The former publisher of the National Enquirer testified Thursday at Donald Trump's hush money trial about going to great lengths to help shield his old friend from potentially damaging stories using a catch-and-kill scheme prosecutors allege amounted to interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.
At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a different criminal matter involving Trump, who has claimed that he should be immune from prosecution over his efforts to reverse his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden.
Trump asked to skip his New York criminal proceedings for the day so he could sit in on the high court’s special session, where the justices appeared likely to reject his claim. But it seemed possible Trump could still benefit from a lengthy trial delay, possibly beyond November’s election.
His request to go to Washington was denied by Judge Juan M. Merchan, who is overseeing Trump's trial on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments.
“I think the Supreme Court has a very important argument before it today,” Trump said outside the courtroom. “I should be there.”
Adding to the former president's legal woes, his former lawyers and associates were indicted Wednesday in a 2020 election-related scheme in Arizona. And a New York judge rejected a request for a new trial in a defamation case that found Trump liable for $83.3 million in damages. The hush money case also includes a looming decision on whether he violated a gag order.
Trump has maintained he is not guilty of any of the charges. In New York, he says the stories that were bought and squelched were false.
“There is no case here. This is just a political witch hunt,” he said before court in brief comments to reporters.
Jurors heard from David Pecker, the longtime head of the tabloid, who described shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy up rights to potentially damaging stories for Trump, some in secret moves meant to avoid scrutiny from colleagues.
Trump watched intently as his friend spoke from the witness stand.
Pecker explained how he and his publication parlayed rumor-mongering into splashy stories that smeared Trump’s opponents and, just as crucially, leveraged his connections to suppress seamy stories about Trump, including a p*rn actor’s claim of an extramarital sexual encounter years earlier.
His testimony was a critical building block for the prosecution’s theory that the partnership was a way to illegally influence the election. Prosecutors are seeking to elevate the gravity of the history-making first trial of a former American president and the first of four criminal cases against Trump to reach a jury.
As Pecker testified in a calm, cooperative tone about risque tales and secret dealings, the atmosphere in the utilitarian 1940s courtroom was one of quiet attentiveness. Court officers warned audience members not to talk or make any noise.
He also testified that he put his foot down on additional payments after the magazine was $180,000 in the hole for Trump-related transactions. The publication bought up a sordid tale from a New York City doorman and purchased accusations of an extramarital affair with a former Playboy model in order to prevent the claims from getting out elsewhere.
The breaking point for Pecker came with Stormy Daniels, the p*rn actor who was eventually paid by Cohen to keep quiet over her claim of a 2006 sexual encounter with Trump. The ex-president denies it happened.
Pecker recalled to the jury that he was dining with his wife, the night after the public learned of the infamous 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump discussed grabbing women sexually without asking permission, when then-editor Dylan Howard called with an urgent matter.
Howard said he heard from Daniels’ representatives that she was trying to sell her story and that the tabloid could acquire it for $120,000 if it decided right away, Pecker told jurors.
Pecker was tapped out and later told Cohen so.
“I am not paying for this story. I didn’t want to be involved in this from the beginning,” he said he told Cohen.
At the same time, Pecker advised that someone — just not him — should do something to prevent the story from going public. “I said to Michael, ‘My suggestion to you is that you should buy the story and you should take it off the market because if you don’t and it gets out, I believe the boss will be very angry with you.’”
The 12-person panel watched attentively, with some appearing to take notes. Pecker also recalled receiving a telephone call from Trump during the tabloid’s pursuit of former Playboy model Karen McDougal’s claims of an extramarital affair with Trump.
In other developments, prosecutors also argued Thursday that Trump had again violated a gag order. Merchan was already considering whether to hold Trump in contempt and fine him for what prosecutors say were 10 different violations of the order that barred the GOP leader from making public statements about witnesses, jurors and others connected to the case. Then the prosecution ticked off fresh instances of suspected breaches.
Assistant District Attorney Christopher Conroy pointed to additional remarks that Trump made about Cohen, a key prosecution witness when talking to reporters outside the courtroom and in other interviews. He also noted a comment Trump made about the jury being composed of “95 percent Democrats,” among other things.
Trump was dismissive about the looming decision. When asked by reporters if he would pay the $1,000 fine for each of 10 posts if he so ordered, he replied, “Oh, I have no idea.” He then said, “They’ve taken my constitutional right away with a gag order.”
A conviction by the jury in the hush money probe would not preclude Trump from becoming president again, but because it is a state case, he would not be able to pardon himself if found guilty. The charge is punishable by up to four years in prison — though it’s not clear if the judge would seek to put him behind bars.
© Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
- Sort by
- Oldest
- Latest
- Popular
34 Comments
Comments have been disabledYou can no longer respond to this thread.
JJE
NDA's are legal and happen every day of the week.
An innocent man here.
-16(+1/-17)
Bob Fosse
NDA's are legal and happen every day of the week.
An innocent man here.
What do you think he is being charged with? You seem confused.
10(+12/-2)
TaiwanIsNotChina
My question is do the National Enquirer employees benefit from these capture and kill payments?
7(+7/-0)
Cards fan
NDA's are legal and happen every day of the week.
Trump isn't being charged for an NDA. Relevance?
9(+10/-1)
John
A bad day for the felon in waiting.
His faithless Pecker continued to put him in a bind. SCOTUS spanked (not in a Stormy way either) his lawyer’s laughable immunity claim at SCOTUS. And his meritless appeal of the Carrol case got shown the back of the appeals court’s hand.
6(+6/-0)
dagon
The former publisher of the National Enquirer testified Thursday at Donald Trump's hush money trial about going to great lengths to help shield his old friend from potentially damaging stories using a catch-and-kill scheme prosecutors allege amounted to interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.
The National Enquirer. Conspiracies and 'fake news'. Good friend Donald Trump. QAnon. MAGA and regressive politics built on superstition and credulity.
It is almost as if a fake conspiratorial mindset was being promoted to distract from the actual nefarious conspiracy and collusion going on
8(+8/-0)
Ah_so
NDA's are legal and happen every day of the week.
No one has claimed otherwise. You aren't very well briefed on the case - perhaps the story isn't being covered in much detail in your country.
8(+8/-0)
Ah_so
It is almost as if a fake conspiratorial mindset was being promoted to distract from the actual nefarious conspiracy and collusion going on
It is no surprise that the overwhelming majority of its readership votes Republican, or perhaps more accurately, votes MAGA.
7(+7/-0)
nishikat
If he wins he wins but Trump people need to understand that the political donations sent to him are going to his lawyers for the crimes Trump is responsible for. And he's been ruled a rapist. It is now the Trump party and now there is legal trouble in Az
7(+7/-0)
lincolnman
This case is becoming stronger every day...I always thought this was the weakest but it's now up there with the classified steal and stash....
Which by the way, became much more stronger yesterday....we found out that Trump promised a pardon to his aide Walt Nauta if he LIED to the FBI about moving the classified that Trump said he turned in, but didn't, and the destroying the security tapes showing that - you can't get any clearer obstruction of justice.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/22/politics/nauta-classified-documents-trump-pardon-second-term/index.html
Besides jail. the fines are going to be enormous...time for a new scam to fleece his ever-gullible supporters...
I have a suggestion - gold-plated and embossed with MAGA; Don's Diapers...Dump Like Trump...
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/michael-ian-black-trump-diapers-083029794.html
6(+7/-1)
Blacklabel
So far nothing discussed that happened is illegal in any way.
-11(+1/-12)
u_s__reamer
Trump's flunkey-fixer, Cohen, did the crime and the time so most people with their innate natural sense of justice and fairness would assume that his boss who ordered the crime should do double the time at least, but that's not the way the people with power think at all and not how the law is set up to work which is why desperate Don will most likely walk.
7(+8/-1)
Blacklabel
This case is becoming stronger every day...
then goes on a ramble for 5 paragraphs about another case, never mentioning this case again.
-9(+2/-11)
Cards fan
So far nothing discussed that happened is illegal in any way.
Yes, so far nothing discussed that happened is illegal in any way. lol Especially the part where David Pecker acknowledged under oath that he knew he had broken the law. :)
David Pecker, the former publisher of theNational Enquirerand former CEO of its parent company, American Media Inc., told the court in Trump’s hush-money trial that heknewhe had to obey campaign finance laws but still failed to report $150,000 to the FEC.
https://newrepublic.com/post/180991/key-witness-pecker-hush-money-trial-broke-law-trump
5(+6/-1)
Blacklabel
So David Pecker supposedly broke the law now?
Ok look forward to his trial then.
-8(+1/-9)
2020hindsights
Blacklabel
So far nothing discussed that happened is illegal in any way.
Have patience. The prosecutor is laying out the facts. Building the case.
I bet you're the type that skips to the read the end of the book to find out how it ends. ;-)
6(+7/-1)
Cards fan
So David Pecker supposedly broke the law now?
Yes.
Ok look forward tohistrial then.
He's got a cooperating agreement with the Manhattan DA. Good luck with that. :)
https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-04-25-24/h_4de9823f542d10fcade800091c39933c
8(+9/-1)
Blacklabel
I get the feeling few of you have read the actual indictments.
There has been zero testimony related to conduct alleged that has been found to be an illegal action in Trump’s side.
laying out a bunch things with sinister sounding names that….are not crimes. (catch and kill, affairs, non disclosure agreement) or are not charged (conspiracy, election fraud)
-8(+1/-9)
Cards fan
I get the feeling few of you have read the actual indictments.
Likewise.
There has been zero testimony related to conduct alleged that has been found to be an illegal action in Trump’s side.
Oh yes there have.
(catch and kill, affairs, non disclosure agreement) or are not charged (conspiracy, election fraud)
Again, it sounds like you don't know what Trump was actually charged with, nor are you aware of what those charges pertain to. I mean, it's rather shocking some people here weren't even aware that David Pecker has a cooperation agreement with the Manhattan DA that prevents him from being charged.
6(+7/-1)
Blacklabel
I’m curious to hear how an obscure state law, a misdemeanor that is out of statute of limitations, is able to magically resurrect another misdemeanor that is also past the statute of limitations.
to turn into 34 felonies. Lol
And how that applies to a federal election that the state has no authority over.
let’s get to that part.
-6(+1/-7)
Cards fan
let’s get to that part.
No. You should probably take a real, good hard look at how an army of lawyers and judges disagree with you. Trump and his counsel have brought numerous challenges and appeals regarding these charges, and yet they were all rejected. And now the trial has started. Have you considered you might just be wrong about all your assertions that nothing illegal happened and that the Manhattan DA doesn't have standing to bring criminal charges against DJT?
2(+3/-1)
Blacklabel
That’s the benefit of having a biased judge that you can get to this point with 2 expired misdemeanors repackaged as 34 felonies.
-4(+2/-6)
Cards fan
That’s the benefit of having a biased judge that you can get to this point with 2 expired misdemeanors repackaged as 34 felonies.
I'm not talking about just a "biased (lol)" judge. I'm talking about all the other lawyers and all the other appeals Trump and his team of lawyers have filed, yet they all failed. Why? Probably because the charges were correct, and they do have standing to bring them.
3(+4/-1)
lincolnman
This case is becoming stronger every day...
then goes on a ramble for 5 paragraphs aboutanothercase, never mentioningthiscase again.
Why should I - the article outlines Pecker's efforts to collude with Trump to influence the election - too bad you didn't read it...then we'll have Cohen, the Trump Org Comptroller, and a Trump accountant testify they were directed by Trump to document the payoff as a legal expense to a company that DIDN'T EXIST.
As we've said all along, if the Moron would have just documented them as "payments to Stephanie Gifford", he wouldn't be snoring in court right now. But he tried to cover them up, with the clear intention to influence the election, as Pecker testified.
And since you're such a legal expert, explain to us how promising to pardon someone if they LIE under oath to the FBI isn't obstruction of justice...
4(+5/-1)
lincolnman
When your "ace lawyer" in your sexual assault case (who lost by the way) says "you're finished" and you're going to be found guilty....it may be time to buy some crying towels..
"Donald Trump’s attorney,Alina Habba, issued a downbeat assessment of the former president’s chances of swerving conviction in his hush money trial, which is currently ongoing in New York.
“I don’t have hopes really that high at this moment that the New York courts will do the right thing, that the jury will do the right thing,” Habba complained to Newsmax’s Greg Kelly on Wednesday."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-attorney-alina-habba-makes-082506062.html
The white flag already being flown before the trial is even half-way finished...
MAGA-surrender...
4(+5/-1)
Blacklabel
Right back to another case, not this one.
pardon power was brought up in the Supreme Court yesterday as something that is a core right of a president.
can pardon who he wants for whatever he wants without legal scrutiny.
-7(+0/-7)
bass4funk
So the guy buried stories for many politicians, oh, if this is the best the left has, this should be a breeze for Trump.
-6(+1/-7)
Cards fan
can pardon who he wants for whatever he wants without legal scrutiny.
Which is a really weird thing for someone to bring up, right after claiming nothing illegal has been discussed yet.
Now, that being said, thank goodness this is a state court where a crook of a president like Donald J. Trump can't pardon themselves.
2(+3/-1)
Blacklabel
Trump and his team of lawyers have filed, yet they all failed.
other than the judge on this case who has ruled on these filings?
What other lawyers have weighed In other than the Democrats what are prosecuting this case?
you made it sound like this biased judge didn’t rule that his own recusal isn’t necessary.
This judge has made every decision about this case to date. Appeals court should see it quite differently.
-6(+1/-7)
Blacklabel
Which is a really weird thing for someone to bring up, right after claimingnothing illegal has been discussed yet.
because this is supposedly something in the other case, not this one, that your Buddy is insisting to try to attach to this unrelated case.
in this case there has yet to be anything attributed to Trump’s actions that is illegal. But your bud says this case is getting “stronger every day”.
How so? 7 days of talking about things Trump didn’t do that aren’t crimes.
-7(+1/-8)
Cards fan
other than the judge on this case who has ruled on these filings?
Wrong again.
Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, had argued the case belonged in federal court, claiming that the indictment related to his 2016 presidency and involved federal election law.
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in Manhattan bought none of his arguments.
"The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was purely a personal item of the President -- a cover-up of an embarrassing event," Hellerstein wrote in a 25-page decision.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-loses-bid-move-ny-hush-money-case-federal-court-ruling-2023-07-19/
I guess Alvin Hellerstein is also biased? The very assertions you're making herein have already been tried in court and shot down.
4(+5/-1)
stormcrow
When Clinton was having sex affairs, the Republicans were up in arms about it.
Trump looks far worse, but now the Republicans don’t mind.
5(+6/-1)
bass4funk
Now, that being said, thank goodness this is a state court where a crook of a president like Donald J. Trump can't pardon themselves.
Not just him, any President. I hope the left remembers that as well.
-7(+0/-7)
Blacklabel
It was ok when Pecker bought stories about team Obama and suppressed them though?
-8(+0/-8)
