with this theory: The payments to Daniels were not campaign payments.”
He said political candidates frequently act in ways that could be interpreted as serving a “purpose of influencing an election,” that politicians could get their teeth whitened or buy a new suit with campaign funds to look snappy on the campaign trail.
Rhona Graff testifies as former President Trump watches during his criminal trial in New York City on April 26, 2024. (Reuters/Jane Rosenberg)
“That’s because, in campaign finance law, these types of expenditures are known as ‘personal use.’ FECA specifically prohibits the conversion of campaign funds to personal use, defined as any expenditure ‘used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign,’” he wrote.
Smith continued on X on Tuesday that Bragg’s case hinges on prosecutors proving that Trump tried to influence an election through “unlawful means,” but the office has to rely on their own evidence as the DOJ and FEC both denied pursuing the case.
Judge Juan Merchan (AP Photos/File)
“If that’s the case, isn’t it entirely relevant (not dispositive, but relevant) to the jury’s fact-finding on that question that neither DOJ nor FEC chose to prosecute? But Judge Merchan won’t allow that in,” he wrote. “He will, though, allow in numerous references to Cohen’s guilty plea, and allow Cohen to testify as to how he thinks he and Trump violated FECA – though it appears that Cohen is a dunce about campaign finance laws.”
The defense team rested Tuesday, with Merchan dismissing the jury until after Memorial Day. Closing arguments are anticipated to kick off next Tuesday following the holiday.
After his disastrous testimony in Manhattan, Michael Cohen lost even hosts and legal analysts at MSNBC and CNN. MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin described Cohen as a “fabricator, liar or forgetful person.” CNN’s Anderson Cooper discussed how the testimony was “devastating for Michael Cohen’s credibility.” CNN’s legal analyst Elie Honig said that Cohen had his “knees chopped out” by the defense. All of that was before Cohen admitted that he committed grand larceny in stealing tens of thousands from the Trump company. Most analysts honestly expressed disgust at the admission and expressed shock that he was not prosecuted. The question is whether anyone could find a way to excuse grand larceny to spare viewers in the echo chamber. That is when host Lawrence O’Donnell stepped forward.
So, to recap. Here is what Cohen said under oath under questioning by Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche:
Blanche: “So you stole from the Trump Organization, right?”
Cohen: “Yes, sir.”
Not much ambiguity but Cohen went on to explain that he intentionally inflated costs to just pocket tens of thousands of dollars. He admitted it was theft, plain and simple.
For O’Donnell, it is not that simple. He rushed outside to assure MSNBC viewers that everything is fine and that this is just a form of what Cohen laughingly called “self-help.”
“Cohen [was trying] to rebalance the bonus he thought he deserved, & it still came out as less than the bonus he thought he deserved & the bonus he had gotten the year before.”
It would have been more convincing if O’Donnell, a self-proclaimed socialist, had just called it a redistribution effort from the super-rich to the rich. However, there was a sense of desperation in O’Donnell’s interview in offering viewers an assuring alternative explanation. Larceny did not fit with the past coverage lionizing Cohen. For many viewers, O’Donnell’s account relieved them of the need to question the basis for the prosecution of Trump.
We will have to wait to see if O’Donnell’s defense is picked up in the nearby trial of Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.). It appears that taking those gold bars and other gifts may have been just an effort of Menendez to secure a bonus that he believed was warranted from his public service. It would also mean that anyone who was denied a bonus or received less from their employer can simply steal the difference.
There is a serious aspect to the O’Donnell statement. It is not clear if O’Donnell actually believes that Cohen was justified in stealing this money. However, he does show the level of self-delusion or denial that is common with many citizens who cannot see beyond the identity of the defendant. These are the same citizens who elected candidates like Letitia James as state attorney on a pledge to bag Trump for something, for anything. These are the same citizens who voted roughly 90 percent against Trump in Manhattan. These are the same citizens that are likely represented by some on this jury.
That may explain why the Trump team decided to take the risk of a “kill shot” witness like Robert Costello. Some of us believe that this case is already fatally flawed and that no reasonable jury could convict Trump. Indeed, I cannot see how any reasonable judge could deny a directed verdict. However, the Trump team does not want to wait for a long appeal. Costello comes with a risk of opening up issues on cross examination, particularly the involvement of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
The fact is that the jury has MSNBC viewers and some who likely hold the same bias as O’Donnell. For them, what most of us see unfolding in Manhattan may not be what they see. They may only see one person in the courtroom, and it is not any witness.
A witness in the NY v. Trump case in Manhattan testified that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen wanted a job in the 45th president’s administration, despite previously denying wanting a White House role during congressional testimony.
Keith Davidson, an attorney who represented former pornographic actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, continued his testimony before the court Thursday, when he said that Cohen had been hopeful that he would land a position as White House chief of staff or attorney general in the lead-up to Trump’s inauguration.
Davidson also recounted that Cohen had been upset he was “not going to Washington” following Trump’s win in 2016.
“Can you f—ing believe I’m not going to Washington after everything I’ve done for that guy? I can’t believe I’m not going to Washington… I’ve saved his a–…,” Davidson recounted of a conversation he had had with a “despondent and saddened Michael Cohen” in December following the 2016 election.
Michael Cohen, former personal lawyer to President Donald Trump, appears outside federal court in New York on Dec. 14, 2023. (Yuki Iwamura/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Davidson testified that Cohen had called him while shopping in a California store memorably decorated with an “Alice in Wonderland”-type theme.
The NY v. Trump case focuses on Cohen paying Daniels $130,000 to allegedly quiet her claims of an alleged extramarital affair she had with Trump in 2006. Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels.
Cohen lamented to Davidson in the December call that he had not yet been reimbursed for the sum he had paid Daniels, according to Davidson’s testimony.
Former President Donald Trump awaits the start of proceedings at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York on April 22. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, Pool)
Prosecutors allege that the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen and fraudulently logged the payments as legal expenses. Prosecutors are working to prove that Trump falsified records with the intent to commit or conceal a second crime, which is a felony, in violation of a New York law called “conspiracy to promote or prevent election.”
Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.
Davidson’s testimony that Cohen sought a White House job stands in stark contrast to what the former Trump attorney told Congress back in 2019.
“Sir, I was extremely proud to be personal attorney to the President of the United States of America. I did not want to go to the White House. I was offered jobs,” Cohen told Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, in 2019 during a House Oversight Committee hearing.
Michael Cohen, who is supposed to be a star witness in NY v. Trump, might have “torpedoed” the case before taking the stand by ranting about it on TikTok, according to legal observers. (Getty Images)
“I can tell you a story of Mr. Trump reaming out Reince Priebus because I had not taken a job where Mr. Trump wanted me to, which is working with Don McGahn at the White House general counsel’s office,“ he continued. “What I said at the time — and I brought a lawyer in who produced a memo as to why I should not go in, because there would be no attorney/client privilege. And in order to handle some of the matters that I talked about in my opening, that it would be best suited for me not to go in and that every president had a personal attorney.”
“I did not want to go to the White House,” Cohen added later in his testimony to Congress. “I retained, I brought an attorney in, and I sat with Mr. Trump, with him for well over an hour, explaining the importance of having a personal attorney, that every president has had one in order to handle matters like the matters I was dealing with.”
Cohen’s comments came after he pleaded guilty to five counts of willful tax evasion, one count of making false statements to a bank, one count of causing an unlawful campaign contribution and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution in 2018. He again pleaded guilty in November of that same year to lying to Congress about testimony regarding the work he had done on a project to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
A court sketch depicts former President Donald Trump’s appearance in Manhattan Criminal Court in New York on April 19. (Christine Cornell)
Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison and has since been released.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner, R-Ohio, and House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., are currently demanding the Justice Department investigate Cohen. They allege that he committed perjury and “knowingly” made false statements while testifying before Congress in 2019.
Turner and Stefanik argue that Cohen is being used as the prosecution’s “star witness” in the NY v. Trump case, despite his previous conviction.
Trump, meanwhile, has slammed the trial as a “scam” and “hoax” promoted by the Biden administration and led by a “conflicted judge.”
Former President Donald Trump leaves Trump Tower to attend his trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments linked to extramarital affairs in New York on April 22. (Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images)
“This is a hoax. This is a judge who is conflicted — badly, badly, badly conflicted. I’ve never seen a judge so conflicted and giving us virtually no rulings,” Trump said outside the courtroom on Tuesday morning.
“I’m going to sit in the freezing cold icebox for eight hours, nine hours or so. They took me off the campaign trail. But the good news is my poll numbers are the highest it’s ever been. So, at least we’re getting the word out. And everybody knows this trial is a scam. It’s a scam. The judge should be recused; that he should recuse himself today, he should recuse himself today. And maybe he will,” Trump said.
Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this report.
Former President Donald Trump returned to court in Manhattan on Friday for day eight of the NY v. Trump trial. Former American Media CEO David Pecker took the stand for cross-examination by defense attorneys who seek to poke holes in prosecutors’ allegations that Trump falsified business records.
Former President Donald Trump is on trial in Manhattan for allegedly falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal during his 2016 campaign for president.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Trump pleaded not guilty to all 34 counts.
For prosecutors to secure a criminal conviction, they must convince a jury that Trump committed the crime of falsifying business records in “furtherance of another crime.” New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass on Tuesday said the other crime was a violation of a New York law called “conspiracy to promote or prevent election.”
Get the Best of Fox News
Fast, 24/7 alerts delivered to your inbox daily. Subscribe to be in the know of the most important moments around the world.
By subscribing, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
26PostsSort BySort by NewestSort by Oldest
Coverage for this event has ended.
2 hour(s) ago
PINNED
Trump calls for Judge Merchan to ‘immediately’ lift gag order imposed upon him in criminal trial
Former President Trump and his team are requesting New York Judge Juan Merchan “immediately LIFT THE GAG ORDER” so that the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee can “freely state his views, feelings, and policies.”
“45th President Donald J. Trump is again the Republican Nominee for President of the United States, and is currently dominating in the Polls. However, he is being inundated by the Media with questions because of this Rigged Biden Trial, which President Trump is not allowed to comment on, or answer, because of Judge Juan Merchan’s UNPRECEDENTED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL Gag Order,” Trump posted to his Truth Social Friday.
“His Opponents have unlimited rights to question, but he has no right to respond,” the post continued.
“There has never been a situation like this in our Country’s History, a Candidate that is not allowed to answer questions,” he continued. “Even Crooked Joe Biden is talking about the Sham Case, and others inspired by his Administration.”
“We request that Judge Merchan immediately LIFT THE GAG ORDER, so that President Trump is able to freely state his views, feelings, and policies. He is asking for his Constitutional Right to Free Speech,” he posted. “If it is not granted, this again becomes a Rigged Election!”
Merchan, who is presiding over the trial, imposed a gag order on the former president before the trial began, which prohibits him from making statements about court staff and potential witnesses. The former president is allowed to discuss the trial in other ways, and without mentioning those individuals.
Bragg has alleged Trump violated the order at least 14 times and is asking the judge to fine the former president $1,000 per violation. They also want Trump to be held in contempt of court.
Trump attorneys argue the gag order is a violation of the former president’s First Amendment rights.
The judge is expected to hold a hearing on the gag order alleged violations on Thursday. Merchan has not yet ruled.
Former President Trump suggested the White House as the venue for a debate against President Biden, saying he “would be very comfortable.”
The presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, after hours in a Manhattan courtroom for the eighth day of his criminal trial, has repeatedly said he will debate Biden “anywhere, anytime, anyplace.”
Biden broke his silence on debating his 2024 opponent on Friday during an interview with radio host Howard Stern. Biden said he would be “happy” to debate Trump.
“…we’re willing to do it Monday night, Tuesday night, Wednesday night, Thursday night, Friday night on national television,” Trump said after court concluded for the week. “We’re ready. Just tell me where.”
“We’ll do it at the White House,” Trump added. “That would be very comfortable, actually. You tell me where. We’re ready.”
Day 8 of Trump’s hush money trial adjourned until Tuesday
(REUTERS)
Court was dismissed late Friday afternoon following the eighth day of the hush money trial against former President Donald Trump.
The last witness called to testify was Gary Farro, a former senior bank manager at First Republic Bank who worked closely with Trump’s ex-lawyer Michael Cohen, and who is expected to be a key witness later in the trial.
Cohen has said that he arranged the $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels through First Republic.
Farro testified Friday that every time Cohen spoke to him “he showed a sense of urgency.” Farro was selected to manage Cohen. He testified that he was selected “because of his knowledge and ability to work with clients who may be a little challenging.”
Farro said that he believes he can identify Cohen’s signature. Cohen had more than one account at the First Republic, and they were all his personal accounts. Farro testified that he did not open any accounts for the Trump Organization.
Earlier in the day, ex-tabloid publisher David Pecker took the witness stand, followed by a long-time Trump Org. employee Rhona Graff, who said she had a “vague recollection” of seeing Daniels at Trump Tower.
The trial will resume on Tuesday, April 30.
Fox News’ Grace Taggart contributed to this update.
Long-time Trump ‘gatekeeper’ testifies working for Trump, Stormy Daniels considered for ‘Apprentice’
Rhona Graff testifies during former U.S. President Donald Trump’s criminal trial (REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg)
Rhona Graff, a long-time Trump Organization employee and considered a “gatekeeper” to former President Donald Trump, testified Friday in the hush money case against him.
New York prosecutor Susan Hoffinger has Graff if she ever saw adult film actress Stormy Daniels in the office at Trump Tower.
Graff said she had a “vague recollection” of seeing her in the reception area before the 2016 election.
Defense lawyer Susan Necheles cross-examined Graff. When asked about her 34-year tenure Graff said, “I never had the same day twice in all that time. It was very stimulating, exciting….”
Necheles asked if Graff if she recalled Trump considering Daniels for his reality show, The Apprentice.
Graff testified that she vaguely recalled it. that Stormy would be an interesting addition. Necheles asks if Daniels was at Trump Tower to discuss being cast for the Apprentice, and Graff said that she assumed so based on office chatter.
Necheles asked if Graff was responsible for sending checks to the WH; Graff says she was not.
Graff confirmed that she would see Trump sign checks, sometimes on the phone, “It would happen…”
When asked what kind of boss Trump was, Graff said, “I think he was fair…and respectful boss to me in all that time.”
Necheles asks if he respected her intelligence, to which Graff says she wouldn’t have been there 34 yrs if he didn’t.
Graff testified that her conversations with Trump were about business 99% of the time. He would occasionally ask about her family, sometimes telling her to leave early.
Graff said she attended his presidential inauguration and sat on the platform at the U.S. Capitol.
“It was a pretty unique, memorable experience,” she recalled.
Pecker testimony concludes with personal detail about Trump
(Getty Images)
At the conclusion of his testimony, ex-tabloid publisher David Pecker testified that former President Donald Trump was one of the first people to reach out following an anthrax incident at his company, American Media, Inc., (AMI)
Pecker was CEO of AMI until summer 2020, during which time he was publisher of news outlets like the National Enquirer, Men’s Fitness, and Star.
Defense attorney Emil Bove pressed Pecker if Trump cares about his family, which Pecker confirmed.
Pecker’s testimony was key in the hush money trial against Trump. Pecker said he had told Trump and his personal lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen, that he would be their “eyes and ears” for any negative stories that could crop up during the campaign in 2016.
One of those stories is now part of the driving force behind Trump’s hush money trial. Pecker previously admitted to working with Trump’s team to purchase and suppress a story from former Playboy model Karen McDougal about claims of a 2006 affair with Trump. She was reportedly paid $150,000 to keep quiet.
Fox News Digital’s Greg Wehner contributed to this update.
Pecker says ‘catch and kill’ term not used with Trump, prosecutors dispute his memory
(Getty Images)
David Pecker, former CEO of American Media, Inc., and publisher of the tabloid magazine National Inquirer, changed his testimony Friday about when he first heard the term “catch and kill.”
“Catch and kill” is a tabloid industry term that refers to the practice of buying the rights to a story without ever publishing it.
Pecker told New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass Friday afternoon that “catch and kill” was not a term used with former President Donald Trump.
Pecker said he first heard the term from federal prosecutors. But the prosecution referred to the 2016 article in the Wall Street Journal that reported the National Inquirer paid for former Playboy model Karen McDougal’s story that she had an affair with Trump, which reads, “Squashing stories that day is known in the tabloid world as ‘catch in kill.’
Pecker then changed his testimony that the first he heard of “catch and kill” in the press.
Fox News’ Grace Taggart contributed to this update.
Court is back in session Friday after breaking for lunch, David Pecker resumes the witness stand
(Getty Images)
The hush money trial against former President Donald Trump has resumed shortly after 2:00 p.m. on Friday after a lunch break.
Former American Media, Inc., CEO David Pecker will continue to be questioned by New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass.
Defense attorney Emil Bove is expected to also cross-examine the ex-tabloid publisher.
Earlier in the day the defense set out to highlight inconsistencies in Pecker’s recollection of key events in an effort to show hey may not be a credible witness. Trump’s lawyers also asked questions that emphasized the financial motives behind AMI’s decision to purchase the rights to Karen McDougal’s story about her alleged affair with Trump.
The decisions Pecker made, the defense attempted to show the jury, were based on what was best for AMI and not what was best for the Trump presidential campaign.
As for articles in the National Enquirer that attacked Trump’s political opponents, Pecker testified that the information reported was not original to the Enquirer and had been publicly reported previously.
Fox News Digital’s Chris Pandolfo contributed to this update.
American Media Inc., – or AMI – is a parent company and publisher of celebrity, health, and fitness outlets like Star, Shape, and the tabloid magazine National Inquirer.
David Pecker was the CEO of AMI until summer 2020. Pecker is a a longtime friend of former President Trump. He recently testified about the “catch-and-kill” scheme to hide allegations of a past affair that surfaced when then-candidate Trump was running for the White House in 2016.
According to Pecker, he told Trump and his personal lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen, that he would be their “eyes and ears” for any negative stories that could crop up during the campaign.
One of those stories is now part of the driving force behind Trump’s hush money trial. Pecker previously admitted to working with Trump’s team to purchase and suppress a story from former Playboy model Karen McDougal about claims of a 2006 affair with Trump. She was reportedly paid $150,000 to keep quiet. Pecker was granted immunity in 2018 after working with prosecutors on their hush money case against Cohen.
On Friday, The defense set out to highlight inconsistencies in Pecker’s recollection of key events in an effort to show hey may not be a credible witness. Trump’s lawyers also asked questions that emphasized the financial motives behind AMI’s decision to purchase the rights to Karen McDougal’s story about her alleged affair with Trump.
The decisions Pecker made, the defense attempted to show the jury, were based on what was best for AMI and not what was best for the Trump presidential campaign. As for articles in the National Enquirer that attacked Trump’s political opponents, Pecker testified that the information reported was not original to the Enquirer and had been publicly reported previously.
Prosecutors will continue to ask Pecker questions when court resumes at 2:15 p.m. after a lunch break.
Fox News Digital’s Greg Wehner contributed to this report.
President Biden said he would be “happy” to debate former President Trump on Friday during an interview with radio host Howard Stern.
“I am, somewhere, I don’t know when. I’m happy to debate him,” Biden said, after Stern said he didn’t know whether Biden would participate in a debate.
In a response after his criminal trial recessed for lunch, Trump eagerly challenged Biden to debate as soon as possible, even tonight in front of the Manhattan courthouse.
“Crooked Joe Biden just announced that he’s willing to debate! Everyone knows he doesn’t really mean it, but in case he does, I say, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYPLACE, an old expression used by Fighters,” Trump posted on Truth Social.
“I suggest Monday Evening, Tuesday Evening, or Wednesday Evening at my Rally in Michigan, a State that he is in the process of destroying with his E.V. Mandate,” the presumptive Republican nominee continued. “In the alternative, he’s in New York City today, although probably doesn’t know it, and so am I, stuck in one of the many Court cases that he instigated as ELECTION INTERFERENCE AGAINST A POLITICAL OPPONENT – A CONTINUING WITCH HUNT! It’s the only way he thinks he can win. In fact, let’s do the Debate at the Courthouse tonight – on National Television, I’ll wait around!”
Former President Trump’s criminal trial is in recess after defense attorneys finished their cross-examination of former American Media Inc. (AMI) CEO David Pecker.
The defense set out to highlight inconsistencies in Pecker’s recollection of key events in an effort to show hey may not be a credible witness. Trump’s lawyers also asked questions that emphasized the financial motives behind AMI’s decision to purchase the rights to Karen McDougal’s story about her alleged affair with Trump.
The decisions Pecker made, the defense attempted to show the jury, were based on what was best for AMI and not what was best for the Trump presidential campaign.
As for articles in the National Enquirer that attacked Trump’s political opponents, Pecker testified that the information reported was not original to the Enquirer and had been publicly reported previously.
Prosecutors will continue to ask Pecker questions when court resumes at 2:15 p.m. after a lunch break.
David Pecker is questioned during former U.S. President Donald Trump’s criminal trial on charges that he falsified business records to conceal money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016, in Manhattan state court in New York City, U.S. April 23, 2024 in this courtroom sketch.(REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg)
Defense attorney Emil Bove questioned ex-tabloid publisher David Pecker about the latter’s meetings with the FBI amid a since-closed federal probe into the payments made to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels.
Pecker testified that the FBI approached him in April 2018. He said agents arrived at his home and searched his phone. Pecker said he could not recall the number of times he met with the FBI after that but confirmed it was at least one meeting.
Asked if those meetings were stressful, Pecker said his attorney was present and that he “felt good.”
Bove also asked about an apparent inconsistency in Pecker’s testimony. Pecker testified yesterday that Trump thanked him for his help in suppressing an unsubstantiated story about former President Trump fathering a child with a Trump Tower maid.
But according to notes cited by Bove in court, Pecker had previously told federal authorities that Trump did not express any gratitude to him or American Media during the meeting.
Pecker insisted that what he said in court was the truth.
“I know what the truth is,” he said.
Fox News’ Maria Paronich and the Associated Press contributed to this update.
The defense introduced a Wall Street Journal article published shortly before the 2016 election that revealed the National Enquirer had endorsed Trump and was supporting his presidential campaign.
“Since last year, the Enquirer has supported Mr. Trump’s presidential bid, endorsing him and publishing negative articles about some of his opponents,” the Wall Street Journal reported in 2016, noting that then-candidate Donald Trump and former American Media Inc. CEO David Pecker were “longtime friends.”
Newspapers routinely endorse presidential candidates and cover their opponents with a negative slant. The defense’s point was to show the Enquirer acted like any other publication.
For example, here’s how the New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016:
“In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.)
“But this endorsement would also be an empty exercise if it merely affirmed the choice of Clinton supporters. We’re aiming instead to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs. Clinton — because you are reluctant to vote for a Democrat, or for another Clinton, or for a candidate who might appear, on the surface, not to offer change from an establishment that seems indifferent and a political system that seems broken.”
Fox News Legal Editor Kerri Kupec contributed to this update.
Defense questions Pecker on National Enquirer’s motives
National Enquirer tabloid newspapers are arranged for a photograph at a newsstand in Louisville, Kentucky, U.S., on Thursday, Feb. 14, 2019. (Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Defense attorneys questioned former American Media Inc. CEO David Pecker about the editorial process of his tabloid, the National Enquirer, and whether the company buried Karen McDougal’s story to help Trump’s campaign.
The point of the questions was to show that the Enquirer was motivated by profits, not politics, when it purchased the rights to McDougal’s story about her alleged affair with Trump.
Trump attorney Emil Bove asked Pecker about the August 2015 meeting with Michael Cohen at Trump Tower and Pecker testified that prior to that meeting the Enquirer was already running negative stories about Bill and Hillary Clinton because it sold papers.
“Running those stories was good for [American Media Inc.],” Pecker said.
Bove introduced several examples of the Enquirer running negative stories about Trump’s opponents in the 2016 Republican primary, including Ben Carson and Ted Cruz. The attorney noted that some of the information in those articles was publicly available and published in other outlets, including The Guardian.
Pecker agreed with Bove that recycling material with a new angle is quick, easy and good for business. Pecker testified the Enquirer would’ve ran those stories even if he hadn’t discussed it with Trump.
This line of questioning builds the defense team’s narrative that negative stories about Trump’s opponents were in the public domain, and other outlets covered them well before American Media Inc. If those other publications aren’t being charged with campaign violations, the reasoning goes, why should Trump be for working with AMI?
Criminal defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh explained Friday that prosecutors face a difficult task of making the jury understand what the crime is former President Trump is accused of.
Joining “America’s Newsroom,” Eiglarsh said most juries can wrap their heads around crimes like murder or rape. But in this case, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office alleges Trump falsified business records in “furtherance of another crime” that until the trial was not made clear.
“In this particular case, you’re looking at them to see whether they understand this at all. They come into this thinking, well, wait, what’s the crime exactly? And why should we care? And I think that there’s a problem right now with the prosecution being able to show that what was done was unlawful,” Eiglarsh said.
New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass on Tuesday said the other crime was a violation of a New York law called “conspiracy to promote or prevent election.” Prosecutors questioned former tabloid publisher David Pecker about a “catch and kill” scheme to have his publication purchase the rights to Karen McDougal’s story about her alleged affair with Trump and then bury the story.
But Pecker testified Thursday that his publication did the same thing for other celebrities including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rahm Emanuel.
“You’re getting Pecker as an expert defense witness to say, for over 17 years this was commonplace. Buying stories wasn’t just because of an election, we did it all the time on behalf of Trump, but so did many celebrities. And it doesn’t mean the stories were true,” Eiglarsh said. “It’s the cost of doing business when you’re a celebrity, because people are constantly looking for cash grabs, or because you might have done something a little questionable and you got to buy that out because it’ll hurt your brand or it’ll affect your home life, or it might even affect an election.”
Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley cautioned that it may not be an advantage for former President Trump’s legal team that there are two attorneys present in the jury pool.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecutors allege that Trump committed a felony by falsifying business records in “furtherance of another crime.” New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass on Tuesday said the other crime was a violation of a New York law called “conspiracy to promote or prevent election.”
“This case has no crime that is discernable,” Turley said on “America’s Newsroom,” criticizing prosecutors.
He cautioned however that if members of the jury feel compelled to express doubts about the district attorney’s case against Trump, the attorneys present in the jury pool might “weigh in at that moment” and “silence those dissenting voices.”
“That’s why I think it’s a bad idea and I don’t think it’s a good thing to have two attorneys on this jury,” Turley said.
Former President Donald Trump appears at Manhattan criminal court before his trial in New York, Friday, April 26, 2024. (Jeenah Moon/Pool Photo via AP)
Former President Trump filed another complaint about the “freezing courthouse” on Friday and speculated that the temperature was being kept low on purpose.
“They don’t seem to be able to get the temperature up,” Trump said. “It shouldn’t be that complicated. But we have a freezing courthouse and that’s fine, that’s just fine.”
Trump’s attorneys have asked Judge Juan Merchan if something can be done about the temperature, but the judge declined. Last week he apologetically explained that the old courthouse has two modes: chilly or sweltering, and that it’d be better to be cold than hot.
Trump attorney Todd Blanche asked the judge if it were possible to increase the temperature by “just one degree.”
“It is cold, there’s no question it is cold, but I’d rather be a little cold than sweaty, and really those are the choices,” the judge said, according to a pool report. “I agree with you it’s chilly, no question.”
Former President Trump wished his wife Melania a “very happy birthday” on Friday morning and complained that he could not spend the day with her because of his “rigged” trial.
Trump spoke to reporters moments before he entered the courtroom for the continuation of his criminal trial on charges of falsifying business records.
“I want to start by wishing my wife Melania a very happy birthday. It’d be nice to be with her but I’m in a courthouse for a rigged trial,” Trump said.
The former president and presumptive Republican nominee for 2024 said yesterday’s proceedings went “very well” and that his trial “should be over.”
“I think we have a judge who will never allow the case to be over in a positive way, he’s highly conflicted,” Trump said, taking a shot at presiding Judge Juan Merchan.
He also commented on Thursday’s Supreme Court hearing on his claim of presidential immunity, calling his attorney’s arguments “brilliant.”
“I listened to it last night, I thought it was really great. I thought the judge’s questions were really great,” Trump said. “All presidents have to have immunity, it has nothing to do with me,” he asserted.
Trump told reporters he will return to Florida after the trial warps up today to be with his wife.
Former President Trump has departed Trump Tower for the Manhattan courthouse where his criminal trial for allegedly falsifying business records will continue for its eighth day.
Court proceedings will begin at 9:30 a.m. ET. Trump did not make any statements as he left Trump Tower, but he has held several impromptu press conferences outside the courtroom this week and may speak to reporters again.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Bragg alleges that Trump ex-attorney Michael Cohen orchestrated hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to prevent them from sharing their stories about alleged affairs with Trump. Bragg is trying to prove that Trump was aware of those payments, and allegedly falsified records of payments to Cohen as “legal expenses” rather than repayments for the hush money.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to all counts and told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview on Thursday that he was simply paying Cohen legal fees because Cohen was his lawyer.
Bragg also alleged American Media Inc., which witness David Pecker was the CEO of, allegedly employed the “catch and kill” strategy to bury stories — specifically Karen McDougal’s. Bragg and prosecutors sought to convince the jury that Pecker’s work to do this was made with the blessing of Trump’s 2016 campaign.
Pecker, though, testified that he worked with Cohen in his capacity as Trump’s personal attorney.
Pecker’s cross-examination is expected to continue Friday morning.
Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this update.
Prosecutor Christopher Conroy argued Thursday that former President Donald Trump allegedly violated a gag order four additional times, for a total of 14 violations.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office has asked Judge Juan Merchan to hold Trump in contempt of court for allegedly violating an order which prohibits Trump from commenting on likely witnesses in his criminal trial. The judge has yet to rule on the request.
In documents filed Thursday, Conroy outlined four additional alleged violations that happened this week when Trump made statements to the press between his court appearances. The prosecutor pointed to comments Trump made to a local Pennsylvania news station about his former attorney Michael Cohen, who is expected to testify at trial later on.
“Well, Michael Cohen is a convicted liar and he’s got no credibility whatsoever. He was a lawyer and you rely on your lawyers. But Michael Cohen was a convicted liar. He was a lawyer for many people, not just me. And he got in trouble because of things outside of what he did for me, largely, it was essentially all because what he did in terms of campaign I don’t think there was anything wrong with that with the charges that they made. But what he did is he did some pretty bad things, I guess, with banking or whatever if that was a personal thing to him,” Trump said on Monday.
Conroy called this a “knowing and willful statement” that violated Merchan’s gag order. The prosecutor also noted statements Trump made about David Pecker, a former tabloid publisher who will resume cross examination today.
“He’s been very nice. I mean, he’s been — David’s been very nice. A nice guy,” Trump said on Thursday.
At trial, Conroy told the judge that Trump was sending a message to Pecker, instructing him to “be nice” else Trump would use his platform to “say things like I said about Cohen.”
Trump prosecutor quit top DOJ post for NY job in likely bid to ‘get’ former president, expert says
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo speaks in DOJ video. (Department of Justice/YouTube)
The prosecutor whose opening statement kicked off the historic trial of Former President Donald Trump left a lofty perch in the Biden administration Justice Department for his current comparatively modest New York City job – a career move that legal analysts describe as puzzling and one that’s prompted questions regarding motivation.
Even though Matthew Colangelo is only now sitting in a courtroom formally opposing the former president, his work has for years involved investigating Trump and his businesses, despite working for different prosecutorial offices at varying levels of government. Colangelo’s sudden switch from top DOJ official to a role with the DA’s office in the Big Apple has particularly raised eyebrows.
“It’s very odd. It’s usually the other way around. . . . And frankly, that sounds to me like somebody who thought, ‘Ah, here’s an opportunity to go and get Donald Trump,'” attorney and former member of the Federal Election Commission, Hans von Spakovsky, told Fox News Digital in a phone interview this month.
It’s rare to see successful, ambitious attorneys willingly climb several steps down the career ladder, experts note.
“It is a little unusual,” Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Zack Smith said of Colangelo’s career moves. “Particularly, the position he had at the Justice Department was a fairly high ranking one . . . he spent some time in the New York Attorney General’s office, he also spent some time as a career staffer in the DOJ Civil Rights Division. He was in leadership in the Justice Department, and then immediately from that leadership position — an acting leadership position — went to the DA’s office.”
Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton contributed to this update.
Pecker claims Trump said anytime Stormy mentions his name, ‘it’s a $1M penalty’
Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker speaks from the witness stand during former U.S. President Donald Trump’s criminal trial on charges that he falsified business records to conceal money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016, in Manhattan state court in New York City, U.S. April 22, 2024 in this courtroom sketch. (REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg)
Former American Media Inc. (AMI) CEO David Pecker told the court that former President Trump had an agreement with Stormy Daniels and every time she said his name she would have to pay a $1 million penalty.
One of the exhibits presented in court was a Wall Street Journal article from Jan. 12, 2018, which revealed Michael Cohen paid Daniels to stay quiet. The evidence was presented, “not for the truth, but to show that it was printed on that date.”
Fast-forwarding to March 2018, Steinglass brought up an interview between Karen McDougal and Anderson Cooper, which Pecker remembered taking place around March 18, 20218.
The day after the interview, Pecker claimed, Trump called him.
“Did you see the interview last night with Anderson Cooper and Karen McDougal? I thought you had, and we had, an agreement that she can’t give any interviews or be on any television shows,” Pecker recalled Trump saying.
“Yes, we have an agreement, but I amended it to allow her to speak to the press,” Pecker said he told Trump.
Pecker testified that Trump got upset.
Pecker also talked about another call between Trump, Hope Hicks and Sarah Huckabee Sanders, where he mentioned he was going to extend Karen’s contract because they had not fulfilled some of the obligations.
Trump allegedly told him it was a bad idea but later told him, “It’s your business, do whatever you plan on doing.”
McDougal filed a lawsuit against AMI in March 2018 and wanted out of the NDA. The lawsuit was ultimately settled. Pecker said when he communicated the lawsuit with Cohen, he thought it was a bad idea. Still, Pecker told Cohen he did not want to continue with the lawsuit and was giving McDougal back her rights.
Pecker also told Cohen he was planning to sell back the rights because McDougal was upset.
Also, while on the stand, Pecker said he watched the Anderson Cooper and Stormy Daniels interview. Afterward, Trump called and asked if he saw the interview.
“We have an agreement with Stormy that she cannot mention my name or do anything like this,” Pecker claimed Trump said. “Anytime she breaches the agreement it’s a $1 million penalty. Based on that interview, she owes $24 million.”
Trump compliments prosecution’s first witness in criminal trial: ‘very nice’
Former US president and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump leaves Trump Tower to attend his trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments linked to extramarital affairs in New York, on April 22, 2024. Donald Trump’s unprecedented criminal trial is set for opening statements after final jury selection ended Friday, leaving the Republican presidential candidate facing weeks of hostile testimony that will overshadow his White House campaign. (CHARLY TRIBALLEAU/AFP via Getty Images)
Former President Donald Trump lauded the first witness in his trial in Manhattan, former tabloid publisher David Pecker, as a “nice guy” earlier Thursday ahead of court.
“He’s been very nice. David’s been very nice. He’s a nice guy,” Trump told the media while meeting with construction crews in the city early Thursday morning.
Pecker is the prosecution team’s first witness in the NY v. Trump case, where the 45th president is facing 34 charges of falsifying business records.
Pecker is the former CEO of American Media Inc., the parent company of publications such as the National Enquirer, who has known Trump stretching back to the 1980s. The former media publisher took the stand earlier this week, where he testified regarding “catch and kill schemes” to allegedly bury negative information about Trump ahead of the 2016 election.
“Catch-and-kill” schemes are understood as tactics used by media and publishing companies to buy the rights of a person’s story with no intention of publishing it. The NY v. Trump case specifically revolves around a payment of $130,000 given to former pornographic actress Stormy Daniels by former Trump personal attorney in 2016 to allegedly silence her claims she had an extramarital affair with Trump in 2006.
Pecker testified Thursday that he first heard of Daniels’ claims of a sexual affair with Trump after the notorious “Access Hollywood” tape was unearthed ahead of the election in 2016. He said that Daniels was selling rights to her story for $120,000, which Pecker said the media company could not afford.
“I am not a bank,” Pecker said he told National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard of the tip and sale of Daniels’ story. Howard then told Pecker he would contact Cohen about the matter, Pecker said.
Prosecutors allege that after Cohen paid Daniels in exchange for silence on the alleged affair, Trump fraudulently logged reimbursements to the personal lawyer as legal expenses. Prosecutors in the case are trying to prove that Trump falsified business records in “furtherance of another crime.” The DA’s office said the other crime is the violation of a New York law against “conspiracy to promote or prevent election.”
Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton contributed to this update.
NY v. Trump: Tabloid publisher testifies he bought stories on Tiger Woods, ex-Obama chief of staff
David Pecker is questioned during former U.S. President Donald Trump’s criminal trial on charges that he falsified business records to conceal money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016, in Manhattan state court in New York City, U.S. April 23, 2024 in this courtroom sketch. (REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg)
David Pecker testified Thursday that he purchased stories about professional golfer Tiger Woods, former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, among others during questioning by defense attorneys for former President Trump.
Pecker is the former CEO of American Media Inc., the parent company of publications such as the National Enquirer, who has known Trump stretching back to the 1980s. Prosecutors allege that Pecker worked closely with the Trump campaign to bury negative information about Trump ahead of the 2016 election. Trump is accused of falsifying records related to the alleged “catch and kill” scheme.
Pecker testified that he purchased negative stories about Trump before the 2016 election and did not publish them — known as a “catch and kill” scheme. The stories included allegations from adult film actress Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal about affairs with Trump.
With regard to negative stories coming out about Trump before the election, Pecker testified that Trump was concerned about what his family would say about it, specifically about how it would impact his wife Melania Trump and daughter Ivanka Trump.
Pecker also testified that Trump was concerned about what the impact would be on his campaign in 2016.
But under cross-examination by Trump defense attorney Emil Bove, Pecker testified he purchased stories about other high-profile individuals besides Trump.
Pecker testified he purchased a story about professional golfer Tiger Woods, and a story about Rahm Emanuel in 2009 after he left the Obama White House. Pecker said he purchased the story about an alleged affair Emanuel had so that it would not be published. Emanuel also later served as ambassador to Japan.
Pecker also testified that he worked with Trump attorney Michael Cohen in his capacity as the former president’s personal attorney — not as part of the 2016 campaign.
Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this update.
While Donald Trump was on trial in Manhattan, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on the former president’s claims of presidential immunity.
In nearly three hours of debate on Thursday, the high court wrestled with this question: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?”
Special Counsel attorney Michael Dreeben argued that U.S. presidents cannot enjoy blanket immunity from criminal prosecution Thursday. Trump attorney John Sauer contended that prosecuting a president for official acts while in office is “incompatible” with the U.S. Constitution.
Over the course of questioning, the justices seemed generally split along ideological lines.
“If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office?” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked in an exchange with Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer.
“Once we say, ‘No criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office,” Jackson said.
Conversely, Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether limiting immunity for a former president would send the country into a destabilizing cycle.
“If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possible after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process, where the loser gets thrown in jail,” Alito remarked.
“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Neil Gorsuch later stated.
A decision in the case is expected early this summer.
Fox News Digital’s Brianna Herlihy and Anders Hagstrom contributed to this update.
David Pecker, chair and CEO of American Media, speaks at the Shape and Men’s Fitness Super Bowl Party in New York City, U.S., January 31, 2014. REUTERS/Marion Curtis/File Photo
Tabloid publisher David Pecker is known as a longtime friend of former President Trump. He recently testified about the “catch-and-kill” scheme to hide allegations of a past affair that surfaced when then-candidate Trump was running for the White House in 2016.
Pecker was the CEO of American Media until summer 2020, during which time he was publisher of news outlets like the National Enquirer, Men’s Fitness, and Star.
According to Pecker, he told Trump and his personal lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen, that he would be their “eyes and ears” for any negative stories that could crop up during the campaign.
One of those stories is now part of the driving force behind Trump’s hush money trial. Pecker previously admitted to working with Trump’s team to purchase and suppress a story from former Playboy model Karen McDougal about claims of a 2006 affair with Trump. She was reportedly paid $150,000 to keep quiet.
Pecker was granted immunity in 2018 after working with prosecutors on their hush money case against Cohen.
Former President Donald Trump will return to New York Supreme Court on Friday morning for day eight of his criminal trial for allegedly falsifying business records.
Court will resume at 9:30 a.m. ET with former American Media CEO David Pecker taking the stand for cross-examination by defense attorneys. Trump is expected to attend today and every day of the trial.
On Thursday, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office wrapped up their direct examination of Pecker. The former tabloid publisher explained in great detail the “catch and kill” scheme regarding former Playboy model Karen McDougal’s story about an alleged affair with Trump.
Pecker coordinated with former Trump attorney Michael Cohen and purchased the exclusive rights to McDougal’s story, paying her $150,000 with the intention of never publishing it. He testified that he believed McDougal’s story to be true and it would have been very embarrassing for Trump and his 2016 presidential campaign if it became public.
Pecker also described learning about former pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels’ allegations of an affair with Trump, and testified that Cohen urged Pecker to buy Daniels’ story as well. However, Pecker said he refused to buy the story, instead telling Cohen that Trump should buy it himself.
Additionally, Pecker testified about various calls and meetings with Trump, including a visit to the White House in July 2017. He recalls Trump always asking about Karen.
At the end of his direct examination, Pecker discussed entering into a non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York about campaign finance violations and an agreement with the Manhattan district attorney’s office. He admitted he was given immunity if he cooperated. He also said he has no negative feelings towards Trump and considers him a mentor and friend.
Defense attorneys began to cross-examine Pecker in the last hour of court on Thursday. During questions, Pecker said he had been giving Trump a heads up about negative stories since 1998. He also said he had purchased negative stories about celebrities and politicians in the past, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and ex-Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
Fox News’ Maria Paronich contributed to this update.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.