Trump's hush money trial has wrapped up for the week. Here's what happened on Friday

[Social Media]

 

The trial surrounding Donald Trump's alleged involvement in hush money payments made significant progress on Friday, with the jury hearing from two new witnesses following the conclusion of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker's testimony. Here's a breakdown of what unfolded in court:

 

David Pecker's Testimony:

• Trump Tower Meeting: Pecker stated that the concept of "catch and kill" was not discussed during an August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower. However, he later acknowledged that he and Michael Cohen had an understanding to flag negative stories to Cohen following the meeting.
• Stories about Trump's opponents: Pecker confirmed that the National Enquirer often recycled content about Trump's opponents from other outlets without notifying Trump.
• McDougal Agreement: Pecker admitted that Karen McDougal, who alleged an affair with Trump, was not primarily focused on the payment aspect of the agreement. He reiterated that the purpose of the contract was to suppress a potentially damaging story about Trump and influence the 2016 election.
• Legal Concerns: Pecker claimed he told Cohen that the agreement with McDougal was legally sound and reviewed it with a campaign attorney and his company's general counsel. However, he later clarified that he did not directly speak with the campaign lawyer or inform the AMI general counsel about the agreement reached with Trump.
• Stormy Daniels: Pecker stated he wanted nothing to do with Daniels' story but encouraged Cohen to purchase it.
• FBI Interview Discrepancy: Pecker's testimony about Trump expressing gratitude during a 2017 meeting conflicted with statements made during a 2018 FBI interview.

 

Rhona Graff's Testimony:

• Graff, Trump's former long-term assistant, testified about her role in managing Trump's calendar and contacts. She recalled seeing Stormy Daniels at Trump Tower before Trump's presidential campaign and assumed her visits were related to "The Apprentice."
•  

Gary Farro's Testimony:

• Farro, a former senior managing director at First Republic Bank, testified about setting up an account for Resolutions Consultants LLC, intended for the payment to McDougal. He later discussed the creation of Essential Consultants LLC, used for the payment to Stormy Daniels.

 

Gag Order Hearing:

• Judge Juan Merchan announced a hearing to discuss possible violations of the gag order against Trump.

 

Outside the courtroom, Trump reiterated his willingness to debate President Biden, responding to Biden's earlier statement expressing openness to a debate.

 

The trial will resume on Tuesday, with Farro continuing his testimony.

 

 

2024-04-27

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

[Danderman123]

The Prosecution is building their case. All the Trump fans have now is complaining that the entire case hasn't been revealed yet.

 

 

[jerrymahoney]

6 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The Prosecution is building their case. All the Trump fans have now is complaining that the entire case hasn't been revealed yet.

 

 

Yes -- and maybe this will be helpful explaining it to the jury.

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The Prosecution is building their case. All the Trump fans have now is complaining that the entire case hasn't been revealed yet.

 

 

Brace yourself.

The testimony and evidence against Trump will be played down.

Trump’s lawyers making laugh out loud mistakes will be played down.

Trump falling asleep during the trial will be played down.

 

One mistake, no matter how small, on the part of the Prosecutor’s lawyers will be spread all over the news, social media and this forum.
 

[jerrymahoney]

This case is still an embarrassment, in terms of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selectivity. Nevertheless, each side should have its day in court. If convicted, Mr. Trump can fight many other days — and perhaps win — in appellate courts. But if Monday’s opening is a preview of exaggerated allegations, imprecise legal theories and persistently unaddressed problems, the prosecutors might not win a conviction at all.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/opinion/bragg-trump-trial.html

(The JD, PhD writer of the above opinion was involved as Amici Curiae in the emoluments case against Trump with Washington DC and Maryland suing Trump primarily over his ownership of  the Trump International Hotel, DC, across the street from the White House while Trump was still President)

 

Edited April 27 by jerrymahoney

[candide]

2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

Yes -- and maybe this will be helpful explaining it to the jury.

Thanks for the picture! I understand better now! 😁

[Roo Island]

3 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

This case is still an embarrassment, in terms of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selectivity. Nevertheless, each side should have its day in court. If convicted, Mr. Trump can fight many other days — and perhaps win — in appellate courts. But if Monday’s opening is a preview of exaggerated allegations, imprecise legal theories and persistently unaddressed problems, the prosecutors might not win a conviction at all.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/opinion/bragg-trump-trial.html

(The JD, PhD writer of the above opinion was involved as Amici Curiae in the emoluments case against Trump with Washington DC and Maryland suing Trump primarily over his ownership of  the Trump International Hotel, DC, across the street from the White House while Trump was still President)

 

Opinion pieces....ugh.

 

https://www.salon.com/2024/04/25/underestimating-alvin-braggs-case-against-donald-is-a-historic-mistake/

 

Underestimating Alvin Bragg's case against Donald Trump is a historic mistake

 

A law professor gets Trump’s Manhattan prosecution wrong in the New York Times

[Danderman123]

Having sat on a jury, I can say that the jury is going to focus on the facts of the case: did Trump pay money to squelch a story to benefit his campaign, and then claim it was a business expenses? If that is proven, the jury should convict.

 

However, if Trump's attorneys successfully argue the law, that there was no crime in paying the hush money, then Trump may skate.

[jerrymahoney]

54 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

A law professor gets Trump’s Manhattan prosecution wrong in the New York Times

Noted. Maybe Shugerman will respond.

[jerrymahoney]

1 hour ago, Roo Island said:

Opinion pieces....ugh.

 

https://www.salon.com/2024/04/25/underestimating-alvin-braggs-case-against-donald-is-a-historic-mistake/

 

Underestimating Alvin Bragg's case against Donald Trump is a historic mistake

 

A law professor gets Trump’s Manhattan prosecution wrong in the New York Times

From the linked Salon article above:

 

The reasoning is not mentioned in Shugerman’s Times essay yet it is a necessary element of proving selective prosecution in New York.  Merchan also found that prosecutors had demonstrated that they had brought many other actions charging defendants with “falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal the commission of another crime.” 

*******************

The data, provided by the Office of Court Administration, shows 9,794 cases involving state penal law 175.10, or falsifying business records in the first degree, have been arraigned in both local and superior New York state courts since 2015.

 

In that time period, the five District Attorney’s Offices comprising New York City have charged 2,251 dockets to date involving Public Law 175.10.  .... the Manhattan DA’s Office has used it 389 times since 2015.

 

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/04/06/new-york-state-has-issued-nearly-9800-felony-charges-of-falsifying-business-records-since-2015/

 

**********************

Though the crime of falsifying business records is nominally a misdemeanor, the Manhattan district attorney’s office almost always charges it as a felony. Still, the Trump case stands apart. The Times could identify only two other felony cases in Manhattan over the past decade in which defendants were indicted on charges of falsifying business records but no other crime.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/magazine/alvin-bragg-donald-trump-trial.html

[Roo Island]

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

From the linked Salon article above:

 

The reasoning is not mentioned in Shugerman’s Times essay yet it is a necessary element of proving selective prosecution in New York.  Merchan also found that prosecutors had demonstrated that they had brought many other actions charging defendants with “falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal the commission of another crime.” 

*******************

The data, provided by the Office of Court Administration, shows 9,794 cases involving state penal law 175.10, or falsifying business records in the first degree, have been arraigned in both local and superior New York state courts since 2015.

 

In that time period, the five District Attorney’s Offices comprising New York City have charged 2,251 dockets to date involving Public Law 175.10.  .... the Manhattan DA’s Office has used it 389 times since 2015.

 

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/04/06/new-york-state-has-issued-nearly-9800-felony-charges-of-falsifying-business-records-since-2015/

 

**********************

Though the crime of falsifying business records is nominally a misdemeanor, the Manhattan district attorney’s office almost always charges it as a felony. Still, the Trump case stands apart. The Times could identify only two other felony cases in Manhattan over the past decade in which defendants were indicted on charges of falsifying business records but no other crime.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/magazine/alvin-bragg-donald-trump-trial.html

Great info. Thanks!

[Danderman123]

Trump's defense is going to struggle with their claim that Trump never had sex with Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels. I believe he claimed he didn't know them, same as E. Jean Carroll.

[Danderman123]

Is Trump going to testify in this case?