ReportWire

Tag: hush money case

  • Trump trial live updates: Jurors zero in on testimony of key witnesses as deliberations resume

    Trump trial live updates: Jurors zero in on testimony of key witnesses as deliberations resume

    NEW YORK (WABC) — The testimony in Donald Trump’s New York hush money trial is all wrapped up after more than four weeks and nearly two dozen witnesses, meaning the case has headed into the pivotal final stretch of closing arguments, jury deliberations, and possibly a verdict.

    It’s impossible to say how long all of that will take, but in a landmark trial that’s already featured its fair share of memorable moments, this week could easily be the most important.

    How might Trump’s campaign be affected if he’s acquitted in his hush money trial?

    Here’s a brief look at what every witness said on the stand during Donald Trump’s hush money trial

    What are the potential outcomes of Trump’s hush money trial?

    Key players in the Trump trial

    More coverage from ABC News

    LIVE UPDATES FROM THE TRUMP TRIAL

    Information from Eyewitness News, ABC News and the Associated Press

    Thursday, May 30

    Jury wants readback on how to consider evidence

    Lauren Glassberg reports from outside the courthouse in Lower Manhattan.

    “We did receive another note” from the jury this morning, Judge Merchan said.

    According to Merchan, the jury wants the readback to begin with a description of how the jury should consider that evidence, and what should be drawn from the testimony.

    Second, the jury said they want headphones “for use with the evidence laptop.”

    Merchan says the jury will get both headphones and a speaker so they can listen to the evidence.

    Day 2 of jury deliberations

    The jury in Donald Trump’s hush money trial is to resume deliberations Thursday after asking to rehear potentially crucial testimony about the alleged hush money scheme at the heart of the history-making case.

    The 12-person jury deliberated for about 4 1/2 hours on Wednesday without reaching a verdict.

    Besides asking to rehear testimony from a tabloid publisher and Trump’s former lawyer and personal fixer, the jury also requested to revisit at least part of the judge’s hourlong instructions that were meant to guide them on the law.

    It’s unclear how long the deliberations will last. A guilty verdict would deliver a stunning legal reckoning for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee as he seeks to reclaim the White House while an acquittal would represent a major win for Trump and embolden him on the campaign trail. Since verdicts must be unanimous, it’s also possible the case ends in a mistrial if the jury can’t reach a consensus after days of deliberations.

    Josh Einiger reports on the former president’s trial from Lower Manhattan.

    Wednesday, May 29

    Trump rails about trial after leaving court for the day

    Donald Trump continued to complain about the hush money trial as he left court Wednesday after the first day of jury deliberations.

    “The judge ought to end it and save his reputation,” Trump told reporters after conferring with his campaign and legal teams.

    The former president also railed that “a lot of key witnesses were not called,” even though his side ultimately chose to call only two witnesses to testify.

    He said again it’s “very unfair” that he has to be in court instead of out campaigning” and again labeled the case “a Biden witch hunt” and “weaponization.”

    Judge says jury notes will be addressed tomorrow

    With the just back in the courtroom, Judge Merchan told them the requested readback of testimony would will take at least half an hour, so announced he would dismiss the jury for the day and address both their notes when they return tomorrow.

    Before dismissing the jury for the day, the judge emphasized his standard instruction about the jury not looking up information related to the trial.

    “You are at a critical point in the proceedings,” Merchan said.

    “See you tomorrow morning at 9:30,” the judge said before the jury exited the courtroom.

    Jurors want to rehear instructions

    Before the parties resolved the first note, the jury sent another note asking “to rehear the judge’s instructions.”

    Meanwhile, Trump remained essentially expressionless – almost with a frown on his face as the judge addresses the parties.

    The jury is expected to return to the courtroom shortly.

    Jury note requests portions of testimony

    The parties – including Donald Trump – returned to the courtroom after a bell inside the room went off about 15 minutes ago. Judge Merchan arrived shortly thereafter:

    “Good afternoon. We have received a note,” Merchan said.

    Jurors have requested four items from the court:

    -David Pecker’s testimony about the phone conversation with Donald Trump while at an investor meeting in New Jersey.

    -David Pecker’s testimony about the decision about the assignment of McDougal’s life rights

    -David Pecker’s testimony about Trump Tower Meeting

    -And Michael Cohen testimony about Trump Tower Meeting

    “I will be in the robing room, let me know when you are ready for readback,” Merchan says.

    Todd Blanche and Joshua Steinglass are now conferring about how to respond. The parties are presumably combing through transcripts to find the relevant portions.

    Stuck waiting at the courthouse, Trump rants on social media

    Donald Trump’s complaints on social media about the hush money case persisted Wednesday as the jury deliberated.

    “IT IS RIDICULOUS, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND UNAMERICAN that the highly Conflicted, Radical Left Judge is not requiring a unanimous decision on the fake charges against me brought by Soros backed D.A. Alvin Bragg,” he wrote. “A THIRD WORLD ELECTION INTERFERENCE HOAX!”

    Despite his declaration, any verdict in the case has to be unanimous: guilty or not guilty.

    If the jurors disagree, they keep deliberating. If they get to a point where they are hopelessly deadlocked, then the judge can declare a mistrial.

    If they convict, they must agree that Trump created a false entry in his company’s records or caused someone else to do so, and that he did so with the intent of committing or concealing another crime – in this case, violating a state election law.

    What the jurors do not have to agree on, however, is which way that election law was violated.

    The jury has been sent to deliberate. What exactly does that mean?

    Jury deliberations proceed in secret, in a room reserved specifically for jurors and through an intentionally opaque process.

    Jurors can communicate with the court through notes that ask the judge, for instance, for legal guidance or to have particular excerpts of testimony read back to them. But without knowing what jurors are saying to each other, it’s hard to read too much into the meaning of any note.

    It’s anyone’s guess how long the jury in Donald Trump’s hush money case will deliberate for and there’s no time limit either. The jury must evaluate 34 counts of falsifying business records and that could take some time. A verdict might not come by the end of the week.

    To reach a verdict on any given count, either guilty or not guilty, all 12 jurors must agree with the decision for the judge to accept it.

    Things will get trickier if the jury can’t reach a consensus after several days of deliberations. Though defense lawyers might seek an immediate mistrial, Judge Juan M. Merchan is likely to call the jurors in and instruct them to keep trying for a verdict and to be willing to reconsider their positions without abandoning their conscience or judgment just to go along with others.

    If, after that instruction, the jury still can’t reach a verdict, the judge would have the option to deem the panel hopelessly deadlocked and declare a mistrial.

    Trump: ‘Mother Teresa could not beat these charges’

    Former President Donald Trump told reporters after jurors began deliberating in his criminal hush money trial that the charges were rigged and again accused the judge of being conflicted. He further said that “Mother Teresa could not beat these charges.”

    “What is happening here is weaponization at a level that nobody’s seen before ever and it shouldn’t be allowed to happen,” Trump said.

    Trump repeated accusations that the criminal charges were brought by President Joe Biden’s administration to hit him, as the president’s main election opponent.

    Jury begins deliberating in historic case

    “That concludes my instructions on the law. Counsel please approach,” Judge Merchan said when he was done instructing the jury.

    He held a sidebar with the attorneys, after which the jurors filed out of the courtroom to begin deliberations.

    Lauren Glassberg is in Lower Manhattan as jury deliberations get underway.

    Judge to jurors: Personal bias must be put aside

    The judge in Donald Trump’s criminal trial reminded jurors Wednesday morning of their solemn responsibility to decide Trump’s guilt or innocence, gently and methodically reading through standard jury instructions that have a special resonance in the former president’s high-profile case.

    “As a juror, you are asked to make a very important decision about another member of the community,” Judge Juan M. Merchan said, underscoring that – in the eyes of the law – the jurors and Trump are peers.

    Merchan also reminded jurors of their vow, during jury selection, “to set aside any personal bias you may have in favor of or against” Trump and decide the case “fairly based on the evidence of the law.”

    Echoing standard jury instructions, Merchan noted that even though the defense presented evidence, the burden of proof remains on the prosecutor and that Trump is “not required to prove that he is not guilty.”

    “In fact,” noted Merchan, “the defendant is not required to prove or disprove anything.”

    Reading of jury instructions underway

    The jury in Donald Trump’s hush money trial has entered the courtroom and taken their seats. Ahead of deliberations, Judge Juan M. Merchan has begun instructing the panel on the law that governs the case and what they can consider as they work toward a verdict.

    Jurors will not receive copies of the instructions, but they can request to hear them again as many times as they wish, Merchan said.

    “It is not my responsibility to judge the evidence here. It is yours,” he told them.

    Trump leaned back in his chair and closed his eyes as Merchan told jurors that reading the instructions would take about an hour.

    Another famous face at the courthouse

    Donald Trump will not be the only big name appearing before a judge in lower Manhattan on Wednesday – fallen movie mogul Harvey Weinstein is expected to appear for a hearing related to the retrial of his landmark #MeToo-era rape case.

    The hearing will take place in the same courthouse where Trump is currently on trial and where Weinstein was originally convicted in 2020.

    Weinstein’s conviction was overturned in April after the court found that the trial judge unfairly allowed testimony against Weinstein based on allegations that weren’t part of the case. His retrial is slated for sometime after Labor Day.

    Weinstein is set to appear for a hearing before a judge in the same courthouse as Donald Trump.

    A motion that still hasn’t been decided

    The judge in Donald Trump’s hush money trial might have one last piece of business to address on Wednesday before jurors receive instructions and can begin deliberations.

    Last Monday, defense lawyers filed a motion asking the judge to dismiss the case, arguing that prosecutors had failed to prove their case and there was no evidence of falsified business records or an intent to defraud.

    Prosecutors rebutted that assertion, saying “the trial evidence overwhelmingly supports each element” of the alleged offenses, and the case should proceed to the jury.

    Judge Juan M. Merchan did not indicate at the time when he would issue a decision on the request. More than a week later, it remains unclear whether he will address it before the case goes to the jury.

    Jury set to begin deliberations

    Jurors in Donald Trump’s hush money trial are expected to begin deliberations Wednesday after receiving instructions from the judge on the law and the factors they may consider as they strive to reach a verdict in the first criminal case against a former American president.

    The deliberations follow a marathon day of closing arguments in which a Manhattan prosecutor accused Trump of trying to “hoodwink” voters in the 2016 presidential election by participating in a hush money scheme meant to stifle embarrassing stories he feared would torpedo his campaign.

    “This case, at its core, is about a conspiracy and a cover-up,” prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told jurors during summations that stretched from early afternoon into the evening.

    Trump’s lawyer, by contrast, branded the star prosecution witness as the “greatest liar of all time” as he proclaimed his client innocent of all charges and pressed the panel for an across-the-board acquittal.

    The lawyers’ dueling accounts, wildly divergent in their assessments of witness credibility, Trump’s culpability and the strength of evidence, offered both sides one final chance to score points with the jury as it prepares to embark upon the momentous and historically unprecedented task of deciding whether to convict the presumptive Republican presidential nominee ahead of the November election.

    Lindsay Tuchman has the latest in Lower Manhattan on the trial.

    Tuesday, May 28

    Closing arguments conclude; jury deliberations to begin Wednesday

    Donald Trump choreographed “a conspiracy and a coverup” in a brazen attempt to “pull the wool” over voters’ eyes ahead the 2016 presidential election, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said during a lengthy closing argument that stretched into Tuesday evening.

    “The name of the game was concealment, and all roads lead inescapably to the man who benefitted most: the defendant, former President Donald J. Trump,” Steinglass said.

    With his final pitch to jurors, Steinglass attempted to both rehabilitate the credibility of the government’s key witness, Michael Cohen, and downplay his role in the case, characterizing the onetime fixer as nothing more than a “tour guide” through a “mountain of evidence.”

    In the end, Steinglass argued, jurors need not rely on Cohen alone, because “it’s difficult to conceive of a case with more corroboration.”

    Judge Juan Merchan will instruct jurors on Wednesday morning. After that, deliberations will begin.

    Prosecution dubs ‘Access Hollywood’ tape a ‘Category 5 Hurricane’

    Following a brief afternoon break in closing arguments in Donald Trump’s hush money trial, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass turned his attention to the publication of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape in October 2016 and the resulting fallout for the then-candidate’s campaign.

    “When you’re a celebrity, they let you do it. You can get away with anything,” Trump could be heard saying on the tape.

    Steinglass reminded jurors how Hope Hicks, then the campaign’s communications director, testified that news coverage of the tape knocked a Category 4 hurricane out of the headlines.

    Steinglass dubbed the tape a “Category 5” hurricane.

    Trump was ‘looming behind everything they’re doing,’ prosecutor says

    Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said on Tuesday during closing arguments that joking texts between Karen McDougal’s lawyer Keith Davidson and then-National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard about hypothetical ambassadorships were clear evidence that they knew the deal would benefit Trump’s presidential campaign.

    “Throw in an ambassadorship for me. I’m thinking Isle of Mann,” Davidson wrote on July 28, 2016, referring to the British territory Isle of Man.

    “I’m going to Make Australia Great Again,” replied Howard, who hails from Australia.

    All joking aside, Steinglass said: “It’s a palpable recognition of what they’re doing. They’re helping Trump get elected.” The prosecutor said the text messages underscore that “Trump is looming behind everything that they’re doing.”

    Prosecutor says case is about Trump and not Michael Cohen

    After Donald Trump’s lawyer had insisted to jurors that the hush money case rested on Michael Cohen and that they couldn’t trust him, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass sought to persuade the group that there is “a mountain of evidence, of corroborating testimony, that tends to connect the defendant to this crime.”

    He pointed to testimony from David Pecker and others, to the recorded conversation in which Trump and Cohen appear to discuss the Karen McDougal deal, and to Trump’s own tweets.

    “It’s not about whether you like Michael Cohen. It’s not about whether you want to go into business with Michael Cohen. It’s whether he has useful, reliable information to give you about what went down in this case, and the truth is that he was in the best position to know,” Steinglass said.

    The prosecutor then accused the defense of wanting to make the case all about Cohen.

    “It isn’t. That’s a deflection,” he said. “This case is not about Michael Cohen. It’s about Donald Trump.”

    Trump campaign holds its own news conference

    Donald Trump’s campaign staffers held their own news conference outside the courthouse Tuesday morning in the exact same spot where actor Robert De Niro and Jan. 6 officers had just spoken on behalf of Joe Biden’s campaign.

    Jason Miller, Trump’s senior campaign advisor, called De Niro “a washed-up actor,” and said the news conference showed that the hush money trial was political.

    “After months of saying politics had nothing to do with this trial, they showed up and made a campaign event out of a lower Manhattan trial day for President Trump,” Miller said.

    Karoline Leavitt, the campaign press secretary, called the Biden campaign “desperate and failing” and “pathetic” and said their event outside the trial was “a full-blown concession that this trial is a witch hunt that comes from the top.”

    Actor Robert de Niro and Jan. 6 first responders speak near Trump’s trial

    Biden campaign deploys actor Robert De Niro, Jan. 6 first responders near Trump’s trial

    Joe Biden’s campaign sent actor Robert De Niro and two law enforcement officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 to an area in lower Manhattan not far from the criminal court where Donald Trump’s hush money trial is happening.

    Speaking while the former president was stuck in court, De Niro said Trump wants to “destroy not only the city but the country and eventually he could destroy the world.”

    As he spoke, Trump protesters screamed anti-Biden chants.

    Actor Robert De Niro exchanged words with Trump supporters outside the court.

    Defense says Trump watches his finances carefully

    After arguing earlier Tuesday that Donald Trump may not have been fully aware of all his invoices, defense lawyer Todd Blanche stressed to jurors that the former president was a stickler about watching his finances.

    Michael Cohen received $420,000 in all from Trump in 2017, a sum that the ex-lawyer and prosecutors in the former president’s hush money case have said included the $130,000 reimbursement related to Stormy Daniels, a $50,000 repayment for an unrelated expense and a $60,000 bonus. On top of that, prosecutors have said, there was extra money to cover taxes that would be due on the $130,000 as income – taxes that wouldn’t apply if it had simply been paid as a business expense reimbursement.

    “That is absurd,” Blanche told jurors, pointing to “all the other evidence you heard about how carefully President Trump watches his finances.”

    Biden and Trump campaigns hold dueling news conferences outside courthouse

    Joe Biden’s campaign announced on Tuesday that it would hold an event with “special guests” as closing arguments in Donald Trump’s hush money trial are underway.

    Trump spokesman Jason Miller said the former president’s allies will respond with their own event immediately following Biden’s.

    He posted on the social platform X that Biden’s allies “aren’t in PA, MI, WI, NV, AZ or GA – they’re outside the Biden Trial against President Trump,” adding: “It’s always been about politics.”

    Blanche takes aim at Cohen’s testimony

    Insisting that prosecutors haven’t proven their case, defense lawyer Todd Blanche told jurors during closing arguments Tuesday morning that they “should want and expect more” than key prosecution witness Michael Cohen’s testimony, or that of a Trump Organization employee accounts payable staffer talking about how she processed invoices, or the testimony given by Stormy Daniels’ former lawyer Keith Davidson.

    Blanche argued that Davidson “was really just trying to extort money from President Trump” in the lead-up to the 2016 election.

    “The consequences of the lack of proof that you all heard over the past five weeks is simple: is a not guilty verdict, period,” Blanche said.

    Blanche further laid into Cohen and his testimony, telling jurors he’ll come up repeatedly throughout the defense’s summation.

    “You’re going to hear me talk a lot about Michael Cohen, and for good reason. You can not convict President Trump, you can not convict President Trump of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt on the word of Michael Cohen,” Blanche said. Cohen “told you a number of things that were lies, pure and simple,” the lawyer added.

    Closing arguments in Trump trial

    Closing arguments in Donald Trump’s historic hush money trial began Tuesday morning in a Manhattan courtroom, giving prosecutors and defense attorneys one final opportunity to convince the jury of their respective cases before deliberations begin.

    Jurors will undertake the unprecedented task of deciding whether to convict the former U.S. president of felony criminal charges stemming from hush money payments tied to an alleged scheme to buy and bury stories that might wreck Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

    At the heart of the charges are reimbursements paid to Michael Cohen for a $130,000 hush money payment that was given to porn actor Stormy Daniels in exchange for not going public with her claim about a 2006 sexual encounter with Trump.

    Prosecutors say the payments to Cohen, Trump’s then-lawyer, were falsely logged as “legal expenses” to hide the true nature of the transactions.

    Monday, May 27

    Closing arguments expected Tuesday

    After 22 witnesses, including a porn actor, tabloid publisher and White House insiders, testimony is over at Donald Trump’s criminal trial in New York.

    Prosecutors called 20 witnesses. The defense called just two. Trump decided not to testify on his own behalf.

    The trial now shifts to closing arguments, scheduled for Tuesday.

    After that, it will be up to 12 jurors to decide whether prosecutors have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified his company’s business records as part of a broader effort to keep stories about marital infidelity from becoming public during his 2016 presidential campaign. He has pleaded not guilty and denies any wrongdoing.

    A conviction could come down to how the jurors interpret the testimony and which witnesses they find credible. The jury must be unanimous. The records involved include 11 checks sent to Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, as well as invoices and company ledger entries related to those payments.

    One last thing before the jury deliberates

    A critical moment will take place, perhaps Wednesday morning, before the jury begins its deliberations.

    Judge Juan M. Merchan is expected to spend about an hour instructing the jury on the law governing the case, providing a roadmap for what it can and cannot take into account as it evaluates the Republican former president’s guilt or innocence.

    In an indication of just how important those instructions are, prosecutors and defense lawyers had a spirited debate last week outside the jury’s presence as they sought to persuade Merchan about the instructions he should give.

    The Trump team, for instance, sought an instruction informing jurors that the types of hush money payments at issue in Trump’s case are not inherently illegal, a request a prosecutor called “totally inappropriate.” Merchan said such an instruction would go too far and is unnecessary.

    Trump’s team also asked Merchan to consider the “extraordinarily important” nature of the case when issuing his instructions and to urge jurors to reach “very specific findings.” Prosecutors objected to that as well, and Merchan agreed that it would be wrong to deviate from the standard instructions.

    “When you say it’s a very important case, you’re asking me to change the law, and I’m not going to do that,” Merchan said.

    Prosecutors, meanwhile, requested an instruction that someone’s status as a candidate doesn’t need to be the sole motivation for making a payment that benefits the campaign. Defense lawyers asked for jurors to be told that if a payment would have been made even if the person wasn’t running, it shouldn’t be treated as a campaign contribution.

    ———-

    * Get Eyewitness News Delivered

    * More New York City news

    * Send us a news tip

    * Download the abc7NY app for breaking news alerts

    * Follow us on YouTube

    Submit a tip or story idea to Eyewitness News

    Have a breaking news tip or an idea for a story we should cover? Send it to Eyewitness News using the form below. If attaching a video or photo, terms of use apply.

    Copyright © 2024 WABC-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    WABC

    Source link

  • Trump faces prospect of additional sanctions in hush money trial as key witness resumes testimony

    Trump faces prospect of additional sanctions in hush money trial as key witness resumes testimony

    A lawyer who negotiated a pair of hush money deals at the center of Donald Trump’s criminal trial recalled Thursday his “gallows humor” reaction to Trump’s 2016 election victory and the realization that his hidden-hand efforts might have contributed to the win.“What have we done?” the attorney Keith Davidson texted the then-editor of the National Enquirer, which had buried stories of extramarital sexual encounters to prevent them surfacing in the final days of the bitterly contested presidential race. “Oh my god,” came the response from Dylan Howard.“There was an understanding that our efforts may have in some way — strike that — our activities may have in some way assisted the presidential campaign of Donald Trump,” Davidson told jurors.The testimony from Davidson was designed to directly connect the hush money payments to Trump’s presidential ambitions and to bolster prosecutors’ argument that the case is about interference in the 2016 election rather than simply sex and money. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has sought to establish that link not just to secure a conviction but also to persuade the public of the significance of the case, which may be the only one of four Trump prosecutions to reach trial this year.“This is sort of gallows humor. It was on election night as the results were coming in,” Davidson explained. “There was sort of surprise among the broadcasters and others that Mr. Trump was leading in the polls, and there was a growing sense that folks were about ready to call the election.”Davidson is seen as a vital building block for the prosecution’s case that Trump and his allies schemed to bury unflattering stories in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. A lawyer who represented porn actor Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal — both of whom have said they had sexual encounters with Trump — Davidson is one of multiple key players testifying in advance of Michael Cohen, the star prosecution witness and Trump’s former lawyer and personal fixer.Davidson represented both Daniels and McDougal in their negotiations with the National Enquirer and Cohen in deals that resulted in the rights to their stories being purchased and then stifled in exchange for money.Jurors on Thursday viewed a confidential agreement requiring Daniels to keep quiet about her claims that she had an extramarital tryst with the former president a decade earlier. The agreement, dated less than two weeks before the 2016 presidential election, called for her to receive $130,000 in exchange for her silence.The money was paid by Cohen, and the agreement referred to both Trump and Daniels with pseudonyms: David Dennison and Peggy Peterson.“It is understood and agreed that the true name and identity of the person referred to as ‘DAVID DENNISON’ in the Settlement Agreement is Donald Trump,” the document stated, with Trump’s name written in by hand.While testifying Thursday, Davidson also recalled Cohen ranting to him about Trump in a phone conversation about a month after the 2016 election, complaining the president-elect wasn’t taking him to Washington and hadn’t paid him back for the $130,000 payment to Daniels. He also said that Cohen told him that he and Trump were “very upset” when The Wall Street Journal published an article that exposed a separate $150,000 arrangement with McDougal just days before the election.“He wanted to know who the source of the article was, why someone would be the source of this type of article. He was upset by the timing,” Davidson said of Cohen. “He stated his boss was very upset, and he threatened to sue Karen McDougal.”Before the start of testimony, prosecutors requested $1,000 fines for each of four comments by Trump that they say violated a judge’s gag order barring him from attacking witnesses, jurors and others closely connected to the case. Such a penalty would be on top of a $9,000 fine that Judge Juan M. Merchan imposed Tuesday related to nine separate gag order violations that he found.“The defendant is talking about witnesses and the jury in this case, one right here outside this door,” prosecutor Christopher Conroy said. “This is the most critical time, the time the proceeding has to be protected.”“His statements are corrosive to this proceeding and the fair administration of justice,” Conroy added.Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche countered that Trump’s candidacy and the massive media attention he receives have made it impossible for him not to be asked about, or comment on, the trial.”He can’t just say ‘no comment’ repeatedly. He’s running for president,” Blanche said.Merchan did not immediately rule on the request for fresh sanctions, though he indicated that he was not particularly concerned about one of the four statements flagged by prosecutors.Yet the mere prospect of further punishment underscored the challenges Trump the presidential candidate faces in adjusting to the role of criminal defendant subject to rigid courtroom protocol that he does not control. It also remains to be seen whether any rebuke from the court will lead Trump to adjust his behavior given the campaign trail benefit he believes he derives from painting the case as politically motivated.During a one-day break from the trial on Wednesday, Trump kept up his condemnation of the case, though he stopped short of comments that might run afoul of the gag order.“There is no crime,” he told supporters in Waukesha, Wisconsin. “I have a crooked judge, is a totally conflicted judge.”The trial, now in its second week of testimony, has exposed the underbelly of tabloid journalism practices and the protections, for a price, afforded to Trump during his successful run for president in 2016.After the $130,000 payment was made to Daniels, Trump’s company reimbursed Cohen and logged the payments to him as legal expenses, prosecutors have said in charging the former president with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records — a charge punishable by up to four years in prison.He testified earlier in the week that he arranged a meeting at his Los Angeles office during the summer of 2016 to see whether the tabloid’s parent company American Media Inc. was interested in McDougal’s story. At first, they demurred, saying she “lacked documentary evidence of the interaction,” Davidson testified.But at the behest of then-publisher David Pecker, the tabloid eventually bought the rights. Davidson testified that he understood — and McDougal preferred — that it never be published. One reason for that, he said, is that there was an “unspoken affiliation” between Pecker and Trump and a desire by the company that owned the Enquirer not to publish stories that would hurt Trump.

    A lawyer who negotiated a pair of hush money deals at the center of Donald Trump’s criminal trial recalled Thursday his “gallows humor” reaction to Trump’s 2016 election victory and the realization that his hidden-hand efforts might have contributed to the win.

    “What have we done?” the attorney Keith Davidson texted the then-editor of the National Enquirer, which had buried stories of extramarital sexual encounters to prevent them surfacing in the final days of the bitterly contested presidential race. “Oh my god,” came the response from Dylan Howard.

    “There was an understanding that our efforts may have in some way — strike that — our activities may have in some way assisted the presidential campaign of Donald Trump,” Davidson told jurors.

    The testimony from Davidson was designed to directly connect the hush money payments to Trump’s presidential ambitions and to bolster prosecutors’ argument that the case is about interference in the 2016 election rather than simply sex and money. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has sought to establish that link not just to secure a conviction but also to persuade the public of the significance of the case, which may be the only one of four Trump prosecutions to reach trial this year.

    “This is sort of gallows humor. It was on election night as the results were coming in,” Davidson explained. “There was sort of surprise among the broadcasters and others that Mr. Trump was leading in the polls, and there was a growing sense that folks were about ready to call the election.”

    Davidson is seen as a vital building block for the prosecution’s case that Trump and his allies schemed to bury unflattering stories in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. A lawyer who represented porn actor Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal — both of whom have said they had sexual encounters with Trump — Davidson is one of multiple key players testifying in advance of Michael Cohen, the star prosecution witness and Trump’s former lawyer and personal fixer.

    Davidson represented both Daniels and McDougal in their negotiations with the National Enquirer and Cohen in deals that resulted in the rights to their stories being purchased and then stifled in exchange for money.

    Jurors on Thursday viewed a confidential agreement requiring Daniels to keep quiet about her claims that she had an extramarital tryst with the former president a decade earlier. The agreement, dated less than two weeks before the 2016 presidential election, called for her to receive $130,000 in exchange for her silence.

    The money was paid by Cohen, and the agreement referred to both Trump and Daniels with pseudonyms: David Dennison and Peggy Peterson.

    “It is understood and agreed that the true name and identity of the person referred to as ‘DAVID DENNISON’ in the Settlement Agreement is Donald Trump,” the document stated, with Trump’s name written in by hand.

    While testifying Thursday, Davidson also recalled Cohen ranting to him about Trump in a phone conversation about a month after the 2016 election, complaining the president-elect wasn’t taking him to Washington and hadn’t paid him back for the $130,000 payment to Daniels.

    He also said that Cohen told him that he and Trump were “very upset” when The Wall Street Journal published an article that exposed a separate $150,000 arrangement with McDougal just days before the election.

    “He wanted to know who the source of the article was, why someone would be the source of this type of article. He was upset by the timing,” Davidson said of Cohen. “He stated his boss was very upset, and he threatened to sue Karen McDougal.”

    Before the start of testimony, prosecutors requested $1,000 fines for each of four comments by Trump that they say violated a judge’s gag order barring him from attacking witnesses, jurors and others closely connected to the case. Such a penalty would be on top of a $9,000 fine that Judge Juan M. Merchan imposed Tuesday related to nine separate gag order violations that he found.

    “The defendant is talking about witnesses and the jury in this case, one right here outside this door,” prosecutor Christopher Conroy said. “This is the most critical time, the time the proceeding has to be protected.”

    “His statements are corrosive to this proceeding and the fair administration of justice,” Conroy added.

    Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche countered that Trump’s candidacy and the massive media attention he receives have made it impossible for him not to be asked about, or comment on, the trial.

    “He can’t just say ‘no comment’ repeatedly. He’s running for president,” Blanche said.

    Merchan did not immediately rule on the request for fresh sanctions, though he indicated that he was not particularly concerned about one of the four statements flagged by prosecutors.

    Yet the mere prospect of further punishment underscored the challenges Trump the presidential candidate faces in adjusting to the role of criminal defendant subject to rigid courtroom protocol that he does not control. It also remains to be seen whether any rebuke from the court will lead Trump to adjust his behavior given the campaign trail benefit he believes he derives from painting the case as politically motivated.

    During a one-day break from the trial on Wednesday, Trump kept up his condemnation of the case, though he stopped short of comments that might run afoul of the gag order.

    “There is no crime,” he told supporters in Waukesha, Wisconsin. “I have a crooked judge, is a totally conflicted judge.”

    The trial, now in its second week of testimony, has exposed the underbelly of tabloid journalism practices and the protections, for a price, afforded to Trump during his successful run for president in 2016.

    After the $130,000 payment was made to Daniels, Trump’s company reimbursed Cohen and logged the payments to him as legal expenses, prosecutors have said in charging the former president with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records — a charge punishable by up to four years in prison.

    He testified earlier in the week that he arranged a meeting at his Los Angeles office during the summer of 2016 to see whether the tabloid’s parent company American Media Inc. was interested in McDougal’s story. At first, they demurred, saying she “lacked documentary evidence of the interaction,” Davidson testified.

    But at the behest of then-publisher David Pecker, the tabloid eventually bought the rights. Davidson testified that he understood — and McDougal preferred — that it never be published. One reason for that, he said, is that there was an “unspoken affiliation” between Pecker and Trump and a desire by the company that owned the Enquirer not to publish stories that would hurt Trump.

    Source link

  • Potential jurors called into courtroom for start of Trump’s historic hush money trial

    Potential jurors called into courtroom for start of Trump’s historic hush money trial

    The historic hush money trial of Donald Trump got underway Monday with the arduous process of selecting a jury to hear the case charging the former president with falsifying business records in order to stifle stories about his sex life.The day ended without any jurors being seated. The selection process was scheduled to resume Tuesday.The first criminal trial of any former U.S. president began as Trump vies to reclaim the White House, creating a remarkable split-screen spectacle of the presumptive Republican nominee spending his days as a criminal defendant while simultaneously campaigning for office. He’s blended those roles over the last year by presenting himself to supporters, on the campaign trail and on social media, as a target of politically motivated prosecutions designed to derail his candidacy.“It’s a scam. It’s a political witch hunt. It continues, and it continues forever,” Trump said after exiting the courtroom, where he sat at the defense table with his lawyers.After a norm-shattering presidency shadowed by years of investigations, the trial amounts to a courtroom reckoning for Trump, who faces four indictments charging him with crimes ranging from hoarding classified documents to plotting to overturn an election. Yet the political stakes are less clear since a conviction would not preclude him from becoming president and because the allegations in this case date back years and are seen as less grievous than the conduct behind the three other indictments.The day began with hours of pretrial arguments, including over a potential fine for Trump, before moving into the start of jury selection Monday afternoon. The first members of the jury pool — 96 in all — were summoned into the courtroom, where the parties will decide who among them might be picked to decide the legal fate of the former, and potentially future, American president.Trump craned his neck to look back at the pool, whispering to his lawyer as they entered the jury box.“You are about to participate in a trial by jury. The system of trial by jury is one the cornerstones of our judicial system,” Judge Juan Merchan told the jurors. “The name of this case is the People of the State of New York vs. Donald Trump.”Video below: Aerial footage shows Donald Trump arriving for criminal hush money trial in New YorkTrump’s notoriety would make the process of picking 12 jurors and six alternates a near-herculean task in any year, but it’s likely to be especially challenging now, unfolding in a closely contested presidential election in the heavily Democratic city where Trump grew up and catapulted to celebrity status decades before winning the White House.Underscoring the difficulty, only about a third of the 96 people in the first panel of potential jurors remained after the judge excused some members of the jury pool. More than half of the group was excused after telling the judge they could not be fair and impartial. At least nine more prospective jurors were excused after raising their hands when Merchan asked if they could not serve for any other reason.A female juror was excused after saying she had strong opinions about Trump. Earlier in the questionnaire, the woman, a Harlem resident, indicated she could be neutral in deciding the case. But when asked whether she had strong opinions about the former president, the woman answered matter-of-factly: “Yes.”When Merchan asked her to repeat the response, she replied: “Yeah, I said yes.” She was dismissed.Merchan has written that the key is “whether the prospective juror can assure us that they will set aside any personal feelings or biases and render a decision that is based on the evidence and the law.”No matter the outcome, Trump is determined to benefit from the proceedings, casting the case, and his indictments elsewhere, as a broad “weaponization of law enforcement” by Democratic prosecutors and officials. He maintains they are orchestrating sham charges in hopes of impeding his presidential run.He’s lambasted judges and prosecutors for years, a pattern of attacks that continued up to the moment he entered court on Monday, when he said: ’“This is political persecution. This is a persecution like never before.”Video below: A preview into picking a jury for Donald Trump’s New York criminal trialEarlier Monday, the judge denied a defense request to recuse himself from the case after Trump’s lawyers claimed he had a conflict of interest. He also said prosecutors could not play for the jury the 2005 “Access Hollywood” recording in which Trump was captured discussing grabbing women sexually without their permission. However, prosecutors will be allowed to question witnesses about the recording, which became public in the final weeks of the 2016 campaign.Prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office also asked Monday for Merchan to fine Trump $3,000 over social media posts they said violated the judge’s gag order barring him from attacking witnesses. Last week, he used his Truth Social platform to call his former lawyer Michael Cohen and the adult film actor Stormy Daniels “two sleaze bags who have, with their lies and misrepresentations, cost our Country dearly!” Trump lawyer Todd Blanche maintained that Trump was simply responding to the witnesses’ statements.“It’s not as if President Trump is going out and targeting individuals. He is responding to salacious, repeated vehement attacks by these witnesses,” Blanche said.Merchan did not rule on the request immediately and instead set a hearing for next week.Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records that arose from an alleged effort to keep salacious — and, he says, bogus — stories about his sex life from emerging during his 2016 campaign.The charges center on $130,000 in payments that Trump’s company made to Cohen. He had paid that sum on Trump’s behalf to keep Daniels from going public, a month before the election, with her claims of a sexual encounter with the married mogul a decade earlier.Prosecutors say the payments to Cohen were falsely logged as legal fees in order to cloak their actual purpose. Trump’s lawyers say the disbursements indeed were legal expenses, not a cover-up.After decades of fielding and initiating lawsuits, the businessman-turned-politician now faces a trial that could result in up to four years in prison if he’s convicted, though a no-jail sentence also would be possible. Trump would also be expected to appeal any conviction.Trump’s attorneys lost a bid to get the hush-money case dismissed and have since repeatedly sought to delay it, prompting a flurry of last-minute appeals court hearings last week.Among other things, Trump’s lawyers maintain that the jury pool in overwhelmingly Democratic Manhattan has been tainted by negative publicity about Trump and that the case should be moved elsewhere.Video below: New York DA lays out case against TrumpAn appeals judge turned down an emergency request to delay the trial while the change-of-venue request goes to a group of appellate judges, who are set to consider it in the coming weeks.Manhattan prosecutors have countered that a lot of the publicity stems from Trump’s own comments and that questioning will tease out whether prospective jurors can put aside any preconceptions they may have. There’s no reason, prosecutors said, to think that 12 fair and impartial people can’t be found amid Manhattan’s roughly 1.4 million adult residents.The prospective jurors will be known only by number, as the judge has ordered their names to be kept secret from everyone except prosecutors, Trump and their legal teams. The 42 preapproved, sometimes multi-pronged queries include background basics but also reflect the uniqueness of the case. They’re being asked, among other questions, about their hobbies and news habits, if they hold strong beliefs about Trump that would prevent them being impartial and about attendance at Trump or anti-Trump rallies.Based on the answers, the attorneys can ask a judge to eliminate people “for cause” if they meet certain criteria for being unable to serve or be unbiased. The lawyers also can use “peremptory challenges” to nix 10 potential jurors and two prospective alternates without giving a reason.“If you’re going to strike everybody who’s either a Republican or a Democrat,” the judge observed at a February hearing, “you’re going to run out of peremptory challenges very quickly.”_____Tucker reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Jake Offenhartz in New York contributed to this report.

    The historic hush money trial of Donald Trump got underway Monday with the arduous process of selecting a jury to hear the case charging the former president with falsifying business records in order to stifle stories about his sex life.

    The day ended without any jurors being seated. The selection process was scheduled to resume Tuesday.

    The first criminal trial of any former U.S. president began as Trump vies to reclaim the White House, creating a remarkable split-screen spectacle of the presumptive Republican nominee spending his days as a criminal defendant while simultaneously campaigning for office. He’s blended those roles over the last year by presenting himself to supporters, on the campaign trail and on social media, as a target of politically motivated prosecutions designed to derail his candidacy.

    “It’s a scam. It’s a political witch hunt. It continues, and it continues forever,” Trump said after exiting the courtroom, where he sat at the defense table with his lawyers.

    After a norm-shattering presidency shadowed by years of investigations, the trial amounts to a courtroom reckoning for Trump, who faces four indictments charging him with crimes ranging from hoarding classified documents to plotting to overturn an election. Yet the political stakes are less clear since a conviction would not preclude him from becoming president and because the allegations in this case date back years and are seen as less grievous than the conduct behind the three other indictments.

    The day began with hours of pretrial arguments, including over a potential fine for Trump, before moving into the start of jury selection Monday afternoon. The first members of the jury pool — 96 in all — were summoned into the courtroom, where the parties will decide who among them might be picked to decide the legal fate of the former, and potentially future, American president.

    Trump craned his neck to look back at the pool, whispering to his lawyer as they entered the jury box.

    “You are about to participate in a trial by jury. The system of trial by jury is one the cornerstones of our judicial system,” Judge Juan Merchan told the jurors. “The name of this case is the People of the State of New York vs. Donald Trump.”

    Video below: Aerial footage shows Donald Trump arriving for criminal hush money trial in New York

    Trump’s notoriety would make the process of picking 12 jurors and six alternates a near-herculean task in any year, but it’s likely to be especially challenging now, unfolding in a closely contested presidential election in the heavily Democratic city where Trump grew up and catapulted to celebrity status decades before winning the White House.

    Underscoring the difficulty, only about a third of the 96 people in the first panel of potential jurors remained after the judge excused some members of the jury pool. More than half of the group was excused after telling the judge they could not be fair and impartial. At least nine more prospective jurors were excused after raising their hands when Merchan asked if they could not serve for any other reason.

    A female juror was excused after saying she had strong opinions about Trump. Earlier in the questionnaire, the woman, a Harlem resident, indicated she could be neutral in deciding the case. But when asked whether she had strong opinions about the former president, the woman answered matter-of-factly: “Yes.”

    When Merchan asked her to repeat the response, she replied: “Yeah, I said yes.” She was dismissed.

    Merchan has written that the key is “whether the prospective juror can assure us that they will set aside any personal feelings or biases and render a decision that is based on the evidence and the law.”

    No matter the outcome, Trump is determined to benefit from the proceedings, casting the case, and his indictments elsewhere, as a broad “weaponization of law enforcement” by Democratic prosecutors and officials. He maintains they are orchestrating sham charges in hopes of impeding his presidential run.

    He’s lambasted judges and prosecutors for years, a pattern of attacks that continued up to the moment he entered court on Monday, when he said: ’“This is political persecution. This is a persecution like never before.”

    Video below: A preview into picking a jury for Donald Trump’s New York criminal trial

    Earlier Monday, the judge denied a defense request to recuse himself from the case after Trump’s lawyers claimed he had a conflict of interest. He also said prosecutors could not play for the jury the 2005 “Access Hollywood” recording in which Trump was captured discussing grabbing women sexually without their permission. However, prosecutors will be allowed to question witnesses about the recording, which became public in the final weeks of the 2016 campaign.

    Prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office also asked Monday for Merchan to fine Trump $3,000 over social media posts they said violated the judge’s gag order barring him from attacking witnesses. Last week, he used his Truth Social platform to call his former lawyer Michael Cohen and the adult film actor Stormy Daniels “two sleaze bags who have, with their lies and misrepresentations, cost our Country dearly!”

    Trump lawyer Todd Blanche maintained that Trump was simply responding to the witnesses’ statements.

    “It’s not as if President Trump is going out and targeting individuals. He is responding to salacious, repeated vehement attacks by these witnesses,” Blanche said.

    Merchan did not rule on the request immediately and instead set a hearing for next week.

    Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records that arose from an alleged effort to keep salacious — and, he says, bogus — stories about his sex life from emerging during his 2016 campaign.

    The charges center on $130,000 in payments that Trump’s company made to Cohen. He had paid that sum on Trump’s behalf to keep Daniels from going public, a month before the election, with her claims of a sexual encounter with the married mogul a decade earlier.

    Prosecutors say the payments to Cohen were falsely logged as legal fees in order to cloak their actual purpose. Trump’s lawyers say the disbursements indeed were legal expenses, not a cover-up.

    After decades of fielding and initiating lawsuits, the businessman-turned-politician now faces a trial that could result in up to four years in prison if he’s convicted, though a no-jail sentence also would be possible. Trump would also be expected to appeal any conviction.

    Trump’s attorneys lost a bid to get the hush-money case dismissed and have since repeatedly sought to delay it, prompting a flurry of last-minute appeals court hearings last week.

    Among other things, Trump’s lawyers maintain that the jury pool in overwhelmingly Democratic Manhattan has been tainted by negative publicity about Trump and that the case should be moved elsewhere.

    Video below: New York DA lays out case against Trump

    An appeals judge turned down an emergency request to delay the trial while the change-of-venue request goes to a group of appellate judges, who are set to consider it in the coming weeks.

    Manhattan prosecutors have countered that a lot of the publicity stems from Trump’s own comments and that questioning will tease out whether prospective jurors can put aside any preconceptions they may have. There’s no reason, prosecutors said, to think that 12 fair and impartial people can’t be found amid Manhattan’s roughly 1.4 million adult residents.

    The prospective jurors will be known only by number, as the judge has ordered their names to be kept secret from everyone except prosecutors, Trump and their legal teams. The 42 preapproved, sometimes multi-pronged queries include background basics but also reflect the uniqueness of the case.

    They’re being asked, among other questions, about their hobbies and news habits, if they hold strong beliefs about Trump that would prevent them being impartial and about attendance at Trump or anti-Trump rallies.

    Based on the answers, the attorneys can ask a judge to eliminate people “for cause” if they meet certain criteria for being unable to serve or be unbiased. The lawyers also can use “peremptory challenges” to nix 10 potential jurors and two prospective alternates without giving a reason.

    “If you’re going to strike everybody who’s either a Republican or a Democrat,” the judge observed at a February hearing, “you’re going to run out of peremptory challenges very quickly.”

    _____

    Tucker reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Jake Offenhartz in New York contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Trump hush-money trial: 1st day ends without any jurors being picked

    Trump hush-money trial: 1st day ends without any jurors being picked

    NEW YORK — The historic hush-money trial of Donald Trump got underway Monday with the arduous process of selecting a jury to hear the case charging the former president with falsifying business records in order to stifle stories about his sex life.

    The day ended without any jurors being seated. The selection process was scheduled to resume Tuesday.

    The first criminal trial of any former U.S. president began as Trump vies to reclaim the White House, creating a remarkable split-screen spectacle of the presumptive Republican nominee spending his days as a criminal defendant while simultaneously campaigning for office. He’s blended those roles over the last year by presenting himself to supporters, on the campaign trail and on social media, as a target of politically motivated prosecutions designed to derail his candidacy.

    Former President Donald Trump leaves Trump Tower on his way to Manhattan criminal court, Monday, April 15, 2024, in New York.

    After a norm-shattering presidency shadowed by years of investigations, the trial amounts to a courtroom reckoning for Trump, who faces four indictments charging him with crimes ranging from hoarding classified documents to plotting to overturn an election. Yet the political stakes are less clear because a conviction would not preclude him from becoming president and because the allegations in this case date back years and are seen as less grievous than the conduct behind the three other indictments.

    The day began with hours of pretrial arguments – including over a potential fine for Trump – before moving into the start of jury selection. The first members of the jury pool – 96 in all – were summoned into the courtroom, where the parties will decide who among them might be picked to decide the legal fate of the former, and potentially future, American president.

    Trump craned his neck to look back at the pool, whispering to his lawyer as they entered the jury box.

    “You are about to participate in a trial by jury. The system of trial by jury is one of the cornerstones of our judicial system,” Judge Juan Merchan told the jurors. “The name of this case is the People of the State of New York vs. Donald Trump.”

    Trump’s notoriety would make the process of picking 12 jurors and six alternates a near-herculean task in any year, but it’s likely to be especially challenging now, unfolding in a closely contested presidential election in the heavily Democratic city where Trump grew up and catapulted to celebrity status decades before winning the White House.

    In this courtroom sketch, Judge Juan M. Merchan presides over former U.S. President Donald Trump

    In this courtroom sketch, Judge Juan M. Merchan presides over former U.S. President Donald Trump’s trial in a Manhattan criminal court in New York, Monday, April 15, 2024.

    Jane Rosenberg/Pool Photo via AP

    Underscoring the difficulty, only about a third of the 96 people in the first panel of potential jurors remained after the judge excused some members of the jury pool. More than half of the group was excused after telling the judge they could not be fair and impartial. At least nine more prospective jurors were excused after raising their hands when Merchan asked if they could not serve for any other reason.

    A female juror was excused after saying she had strong opinions about Trump. Earlier in the questionnaire, the woman, a Harlem resident, indicated she could be neutral in deciding the case. But when asked whether she had strong opinions about the former president, the woman answered matter-of-factly: “Yes.”

    When Merchan asked her to repeat the response, she replied: “Yeah, I said yes.” She was dismissed.

    Merchan has written that the key is “whether the prospective juror can assure us that they will set aside any personal feelings or biases and render a decision that is based on the evidence and the law.”

    No matter the outcome, Trump is determined to benefit from the proceedings, casting the case, and his indictments elsewhere, as a broad “weaponization of law enforcement” by Democratic prosecutors and officials. He maintains they are orchestrating sham charges in hopes of impeding his presidential run.

    He’s lambasted judges and prosecutors for years, a pattern of attacks that continued up to the moment he entered court Monday when he called the case an “assault on America” and said: ‘”This is political persecution. This is a persecution like never before.”

    Earlier Monday, the judge denied a defense request to recuse from the case after Trump’s lawyers claimed he had a conflict of interest. He also said prosecutors could not play for the jury the 2005 “Access Hollywood” recording in which Trump was captured discussing grabbing women sexually without their permission. However, prosecutors will be allowed to question witnesses about the recording, which became public in the final weeks of the 2016 campaign.

    Prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office also asked for Merchan to fine Trump $3,000 over social media posts they said violated the judge’s gag order barring him from attacking witnesses. Last week, he used his Truth Social platform to call his former lawyer Michael Cohen and the adult film actor Stormy Daniels “two sleaze bags who have, with their lies and misrepresentations, cost our Country dearly!”

    Trump lawyer Todd Blanche maintained Trump was simply responding to the witnesses’ statements.

    “It’s not as if President Trump is going out and targeting individuals. He is responding to salacious, repeated vehement attacks by these witnesses,” Blanche said.

    Merchan did not rule on the request immediately, instead setting a hearing for next week.

    Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Prosecutors say the alleged fraud was part of an effort to keep salacious – and, Trump says, bogus – stories about his sex life from emerging during his 2016 campaign.

    The charges center on $130,000 in payments that Trump’s company made to Cohen. He paid that sum on Trump’s behalf to keep Daniels from going public, a month before the election, with her claims of a sexual encounter with the married mogul a decade earlier.

    Prosecutors say the payments to Cohen were falsely logged as legal fees in order to cloak their actual purpose. Trump’s lawyers say the disbursements indeed were legal expenses, not a cover-up.

    After decades of fielding and initiating lawsuits, the businessman-turned-politician now faces a trial that could result in up to four years in prison if he’s convicted, though a no-jail sentence also would be possible. Trump would also be expected to appeal any conviction.

    Trump’s attorneys lost a bid to get the hush-money case dismissed and have since repeatedly sought to delay it, prompting a flurry of last-minute appeals court hearings last week.

    Among other things, Trump’s lawyers maintain that the jury pool in overwhelmingly Democratic Manhattan has been tainted by negative publicity about Trump and that the case should be moved elsewhere.

    An appeals judge turned down an emergency request to delay the trial while the change-of-venue request goes to a group of appellate judges, who are set to consider it in the coming weeks.

    Manhattan prosecutors have countered that a lot of the publicity stems from Trump’s own comments and that questioning will tease out whether prospective jurors can put aside any preconceptions they may have. There’s no reason, prosecutors said, to think that 12 fair and impartial people can’t be found amid Manhattan’s roughly 1.4 million adult residents.

    The prospective jurors will be known only by number, as the judge has ordered that their names be kept secret from everyone except prosecutors, Trump and their legal teams. The 42 preapproved, sometimes multi-pronged queries include background basics but also reflect the uniqueness of the case.

    They’re being asked, among other questions, about their hobbies and news habits, if they hold strong beliefs about Trump that would prevent them being impartial and about attendance at Trump or anti-Trump rallies.

    Based on the answers, the attorneys can ask a judge to eliminate people “for cause” if they meet certain criteria for being unable to serve or be unbiased. The lawyers also can use “peremptory challenges” to nix 10 potential jurors and two prospective alternates without giving a reason.

    “If you’re going to strike everybody who’s either a Republican or a Democrat,” the judge observed at a February hearing, “you’re going to run out of peremptory challenges very quickly.”

    _____

    Tucker reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Jake Offenhartz in New York contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2024 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link

  • Trump hush money trial: Judge affirms ‘Access Hollywood’ tape can’t be played, jury selection begins

    Trump hush money trial: Judge affirms ‘Access Hollywood’ tape can’t be played, jury selection begins

    NEW YORK — Donald Trump arrived Monday at a New York court for the start of jury selection in his hush-money trial, marking a singular moment in American history as the former president answers to criminal charges that he falsified business records in order to stifle stories about his sex life.

    The first trial of any former U.S. commander in chief will unfold as Trump vies to reclaim the White House, creating a remarkable split-screen spectacle of the presumptive Republican nominee spending his days as a criminal defendant while also campaigning for the presidency. He’s blended those roles over the last year by presenting himself, on the campaign trail and on social media, as victim of politically motivated prosecutions designed to derail his candidacy.

    After a norm-shattering presidency shadowed by years of investigations, the trial amounts to a historic courtroom reckoning for Trump, who now faces four indictments charging him with crimes ranging from hoarding classified documents to plotting to overturn an election. Yet the political stakes are less clear since a conviction would not preclude him from becoming president and because the allegations in this case have been known for years and are seen as less grievous than the conduct behind the three other indictments.

    The day began with Judge Juan M. Merchan ruling on a variety of procedural pretrial motions as Trump sat hunched over in his seat and stared into a monitor directly in front of him on the defense table while evidence was shown.

    The judge denied a defense request to recuse himself from the case after Trump’s lawyers said he had a conflict of interest. He also said prosecutors could not play for the jury the 2005 “Access Hollywood” recording in which Trump was captured discussing grabbing women sexually without their permission. However, prosecutors will be allowed to question witnesses about the recording, which became public in the final weeks of the 2016 campaign.

    When jury selection begins, scores of people are due to be called into the courtroom to start the process of finding 12 jurors, plus six alternates. Trump’s notoriety would make the process of picking a jury a near-herculean task in any year, but it’s likely to be especially challenging now, unfolding in a closely contested presidential election in the city where Trump grew up and catapulted to celebrity status before winning the White House.

    Former President Donald Trump leaves Trump Tower on his way to Manhattan criminal court, Monday, April 15, 2024, in New York.

    Merchan has written that the key is “whether the prospective juror can assure us that they will set aside any personal feelings or biases and render a decision that is based on the evidence and the law.”

    No matter the outcome, Trump is determined to benefit from the proceedings, casting the case, and his indictments elsewhere, as a broad “weaponization of law enforcement” by Democratic prosecutors and officials. He maintains they are orchestrating sham charges in hopes of impeding his presidential run.

    He’s lambasted judges and prosecutors for years, a pattern of attacks that continued up to the moment he entered court on Monday, when he said: ‘”This is political persecution. This is a persecution like never before.”

    Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records that arose from an alleged effort to keep salacious – and, he says, bogus – stories about his sex life from emerging during his 2016 campaign.

    The charges center on $130,000 in payments that Trump’s company made to his then-lawyer, Michael Cohen. He had paid that sum on Trump’s behalf to keep porn actor Stormy Daniels from going public, a month before the election, with her claims of a sexual encounter with the married mogul a decade earlier.

    Prosecutors say the payments to Cohen were falsely logged as legal fees in order to cloak their actual purpose. Trump’s lawyers say the disbursements indeed were legal expenses, not a cover-up.

    After decades of fielding and initiating lawsuits, the businessman-turned-politician now faces a trial that could result in up to four years in prison if he’s convicted, though a no-jail sentence also would be possible. Trump would also be expected to appeal any conviction.

    Trump’s attorneys lost a bid to get the hush-money case dismissed and have since repeatedly sought to delay it, prompting a flurry of last-minute appeals court hearings last week.

    Among other things, Trump’s lawyers maintain that the jury pool in overwhelmingly Democratic Manhattan has been tainted by negative publicity about Trump and that the case should be moved elsewhere.

    An appeals judge turned down an emergency request to delay the trial while the change-of-venue request goes to a group of appellate judges, who are set to consider it in the coming weeks.

    Manhattan prosecutors have countered that a lot of the publicity stems from Trump’s own comments and that questioning will tease out whether prospective jurors can put aside any preconceptions they may have. There’s no reason, prosecutors said, to think that 12 fair and impartial people can’t be found amid Manhattan’s roughly 1.4 million adult residents.

    The process of choosing those 12, plus six alternates, will begin with scores of people filing into Merchan’s courtroom. They will be known only by number, as he has ordered their names to be kept secret from everyone except prosecutors, Trump and their legal teams.

    After hearing some basics about the case and jury service, the prospective jurors will be asked to raise hands if they believe they cannot serve or be fair and impartial. Those who do so will be excused, according to Merchan’s filing last week.

    The rest will be eligible for questioning. The 42 preapproved, sometimes multi-pronged queries include background basics but also reflect the uniqueness of the case.

    “Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about former President Donald Trump, or the fact that he is a current candidate for president, that would interfere with your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?” asks one question.

    Others ask about attendance at Trump or anti-Trump rallies, opinions on how he’s being treated in the case, news sources and more – including any “political, moral, intellectual, or religious beliefs or opinions” that might “slant” a prospective juror’s approach to the case.

    Based on the answers, the attorneys can ask a judge to eliminate people “for cause” if they meet certain criteria for being unable to serve or be unbiased. The lawyers also can use “peremptory challenges” to nix 10 potential jurors and two prospective alternates without giving a reason.

    “If you’re going to strike everybody who’s either a Republican or a Democrat,” the judge observed at a February hearing, “you’re going to run out of peremptory challenges very quickly.”

    Copyright © 2024 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link

  • Trump hush money case makes history with first criminal trial of a former president

    Trump hush money case makes history with first criminal trial of a former president

    NEW YORK — Donald Trump will make history when he arrives in lower Manhattan Monday morning as the first former president to go on trial for criminal charges.

    Despite a blitz of last-minute attempts to derail the trial, jury selection is expected to get underway and will continue until a panel of 12 New Yorkers and alternates are seated, a process that could take at least a week.

    The historic trial centers on a potential sex scandal coverup that took place just days before the 2016 presidential election. Prosecutors allege Trump falsified business records to hide the reimbursement of hush money payments that were made to influence the election outcome. Trump has pleaded not guilty and has denied having an affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels.

    The case will be a major test for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, as it may be the only one of Trump’s four criminal cases to face a jury before Election Day. Trump will trade the campaign trail for the courtroom, where the presumptive Republican presidential nominee is expected to be four days a week for the next two months.

    RELATED: New York appeals court rejects Donald Trump’s third request to delay Monday’s hush money trial

    The former president has used his court appearances to rally supporters for his campaign but, despite his showmanship, the stakes for Trump are high. Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. If convicted, Judge Juan Merchan, the no-nonsense judge overseeing the trial, could sentence Trump to probation or a maximum sentence of 1 1/3 to 4 years on each count in state prison. A president has no authority to pardon state crimes.

    The trial will pit witnesses once in Trump’s inner circle against the former president, including his onetime attorney and former fixer Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty to federal campaign finance charges; long-time friend and former CEO of the company that published the National Enquirer, David Pecker, who executed “catch and kill” deals; and campaign confidante Hope Hicks.

    It will also take the jury inside the Oval Office, where prosecutors allege then-President Trump signed-off on the cover-up that involved falsifying business records – invoices, ledger entries and checks – to reimburse Cohen for phony legal services. And it may feature at least one audio recording of Trump and Cohen allegedly discussing a catch and kill deal.

    Despite the salacious nature of the allegations, a lot of testimony will likely focus on mundane back-office recordkeeping. Prosecutors said there are 18 witnesses they may call to enter financial documents into the case if both sides aren’t able to reach an agreement about their authenticity.

    The burden of proof

    Prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified business records with the intent to commit or conceal another crime, but they don’t have to prove that Trump committed that crime. The prosecution theory is that second crime could be in violation of federal and state election laws or state tax laws for how the Cohen reimbursement was handled.

    Trump’s attorneys have kept their defense close to the vest, but in court filings they’ve indicated that they plan to attack the credibility of Daniels and Cohen and paint them as liars who are motivated by grudges and money.

    His legal team is led by Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, two former federal prosecutors from New York, and Susan Necheles, a veteran criminal defense lawyer with deep experience in New York and before Merchan. Necheles represented Trump’s business at its tax fraud trial in 2022. The company was convicted.

    Outside lawyers who have been following the case closely say Trump is likely to argue that hush money payments are legal and distance Trump from the repayment scheme and bookkeeping handled by his trusted employees. They may also argue the payments were made to prevent embarrassment to Trump’s family and not to influence the election.

    Trump’s lawyers said they plan to call at least two witnesses in their case: Bradley Smith, a former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, and Alan Garten, the top legal officer of the Trump Organization. Merchan has limited the scope of Smith’s testimony to describing the role and function of the FEC and defining certain terms, such as campaign contributions, but has blocked him from testifying about whether the law was violated in this case.

    Trump could also testify in his own defense. He has testified in two recent civil trials, after regretting not taking the stand in a prior civil trial, but the stakes are higher in a criminal case.

    The doorman, the model, and the porn star

    The trial goes back to the final days of the 2016 presidential election when Stormy Daniels was about to go public with allegations that she had sex with Trump in 2006 at a golf tournament in Lake Tahoe. The Access Hollywood tape catching Trump on a hot mic speaking graphically about his proclivity to grope women had just come out, sending panic into his campaign as it sought to limit the impact on female voters, prosecutors allege.

    Trump’s allies scrambled to pay Daniels hush money to prevent her from speaking out, the indictment alleges.

    ALSO SEE: Stormy Daniels says she is ‘absolutely ready’ to testify at Trump’s hush money trial

    It was the third “catch and kill” deal to come after a key meeting at Trump Tower in August 2015 between Trump, Cohen and Pecker. At the meeting, which was held one month after Trump announced his candidacy, Pecker allegedly agreed to be the “eyes and ears” for the campaign to look out for negative stories, according to the indictment.

    In 2015, American Media, the then-publisher of the National Enquirer, paid a doorman to bury a false story and the following year the publisher paid Karen McDougal, a former Playboy playmate who said she had a sexual relationship with Trump while he was married, $150,000 for her silence and offered her two magazine cover stories.

    Two months later, on October 7, the Access Hollywood tape was released. On October 27, 2016, Cohen wired the money to Daniels and 12 days later Trump won the election.

    The alleged cover up

    Prosecutors allege that Trump agreed to reimburse Cohen, who hammered out the details with Allen Weisselberg, the former longtime chief financial officer of the Trump Organization. As part of the alleged scheme, the Trump Organization paid Cohen $420,000 to reimburse him for the payment, some political work, taxes and a bonus. According to prosecutors, the Trump Organization noted on the checks to Cohen and in their books that the payments were legal expenses pursuant to a retainer agreement.

    (The-CNN-Wire & 2023 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved.)

    CNNWire

    Source link