ReportWire

Tag: stephanie clifford

  • Judge alters Trump’s gag order, letting him talk about witnesses, jury after hush money conviction

    Judge alters Trump’s gag order, letting him talk about witnesses, jury after hush money conviction

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK – A Manhattan judge on Tuesday modified Donald Trump’s gag order, freeing the former president to comment publicly about witnesses and jurors in the hush money criminal trial that led to his felony conviction, but keeping others connected to the case off limits until he is sentenced July 11.

    Judge Juan M. Merchan’s decision — just days before Trump’s debate Thursday with President Joe Biden — clears the presumptive Republican nominee to again go on the attack against his lawyer-turned-foe lawyer Michael Cohen, porn actor Stormy Daniels and other trial witnesses. Trump was convicted in New York on May 30 of falsifying records to cover up a potential sex scandal, making him the first ex-president convicted of a crime.

    In a five-page ruling, Merchan wrote that the gag order was meant to “protect the integrity of the judicial proceedings” and that protections for witnesses and jurors no longer applied now that the trial has ended and the jury has been discharged.

    Merchan said it had been his “strong preference” to continue barring Trump from commenting about jurors, whose names have not been made public, but that he couldn’t justify doing so. The judge did leave in place a separate order prohibiting Trump and his lawyers from disclosing the identities of individual jurors or their addresses. Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said after the verdict the defense team has destroyed that information.

    “There is ample evidence to justify continued concern for the jurors,” Merchan wrote.

    Merchan also left in place a ban on Trump commenting about court staffers, the prosecution team and their families until he is sentenced, writing that they must “continue to perform their lawful duties free from threats, intimidation, harassment, and harm.” Those restrictions do not prohibit Trump from commenting about the judge himself or District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office prosecuted the case.

    Trump’s lawyers had urged Merchan to lift the gag order completely, arguing there was nothing to warrant restricting Trump’s First Amendment rights after the trial’s conclusion. Trump has said the gag order prevented him from defending himself while Cohen and Daniels continued to pillory him.

    Though largely a win for Trump, his campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung criticized Tuesday’s ruling as “another unlawful decision by a highly conflicted judge, which is blatantly un-American as it gags President Trump, the leading candidate in the 2024 Presidential Election during the upcoming Presidential Debate on Thursday.”

    Cheung said Trump and his lawyers “will immediately challenge today’s unconstitutional order,” arguing that portions of the gag order still in effect prevent him from speaking about the judge, whom he alleges had a conflict of interest, or repeating his unfounded claims that Biden directed the prosecution.

    The Manhattan DA’s office had asked Merchan to keep the gag order’s ban on comments about the jury and trial staff in place at least until Trump is sentenced, but said last week they would be OK allowing Trump to comment about witnesses now that the trial is over.

    A message seeking comment was left with the Manhattan DA’s office.

    Cohen, who testified for four days against his ex-boss, reacted to the ruling via text message. He wrote: “For the past 6 years, Donald and acolytes have been making constant negative statements about me. Donald’s failed strategy of discrediting me so that he can avoid accountability didn’t work then and won’t work now.”

    Daniels’ lawyer Clark Brewster said they “have nothing but respect” for Merchan and defer to his post-verdict review of the gag order “in the context of free speech and any continuing danger to the judicial process.”

    “His decision to impose restrictions on Mr. Trump, as it related to reckless and unrelenting character attacks on court personnel, trial witnesses, and potentially jurors was extraordinary but clearly justified given the defendant’s uncontrollable daily rants,” Brewster said.

    Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records arising from what prosecutors said was an attempt to cover up a hush money payment to Daniels just before the 2016 presidential election. She claims she had a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier, which he denies.

    The crime is punishable by up to four years behind bars, but prosecutors haven’t said if they would seek incarceration and it’s unclear if Merchan would impose such a sentence. Other options include a fine or probation.

    Following his conviction, Trump complained he was under a “nasty gag order,” while also testing its limits. In remarks a day after his conviction, Trump referred to Cohen as “a sleazebag,” though not by name.

    In a subsequent Newsmax interview, Trump took issue with jury and its makeup, complaining about Manhattan, “It’s a very, very liberal democrat area so I knew we were in deep trouble,” and claiming: “I never saw a glimmer of a smile from the jury. No, this was a venue that was very unfair. A tiny fraction of the people are Republicans.”

    Trump’s lawyers, who said they were under the impression the gag order would end with a verdict, wrote to Merchan on June 4 asking him to lift the order.

    Prosecutors wanted Merchan to keep the gag order’s ban on comments about jurors and trial staff “at least through the sentencing hearing and the resolution of any post-trial motions.” They argued the judge had “an obligation to protect the integrity of these proceedings and the fair administration of justice.”

    Merchan issued Trump’s gag order on March 26, a few weeks before the start of the trial, after prosecutors raised concerns about the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s propensity to assail people involved in his cases.

    Merchan later expanded it to prohibit comments about his own family after Trump made social media posts attacking the judge’s daughter, a Democratic political consultant.

    During the trial, Merchan held Trump in contempt of court, fined him $10,000 for violating the gag order and threatened to put him in jail if he did it again.

    In seeking to lift the order, Trump lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove argued that Trump was entitled to “unrestrained campaign advocacy” in light of Biden’s public comments about the verdict, and Cohen and Daniels ′ continued public criticism.

    __

    Associated Press reporter Jill Colvin contributed to this report.

    Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    Michael R. Sisak, Associated Press

    Source link

  • The Latest | Jury sends first note during deliberations in Trump’s criminal hush money trial

    The Latest | Jury sends first note during deliberations in Trump’s criminal hush money trial

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK – Jury deliberations in Donald Trump ‘s criminal hush money trial began Wednesday after the panel received instructions from the judge on the law governing the case and what they can take into account in evaluating the former president’s guilt or innocence.

    The historic deliberations followed Tuesday’s whirlwind of closing arguments, which stretched into the evening hours as prosecutor Joshua Steinglass accused Trump of intentionally deceiving voters by allegedly participating in a “catch-and-kill” scheme to bury stories that might obliterate his 2016 presidential bid. Steinglass further suggested that Trump operated with a “cavalier willingness” to hide payoffs and did so in a way that left “no paper trail.”

    The defense approached its summation much in the same way it approached cross-examination: by targeting the credibility of star witness Michael Cohen. Defense lawyer Todd Blanche branded Trump’s former lawyer as “the greatest liar of all time” while urging jurors to quickly acquit his client.

    Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, charges which are punishable by up to four years in prison. He has denied all wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty.

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

    Prosecutors say the reimbursements were falsely logged as “legal expenses” to hide the true nature of the transactions.

    The case is the first of Trump’s four indictments to reach trial and is the first-ever criminal case against a former U.S. president.

    Currently:

    — Cohen’s credibility, campaigning at court and other highlights from closing arguments

    — Rallies and debates used to define campaigns. Now they’re about juries and trials

    — Biden’s campaign shows up outside Trump’s trial with Robert De Niro and others

    — Another big name will be at the courthouse in Manhattan on Wednesday: Harvey Weinstein

    — Trump hush money case: A timeline of key events

    Here’s the latest:

    JURY SENDS FIRST NOTE TO JUDGE

    The jury in Donald Trump’s criminal trial has sent its first note to the judge. The note’s contents have not yet been made public but will be read in court soon. The jury, which is deliberating in secret in a side room, indicated it had a note by ringing a courtroom bell at 2:56 p.m., about 3½ hours into deliberations.

    While deliberating, juries can only communicate with the judge by note. They may involve questions such as requests to hear portions of testimony or rehear certain instructions.

    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.

    HOW LONG WILL THE JURY DELIBERATE?

    Jurors in Donald Trump’s criminal trial will deliberate as long as they need to.

    The standard court day runs from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., with a break for lunch. But judges sometimes extend the hours if jurors wish. In this case, Judge Juan M. Merchan already has decided that deliberations will proceed on Wednesday, which is normally a day off from the trial.

    There’s no limit on how many days deliberations can continue.

    WHITE HOUSE: BIDEN’S ATTENTION ISN’T FOCUSED ON TRUMP’S TRIAL

    As jury deliberations get underway in Donald Trump’s hush money trial, the White House says President Joe Biden’s attention is focused elsewhere.

    “The president’s focused on the American people, delivering for the American people,” press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters traveling with Biden to Philadelphia, where he has campaign events scheduled Wednesday. “That’s his focus.”

    FACT CHECK: YES, THE JURY MUST COME TO A UNANIMOUS VERDICT

    As the jury begins its deliberations in Donald Trump’s hush money case, claims are spreading across social media that Judge Juan M. Merchan told the panel they don’t need a unanimous verdict to convict Trump.

    That’s false.

    To convict Trump, Merchan told the jury they will have to find unanimously — that is, all 12 jurors must agree — that the former president created a fraudulent 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.

    What’s being distorted by some online is the judge’s instruction about how to reach a verdict about that second element.

    Prosecutors say the crime Trump committed or hid is a violation of a New York election law making it illegal for two or more conspirators “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”

    Merchan gave the jurors three possible “unlawful means”: falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return.

    For a conviction, each juror would have to find that at least one of those three things happened, but they don’t have to agree unanimously which it was.

    COURTROOM SHUTTING DOWN FOR LUNCH

    The jury in Donald Trump’s hush money case will deliberate through the lunch hour, but no action will occur and no notes will be passed during the break. Court will resume at 2:15 p.m.

    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.

    TRUMP MUST STAY IN THE COURTHOUSE

    After jurors left the courtroom to begin deliberations, Judge Juan M. Merchan told Donald Trump and his lawyers that they were required to remain in the courthouse.

    “You cannot leave the building. We need you to be able to get here quickly if we do receive a note,” Merchan said.

    After Merchan left the bench, Trump turned and walked to chat with his son, Donald Trump Jr. and lawyer Alina Habba.

    MERCHAN ADDRESSES ALTERNATE JURORS

    After the main jury in Donald Trump’s hush money case left the courtroom Wednesday, Judge Juan M. Merchan told the six alternates who remain in the courtroom that they will remain on standby in the courthouse as deliberations get underway.

    He thanked them for their service and diligence, noting he saw one of the alternates go through three notebooks.

    He said, “There might be a need for you at some point in deliberations.”

    The alternates will be kept separate from the main jury and must also surrender their phones to court officers while deliberations are in progress. If a member of the main panel is unable to continue, an alternate can take that person’s place and deliberations will begin anew.

    JURY DELIBER

    ATIONS UNDERWAY

    Jurors in Donald Trump’s criminal hush money trial have begun deliberating after Judge Juan M. Merchan finished instructing them Wednesday morning on the law governing the case and what they can consider as they work toward a verdict.

    The trial is the first-ever criminal case against a former U.S. president.

    TWO ELEMENTS PROSECUTORS MUST PROVE FOR A GUILTY VERDICT

    Prosecutors are required to prove two elements for each of the counts in order to find Donald Trump guilty, Judge Juan M. Merchan told the jurors.

    They must find that he “personally or by acting in concert with another person or persons made or caused a false entry in the records” or a business. Prosecutors must also prove that Trump did so with the intent to commit or conceal another crime.

    Prosecutors allege the other crime that Trump intended to commit or conceal was a violation of a state election law regarding a conspiracy to promote or prevent an election by unlawful means.

    The alleged unlawful means that jurors must consider are:

      1. Violations of federal campaign finance law

      2. Falsifying other business records, such as paperwork used to establish the bank account used to pay Stormy Daniels, bank records and tax forms

      3. Violation of city, state and federal tax laws, including by providing false or fraudulent information on tax returns, “even if it does not result in underpayment of taxes”

    EXPLAINING ‘CONSPIRACY TO PROMOTE OR PREVENT ELECTION’

    In reading instructions to the jury in Donald Trump’s criminal trial, Judge Juan M. Merchan also went over New York’s law against “conspiracy to promote or prevent election,” a statute that’s important to the case.

    Prosecutors claim that Trump falsified business records to cover up alleged violations of the election conspiracy law. The alleged violations, prosecutors say, were hush money payments that really amounted to illegal campaign contributions.

    Under New York law, it’s a misdemeanor for two or more people to conspire to promote or prevent a candidate’s election “by unlawful means” if at least one of the conspirators takes action to carry out the plot.

    The judge noted that the law also requires that a defendant have the intent unlawfully to prevent or promote the candidate’s election — not just that a defendant knows about the conspiracy or be present when it’s discussed.

    In the defense’s closing argument Tuesday, Trump attorney Todd Blanche urged jurors to reject prosecutors’ election conspiracy assertions, insisting that “every campaign in this country is a conspiracy to promote a candidate.”

    EXPLAINING ACC

    ESSORIAL LIABILITY

    Judge Juan M. Merchan instructed jurors on the concept of accessorial liability, under which a defendant can be held criminally responsible for someone else’s actions.

    That’s a key component of the prosecution’s theory of Donald Trump’s hush money case because while Trump signed some of the checks at issue, people working for his company processed Michael Cohen’s invoices and entered the transactions into its accounting system.

    To hold Trump liable for those actions, Merchan said jurors must find beyond a reasonable doubt that he solicited, requested or commanded those people to engage in that conduct and that he acted intentionally.

    Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass touched on accessorial liability in his closing argument Tuesday, telling jurors: “No one is saying the defendant actually got behind a computer and typed in the false vouchers or stamped the false invoices or printed the false checks.”

    “But he set in motion a chain of events that led to the creation of the false business records,” Steinglass said.

    Trump has pleaded not guilty and denies wrongdoing.

    HOW TO JUDGE THE TRUTH

    The judge in Donald Trump’s criminal trial gave the jury some guidance on factors it can use to assess witness testimony, including its plausibility, its consistency with other testimony, the witness’s manner on the stand and whether the person has a motive to lie.

    But, the judge said, “There is no particular formula for evaluating the truthfulness and accuracy of another person’s statement.”

    The principles he outlined are standard but perhaps all the more relevant after Trump’s defense team leaned heavily on questioning the credibility of key prosecution witnesses, including the ex-president’s former personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen.

    Jurors appeared alert and engaged as Judge Juan M. Merchan instructed them Wednesday morning. Several took notes as he recited instructions.

    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.

    TRUMP ARRIVES AT

    COURT

    Donald Trump’s motorcade has arrived at the courthouse in lower Manhattan as proceedings in his hush money trial are set to resume.

    He did not stop to speak to reporters as he typically does before entering court each day.

    Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., joined him in the courtroom Wednesday morning and was in the first row of the gallery behind the defense table, sitting alongside Trump lawyer and spokesperson Alina Habba.

    TRUMP POSTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA BEFORE HEADING TO COURT

    Donald Trump posted again on his social media network before he left Trump Tower to head to the courthouse Wednesday morning, making another all-caps rant about the hush money trial, the judge and Michael Cohen.

    He called it a “KANGAROO COURT!” and falsely claimed that Judge Juan M. Merchan barred him from defending himself by claiming that his alleged actions were taken on the advice of his then-lawyer, Cohen. Trump’s lawyers in March notified the court that they would not rely on that defense.

    “THERE WAS NO CRIME, EXCEPT FOR THE BUM THAT GOT CAUGHT STEALING FROM ME!” Trump said, apparently referring to Cohen. He added: “IN GOD WE TRUST!”

    Trump is prohibited under a gag order from making out-of-court statements about witnesses in the case, and he was previously penalized for comments about Cohen.

    It’s unclear if Trump’s latest rant would rise to the level of a violation — or if prosecutors would seek to have the former president sanctioned for it. The judge has also indicated that he’d give Trump leeway in certain instances to respond to attacks from Cohen.

    TRUMP’S MOTORCADE HEADS TO COURT

    Donald Trump’s motorcade has left Trump Tower and is on its way to the courthouse in lower Manhattan where his hush money trial will resume.

    The jury in the case is expected to begin deliberations after receiving instructions from the judge later in the day.

    WHO IS ON THE JURY?

    The jury in Donald Trump’s hush money trial is comprised of 18 Manhattan residents.

    The main jury includes seven men and five women. There are also six alternate jurors who’ve listened to the testimony but won’t join in the deliberations unless one of the main jurors needs to drop out or is removed.

    The jury members represents a diverse cross-section of the borough and come from various professional backgrounds, including a sales professional, a software engineer, a security engineer, a teacher, a speech therapist, multiple lawyers, an investment banker and a retired wealth manager.

    Jurors’ names are being kept from the public.

    A RECAP OF TESTIMONY JURORS HEARD IN THE CASE

    Across more than four weeks of testimony, prosecutors called 20 witnesses. The defense called just two.

    Among the prosecution’s key witnesses: Trump’s former attorney and fixer Michael Cohen, porn actor Stormy Daniels, tabloid publisher David Pecker and lawyer Keith Davidson, who negotiated hush money deals for Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal.

    Cohen testified that he paid $130,000 in hush money to Daniels at Trump’s behest weeks before the 2016 election to keep her quiet about her claims of a sexual encounter with him a decade earlier. Trump denies the encounter took place. Cohen also said Trump was involved in an arrangement to repay him and log the payments as legal expenses.

    Daniels gave an at-times graphic account of the alleged encounter.

    Pecker testified about agreeing to be the “eyes and ears” of Trump’s campaign by tipping Cohen off to negative stories, including Daniels’ claim.

    Davidson talked about negotiating the deals and what he said was Cohen’s frustration after the Daniels deal that Trump still hadn’t repaid him.

    The defense’s big witness was attorney Robert Costello, who testified last Monday and Tuesday about negotiating to represent Cohen after the FBI raided Cohen’s properties in 2018.

    HOW WILL THE JURY DELIBERATIONS WORK?

    Jury deliberations in Donald Trump’s hush money trial will proceed in secret, in a room reserved specifically for jurors and in a process that’s intentionally opaque.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    WHAT MUST BE PROVED FOR A CONVICTION?

    Jurors in Donald Trump’s hush money trial are expected to begin deliberations on Wednesday after receiving instructions from the judge on the law that governs the case and what they can consider as they strive toward a verdict in the first criminal case against a former U.S. president.

    The panel has a weighty task ahead of them — deciding whether to convict or acquit Trump of some, all or none of the 34 felony counts he’s charged with.

    But what had to be proved for a conviction?

    To convict Trump of felony falsifying business records, prosecutors had to convince jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that he not only falsified or caused business records to be entered falsely but also did so with intent to commit or conceal another crime. Any verdict must be unanimous.

    To prevent a conviction, the defense needed to convince at least one juror that prosecutors didn’t prove Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard for criminal cases.

    If the jury deadlocks after several days of deliberations and are unable to reach a unanimous verdict, the judge may declare a mistrial.

    Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Closing arguments, jury instructions and maybe a verdict? Major week looms in Trump hush money trial

    Closing arguments, jury instructions and maybe a verdict? Major week looms in Trump hush money trial

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON – 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 heads 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.

    Here’s what to expect in the days ahead:

    WHAT HAPPENS DURING CLOSING ARGUMENTS?

    Starting Tuesday morning, prosecutors and defense lawyers will have their final opportunity to address the jury in closing arguments expected to last for much of the day, if not all of it.

    The arguments don’t count as evidence in the case charging Trump with falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments during the 2016 presidential election to a porn star who alleged she had a sexual encounter with him a decade earlier. They’ll instead function as hourslong recaps of the key points the lawyers want to leave jurors with before the panel disappears behind closed doors for deliberations.

    Look for prosecutors to remind jurors that they can trust the financial paperwork they’ve seen and the witnesses they’ve heard from. That includes porn actor Stormy Daniels, whose account of an alleged sexual encounter with Trump is at the heart of the case, and Trump’s former lawyer and personal fixer Michael Cohen, who testified that Trump was directly involved in the hush money scheme and authorized payments.

    It’s worth remembering that the defense, which called only two witnesses but not Trump, doesn’t have to prove anything or convince jurors of Trump’s innocence.

    To prevent a conviction, the defense simply needs to convince at least one juror that prosecutors haven’t proved Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard for criminal cases.

    Expect the defense to try to poke holes in the government’s case by disputing Daniels’ testimony about her hotel suite encounter with Trump and by distancing Trump from the mechanics of the reimbursements to Cohen, who was responsible for the $130,000 hush money payment to Daniels.

    The defense may also assert one last time that Trump was most concerned about shielding his family from salacious stories, not winning the election, when it comes to the hush money that was paid.

    And it’ll certainly attack the credibility of Cohen, who pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the payment and who was accused by Trump’s lawyers of lying even while on the witness stand. How much of his testimony the jury believes will go a long way in determining the outcome of the case.

    Since the prosecution has the burden of proof, it will deliver its summation last — the reverse order from opening statements, in which the prosecution went first.

    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.

    ONCE THE JURY GETS THE CASE

    The deliberations will proceed in secret, in a room reserved specifically for jurors and in a process that’s intentionally opaque.

    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 will deliberate for and there’s no time limit either. The jury must evaluate 34 counts of falsifying business records, so that could take some time, and 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, 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.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Jennifer Peltz, Michael R. Sisak and Jake Offenhartz in New York contributed to this report.

    Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    Eric Tucker, Associated Press

    Source link

  • Defense witness who angered judge in Trump’s hush money trial will return to the stand

    Defense witness who angered judge in Trump’s hush money trial will return to the stand

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK – A defense witness in Donald Trump’s hush money case whom the judge threatened to remove from the trial over his behavior will return to the stand Tuesday as the trial nears its end.

    Trump’s lawyers are hoping Robert Costello’s testimony will help undermine the credibility of a key prosecution witness, Trump fixer-turned-foe Michael Cohen.

    But Costello angered Judge Juan Merchan on Monday by making comments under his breath, rolling his eyes and calling the whole exercise “ridiculous,” prompting the judge to briefly kick reporters out of the courtroom to admonish him.

    The judge told Costello, a former federal prosecutor, he was being “contemptuous,” adding, “If you try to stare me down one more time, I will remove you from the stand,” according to a court transcript.

    Costello didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Monday from The Associated Press.

    The chaotic scene unfolded after prosecutors rested their case accusing Trump of falsifying business records as part of a scheme to bury stories that he feared could hurt his 2016 campaign. The case is in the final stretch, with closing arguments expected the Tuesday after Memorial Day.

    The charges stem from internal Trump Organization records where payments to Cohen were marked as legal expenses. Prosecutors say they were really reimbursements for a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels to keep her from going public before the 2016 election with claims of a sexual encounter with Trump. Trump says nothing sexual happened between them.

    Trump has said he did nothing illegal and has slammed the case as an effort to hinder his 2024 bid to reclaim the White House. Trump called the judge a “tyrant” in remarks to reporters while leaving the courthouse Monday and called the trial a “disaster” for the country.

    After jurors left for the day Monday, defense attorneys pressed the judge to throw out the charges before jurors even begin deliberating, arguing prosecutors have failed to prove their case. The defense has suggested that Trump was trying to protect his family, not his campaign, by squelching what he says were false, scurrilous claims.

    Defense attorney Todd Blanche argued that there was nothing illegal about soliciting a tabloid’s help to run positive stories about Trump, run negative stories about his opponents and identify potentially damaging stories before they were published. No one involved “had any criminal intent,” Blanche said.

    “How is keeping a false story from the voters criminal?” Blanche asked.

    Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo shot back that “the trial evidence overwhelmingly supports each element” of the alleged offenses, and the case should proceed to the jury.

    The judge didn’t immediately rule on the defense’s request. Such long-shot requests are often made in criminal cases but are rarely granted.

    The defense called Costello because of his role as an antagonist to Cohen since their professional relationship splintered in spectacular fashion. Costello had offered to represent Cohen soon after the lawyer’s hotel room, office and home were raided and as Cohen faced a decision about whether to remain defiant in the face of a criminal investigation or to cooperate with authorities in hopes of securing more lenient treatment.

    Costello in the years since has repeatedly maligned Cohen’s credibility and was even a witness before last year’s grand jury that indicted Trump, offering testimony designed to undermine Cohen’s account. In a Fox News Channel interview last week, Costello accused Cohen of lying to the jury and using the case to “monetize” himself.

    Costello contradicted Cohen’s testimony describing Trump as intimately involved in all aspects of the hush money scheme. Costello told jurors Monday that Cohen told him Trump “knew nothing” about the hush money payment to Daniels.

    “Michael Cohen said numerous times that President Trump knew nothing about those payments, that he did this on his own, and he repeated that numerous times,” Costello testified.

    Cohen, however, testified earlier Monday that he has “no doubt” that Trump gave him a final sign-off to make the payments to Daniels. In total, he said he spoke with Trump more than 20 times about the matter in October 2016.

    Trump lawyer Emil Bove told the judge that the defense does not plan to call any other witnesses after Costello, though they may still call campaign-finance expert Bradley A. Smith for limited testimony. They have not said definitively that Trump won’t testify, but that’s the clearest indication yet that he will waive his right to take the stand in his own defense.

    ___

    Long reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Jill Colvin and Michelle Price in New York; Meg Kinnard in Columbia, South Carolina; and Eric Tucker and Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington contributed to this report.

    Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    Michael R. Sisak, Jake Offenhartz, Jennifer Peltz And Colleen Long, Associated Press

    Source link

  • Appeals court upholds gag order in Trump hush money trial, Cohen gives more testimony

    Appeals court upholds gag order in Trump hush money trial, Cohen gives more testimony

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK – A New York appeals court on Tuesday upheld the gag order in Donald Trump’s hush money trial, finding that the judge “properly determined” that Trump’s public statements “posed a significant threat to the integrity of the testimony of witnesses and potential witnesses in this case as well.”

    Trump had asked the state’s intermediate appeals court to lift or modify the gag order, which bars him from commenting publicly about jurors, witnesses and others connected to the case, including Judge Juan M. Merchan’s family and prosecutors other than District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

    At an emergency hearing last month, just days before the trial started, Trump’s lawyers argued that the gag order is an unconstitutional curb on the presumptive Republican nominee’s free speech rights while he’s campaigning for president and fighting criminal charges.

    In its ruling, the five-judge appeals panel noted that Trump wasn’t claiming that the gag order had infringed on his right to a fair trial. Rather, Trump’s lawyers argued that prohibiting him from commenting restricted his ability to engage in protected political speech and could adversely impact on his campaign.

    The appeals court ruled that Merchan “properly weighed” Trump’s free speech rights against the “historical commitment to ensuring the fair administration of justice in criminal cases, and the right of persons related or tangentially related to the criminal proceedings from being free from threats, intimidation, harassment, and harm.”

    THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.

    NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump’s fixer-turned-foe Michael Cohen returned to the witness stand Tuesday, testifying in detail about how the former president was linked to all aspects of the hush money scheme that prosecutors say was an illegal effort to purchase and then bury stories that threatened his 2016 campaign.

    Trump, the first former U.S. president to go on trial, was joined at the courthouse by an entourage of GOP lawmakers that included House Speaker Mike Johnson and others considered vice presidential contenders for Trump’s 2024 campaign. Their presence was a not-so-subtle show of support meant not just for Trump, but also for voters tuning in to trial coverage and for the jurors deciding Trump’s fate.

    As proceedings began, Johnson held a news conference outside the courthouse, using his powerful pulpit to attack the U.S. judicial system. It was a remarkable moment in American politics as the person second in line to the presidency sought to turn his political party against the rule of law by declaring the Manhattan criminal trial illegitimate.

    “I do have a lot of surrogates, and they’re speaking very beautifully,” Trump said before court as the group gathered in the background. “And they come … from all over Washington. And they’re highly respected, and they think this is the greatest scam they’ve ever seen.”

    Cohen, meanwhile, resumed his place on the witness stand as prosecutor Susan Hoffinger worked to paint him as a Trump loyalist who committed crimes on behalf of the former president.

    Cohen told jurors that he lied to Congress during an investigation into potential ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign to protect Trump. He also described for jurors the April 2018 raid by law enforcement on his apartment, law firm, a hotel room where he stayed and a bank where he stashed valuables.

    “How to describe your life being turned upside-down. Concerned. Despondent. Angry,” he said.

    “Were you frightened?” Hoffinger asked.

    “Yes, ma’am.”

    But he said he was heartened by a phone call from Trump that he said gave him reassurance and convinced him to remain “in the camp.”

    He said to me, ‘Don’t worry. I’m the president of the United States. There’s nothing here. Everything’s going to be OK. Stay tough. You’re going to be OK,’” Cohen testified.

    Cohen told jurors that “I felt reassured because I had the president of the United States protecting me … And so I remained in the camp.”

    But their relationship soured, and now Cohen is one of Trump’s most vocal critics. His testimony is central to the Manhattan case.

    Cohen testified that after paying out $130,000 to porn actress Stormy Daniels in order to keep her quiet about an alleged sexual encounter, Trump promised to reimburse him. He said Trump was constantly apprised of the behind-the-scenes efforts to bury stories feared to be harmful to the campaign.

    Jurors followed along as Hoffinger, in a methodical and clinical fashion, walked Cohen through that reimbursement process. It was an attempt to show what prosecutors say was a lengthy deception to mask the true purpose of the payments. As jurors were shown business records and other paperwork, Cohen explained their purpose and reiterated again and again that the payments were reimbursements for the hush money. They weren’t for legal services he provided or for a retainer, he said.

    It’s an important distinction, because prosecutors allege that the Trump records falsely described the purpose of the payments as legal expenses. These records form the basis of 34 felony counts charging Trump with falsifying business records. All told, Cohen was paid $420,000, with funds drawn from a Trump personal account.

    “Were the descriptions on this check stub false?” Hoffinger asked.

    “Yes,” Cohen said.

    “And again, there was no retainer agreement,” Hoffinger asked.

    “Correct,” Cohen replied.

    Trump has pleaded not guilty and also denies that any of the encounters took place.

    During his time on the witness stand, Cohen delivered matter-of-fact testimony that went to the heart of the former president’s trial: “Everything required Mr. Trump’s sign-off,” Cohen said. He told jurors that Trump did not want Daniels’ account of a sexual encounter to get out. At the time, Trump was especially anxious about how the story would affect his standing with female voters.

    A similar episode occurred when Cohen alerted Trump that a Playboy model was alleging that she and Trump had an extramarital affair. “Make sure it doesn’t get released,” was Cohen’s message to Trump, according to testimony. The woman, Karen McDougal, was paid $150,000 in an arrangement that was made after Trump received a “complete and total update on everything that transpired.”

    “What I was doing, I was doing at the direction of and benefit of Mr. Trump,” Cohen testified.

    Prosecutors believe Cohen’s insider knowledge is critical to their case. But their reliance on a witness with such a checkered past — Cohen pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the payments — also carries sizable risks with a jury.

    The men, once so close that Cohen boasted that he would “take a bullet” for Trump, had no visible interaction inside the courtroom. The sedate atmosphere was a marked contrast from their last courtroom faceoff in October, when Trump walked out of the courtroom after his lawyer finished questioning Cohen during his civil fraud trial.

    Throughout Cohen’s testimony Tuesday, Trump reclined in his chair with his eyes closed and his head tilted to the side. He shifted from time to time, occasionally leaning forward and opening his eyes, making a comment to his attorney before returning to his recline. Even some of the topics that have animated him the most as he campaigns didn’t stir his attention.

    Trump’s lawyers will get their chance to question Cohen as early as Tuesday, when they’re expected to attack his credibility. He was disbarred, went to prison and separately pleaded guilty to lying about a Moscow real estate project on Trump’s behalf.

    ___

    Long reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Jill Colvin in New York and Lisa Mascaro in Washington contributed to this report.

    Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    Michael R. Sisak, Eric Tucker, Michelle L. Price And Colleen Long, Associated Press

    Source link

  • The Latest | Trump prosecutors claw back at defense’s portrait of tabloid deal

    The Latest | Trump prosecutors claw back at defense’s portrait of tabloid deal

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK – Defense lawyers in Donald Trump’s hush money trial dug Friday into assertions of the former publisher of the National Enquirer and his efforts to protect Trump from negative stories during the 2016 election.

    David Pecker returned to the witness stand for the fourth day as defense attorneys tried to poke holes in his testimony, which has described helping bury embarrassing stories Trump feared could hurt his campaign.

    Pecker has painted a tawdry portrait of “catch and kill” tabloid schemes — catching a potentially damaging story by buying the rights to it and then killing it through agreements that prevent the paid person from telling the story to anyone else.

    The cross-examination, which began Thursday, will cap a consequential week in the criminal cases the former president is facing as he vies to reclaim the White House in November.

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

    Prosecutors say Trump obscured the true nature of those payments and falsely recorded them as legal expenses. He has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

    The case is the first-ever criminal trial of a former U.S. president and the first of four prosecutions of Trump to reach a jury.

    Currently:

    — Key moments from the Supreme Court arguments on Donald Trump’s immunity claims

    — Trading Trump: Truth Social’s first month of trading has sent investors on a ride

    — These people were charged with interfering in the 2020 election. Some are still in politics today

    — Key players: Who’s who at Donald Trump’s hush money criminal trial

    — The hush money case is just one of Trump’s legal cases. See the others here

    Here’s the latest:

    PROSECUTORS CLAW BACK AT PORTRAIT OF TABLOID DEAL

    Before breaking for lunch Friday, prosecutors in Donald Trump’s hush money trial in Manhattan clawed back at the defense’s contention that an arrangement with the National Enquirer wasn’t unique to Trump, eliciting testimony from former publisher David Pecker that underscored the unusual nature of their deal.

    “Is it standard operating procedure for AMI to be consulting with a presidential candidate’s fixer about amendments to a source agreement?” Steinglass asked, using initials for the tabloid’s parent company. “No,” Pecker responded.

    Several similar questions followed suit, with Pecker acknowledging that he had not previously sought out stories and worked the company’s sources on behalf of a presidential candidate, nor allowed political fixers close access to internal decision-making.

    “It’s the only one,” Pecker said.

    BEGINNING OF ‘REDIRECT’ AND THEN LUNCH

    As court broke for lunch, Donald Trump stopped to confer with aide Jason Miller just outside the courtroom doors at his hush money trial Friday in Manhattan. He left without making any remarks to reporters waiting nearby.

    Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass had begun conducting what the legal world calls “redirect” examination — a follow-up round of questioning in response to what defense lawyers asked former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker. The defense’s cross-examination of that key witness ended earlier Friday.

    And the defense can then conduct a “recross.” The sides can go back and forth, but they generally can’t just re-ask questions or delve into new topics that weren’t raised in prior questioning.

    CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EX-PUBLISHER PECKER ENDS

    The defense’s cross-examination of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker in Donald Trump’s hush money trial in New York ended around midday Friday, his fourth day on the witness stand.

    As Trump lawyer Emil Bove wrapped up his cross-examination, Pecker said, “I’ve been truthful, to the best of my recollection.”

    Bove earlier argued that Pecker’s testimony has been inconsistent with statements to federal prosecutors in 2018.

    Pecker testified that Trump thanked him for his help handling potential news stories involving former Playboy model Karen McDougal and a Trump Tower doorman, during a White House visit in 2017.

    But Bove said Pecker previously told federal authorities Trump did not express any gratitude at the meeting. Pecker stuck Friday to the story he has given in court.

    ATTENTIVENESS AND WHISPERS IN THE COURTROOM

    In their fourth day of hearing testimony from former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, jurors in Donald Trump’s hush money trial in New York remained attentive Friday even as cross-examination turned technical.

    As Pecker and Trump defense lawyer Emil Bove parsed a 2018 nonprosecution agreement between federal authorities and the Enquirer’s parent company, members of the jury variously watched them, looked at the document on big screens or appeared to take notes.

    Trump sat chatting and gesturing with lawyer Susan Necheles while the other lawyers had an extended conversation with Judge Juan Merchan at the bench.

    After the sidebar conversation broke up for a few minutes, Trump leaned over to another of his lawyers, Todd Blanche, whispering something to him. Blanche then leaned toward Trump and covered his mouth as he whispered a response, while Bove resumed questioning Pecker.

    PUBLISHER CHALLENGED ON PAST STATEMENTS

    In the most confrontational moment so far Friday in Donald Trump’s hush money trial, defense lawyer Emil Bove said former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker’s testimony has been inconsistent with statements to federal prosecutors in 2018.

    Pecker testified that Trump thanked him for his help handling potential stories involving former Playboy model Karen McDougal and Dino Sajudin, a Trump Tower doorman, during a White House visit on Jan. 6, 2017.

    But according to notes cited by Bove in court, Pecker had previously told federal authorities that Trump did not express any gratitude to him or American Media during the meeting.

    Pecker stuck Friday to the story he has given in court.

    “I know what the truth is,” he said.

    FORMER PLAYBOY MODEL’S WORK HIGHLIGHTED

    A lawyer for Donald Trump in his hush money trial turned Friday to the 2016 deal the National Enquirer’s parent reached with former Playboy model Karen McDougal.

    The $150,000 agreement gave American Media exclusive rights to McDougal’s account of any relationship with “any then-married man.” McDougal claims she and Trump had an affair. Trump denies it.

    The contract also called for McDougal to do work for various American Media titles. Former Enquirer publisher David Pecker earlier testified the provision was really about keeping McDougal’s story from becoming public and influencing Trump’s chances at the presidency.

    But under questioning Friday from Trump lawyer Emil Bove, Pecker added that American Media had pitched itself as a venue to help McDougal restart her career.

    When American Media signed its agreement with her, “you believed it had a legitimate business purpose, correct?” Bove asked.

    “I did,” Pecker said.

    The company ended up running more than 65 stories in her name, he said.

    McDougal’s story, and American Media’s deal with her, ultimately became public anyway, in a Wall Street Journal article four days before the 2016 election, after early and absentee voting had started.

    PROSECUTORS OBJECT TO USE OF ‘PRESIDENT’ TRUMP

    The insistence of Donald Trump’s defense in his hush money trial to refer to him as “President Trump,” even when describing events that took place before his election, is rankling prosecutors.

    Trump’s lawyers said at the outset of the trial that they’d refer to their client as “president” out of respect for the office he held from 2017 to 2021.

    But Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass suggested Friday that using the title is anachronistic and confusing when tacked onto questions and testimony that involve things that happened while he was campaigning in 2015 and 2016.

    “Objection. He wasn’t President Trump in June of 2016,” Steinglass noted after one such mention. The judge sustained the objection.

    QUESTIONING TURNS TO EARLIER SALACIOUS TESTIMONY

    A lawyer for Donald Trump in the former president’s hush money trial Friday got to a salacious story at the center of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker’s earlier testimony.

    Emil Bove brought out that the Enquirer’s parent company — not Trump or his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen — paid a former Trump Tower doorman $30,000 in 2015 for the rights to an unsubstantiated claim that Trump had fathered a child with an employee there.

    Pecker testified earlier that the Enquirer thought the tale would make for a huge tabloid story if it were accurate but eventually concluded the story was “1,000% untrue” and never ran it. Trump and the woman involved both have denied the claims.

    Bove asked Pecker whether he would run the story if it were true. Pecker replied: “Yes.”

    SPECIFICS OF HELPING TRUMP CAMPAIGN

    Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker has testified in Donald Trump’s hush money trial that he hatched a plan with Trump and former Trump henchman Michael Cohen in August 2015 for the tabloid to help Trump’s presidential campaign.

    But under questioning by Trump’s lawyer, Pecker acknowledged Friday there was no mention at that meeting of the term “catch-and-kill,” which describes the practice of tabloids purchasing the rights to story so they never see the light of day.

    Nor was there discussion at the meeting of any “financial dimension,” such as the Enquirer paying people on Trump’s behalf for the rights to their stories, Pecker said.

    Pecker also acknowledged that the National Enquirer had been running negative stories about Trump’s 2016 rival Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, long before the August 2015 meeting. Pecker previously testified that stories about the Clintons boosted sales of the supermarket tabloid.

    DIGGING INTO NATIONAL ENQUIRER’S EDITORIAL PROCESS

    Donald Trump’s lawyer Emil Bove is getting under the hood of the National Enquirer’s editorial process, seeking to show the tabloid had its own incentives unrelated to any deal with Trump, in the fourth day of testimony in the former president’s hush money trial.

    To underscore his point, Bove pulled up five unflattering headlines that ran in 2015 about Ben Carson, who ran against Trump in the 2016 GOP primary. Bove noted the information was pulled from publicly available information published in other outlets, including The Guardian.

    In his testimony, former Enquirer publisher David Pecker, on the stand for a fourth day, acknowledged that it was standard practice at the publication to recycle stories from other outlets with a new slant.

    “Because it’s good, quick and cost efficient, and you would’ve done it without President Trump?” Bove asked.

    “Um, yes,” Pecker replied.

    JUDGE ISSUES INSTRUCTIONS, AND QUESTIONING RESUMES

    The jury’s day in Donald Trump’s hush money trial began Friday with an instruction from the judge that it’s OK for prosecutors or defense lawyers to meet with witnesses ahead of a trial to help them prepare to testify.

    That pertains to testimony that came out toward the end of Thursday, when Trump lawyer Emil Bove was cross-examining former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker.

    Bove resumed questioning Pecker as the fourth day of testimony began in a Manhattan courtroom.

    TRUMP WISHES MELANIA A HAPPY BIRTHDAY

    Donald Trump entered court Friday in his hush money trial in Manhattan carrying a thick stack of bound papers, which he said was a report put out by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee about the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.

    The former president said he had not read the report, “but it could be interesting.”

    Trump told reporters that he wanted to wish his wife, former first lady Melania Trump, a happy birthday, saying, “It would be nice to be with her, but I’m in a courthouse.”

    He said he planned to fly home to Florida, where she is, Friday evening after court wraps for the week.

    PECKER OFFERED INSIGHT INTO THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER

    Even by National Enquirer standards, testimony by its former publisher David Pecker at Donald Trump’s hush money trial this week has revealed an astonishing level of corruption at America’s best-known tabloid and may one day be seen as the moment it effectively died.

    “It just has zero credibility,” said Lachlan Cartwright, executive editor of the Enquirer from 2014 to 2017. “Whatever sort of credibility it had was totally damaged by what happened in court this week.”

    On Thursday, Pecker was back on the witness stand to tell more about the arrangement he made to boost Trump’s presidential candidacy in 2016, tear down his rivals and silence any revelations that may have damaged him.

    GAG ORDER HEARING RESCHEDULED DUE TO CAMPAIGN EVENTS

    A change in the court schedule means Donald Trump won’t be forced off the campaign trail next week to attend a hearing in his hush money criminal trial in New York.

    Judge Juan M. Merchan moved a hearing on the former president’s alleged gag order violations to next Thursday, avoiding a conflict with his scheduled campaign events next Wednesday.

    Merchan had initially set the hearing for next Wednesday, the trial’s regular off day. Trump is scheduled to hold campaign events that day in Michigan and Wisconsin. His lawyers have urged the judge not to hold any proceedings on Wednesdays so he can campaign.

    The hearing — now set for 9:30 a.m. next Thursday, May 2 — pertains to a prosecution request that Trump be penalized for violating his gag order this week on four separate occasions.

    The order bars Trump from making comments about witnesses and others connected to the case. Merchan is already mulling holding Trump in contempt of court and fining him up to $10,000 for other alleged gag order violations.

    Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Key players: Who’s who at Donald Trump’s hush money criminal trial

    Key players: Who’s who at Donald Trump’s hush money criminal trial

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK – Donald Trump’s hush money criminal trial shifts to opening statements Monday, followed by the start of witness testimony. A jury of seven men and five women, plus six alternates, was picked last week.

    The trial centers on allegations the former president falsified his company’s internal records to obscure the true nature of reimbursement payments to his former fixer and lawyer Michael Cohen, who arranged hush money payments to bury negative stories about him during his 2016 presidential race.

    The witnesses include a porn actor, a former tabloid publisher and Cohen, who went to federal prison for his role in the hush money matter and for other crimes, including lying to Congress. Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass forewarned prospective jurors that they have “what you might consider to be some baggage.”

    Here’s a look at the key players in the historic first criminal trial of a former U.S. president:

    DEFENDANT

    DONALD TRUMP — The former president of the United States and the presumptive Republican nominee, who parlayed his success as reality television star and celebrity businessman and won the presidential election in 2016, becoming America’s 45th president. The trial involves allegations that he falsified his company’s records to hide the true nature of payments to Cohen, who helped bury negative stories about him during the 2016 presidential campaign. He’s pleaded not guilty.

    WITNESSES

    MICHAEL COHEN — Trump’s former lawyer and fixer. He was once a fierce Trump ally, but now he’s a key prosecution witness against his former boss. Cohen worked for the Trump Organization from 2006 to 2017. He later went to federal prison after pleading guilty to campaign finance violations relating to the hush money arrangements and other, unrelated crimes.

    STORMY DANIELS — The porn actor who received a $130,000 payment from Cohen as part of his hush-money efforts. Cohen paid Daniels to keep quiet about what she says was a sexual encounter with Trump years earlier. Trump denies having sex with Daniels.

    KAREN MCDOUGAL — A former Playboy model who said she had a 10-month affair with Trump in the mid-2000s. She was paid $150,000 in 2016 by the parent company of the National Enquirer for the rights to her story about the alleged relationship. Trump denies having sex with McDougal.

    DAVID PECKER — The National Enquirer’s former publisher and a longtime Trump friend. Prosecutors say he met with Trump and Cohen at Trump Tower in August 2015 and agreed to help Trump’s campaign identify negative stories about him.

    HOPE HICKS — Trump’s former White House communications director. Prosecutors say she spoke with Trump by phone during a frenzied effort to keep allegations of his marital infidelity out of the press after the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape leaked weeks before the 2016 election. In the tape, from 2005, Trump boasted about grabbing women without permission.

    PROSECUTORS

    ALVIN BRAGG — A former civil rights lawyer and law professor, Bragg is a Democrat in his first term as Manhattan’s district attorney. He inherited the Trump investigation when he took office in 2021. He oversaw the prosecution of Trump’s company in an unrelated tax fraud case before moving to indict Trump last year.

    MATTHEW COLANGELO — A former high-ranking Justice Department official who was hired by Bragg in 2022 to lead the Trump investigation. They previously worked together on Trump-related matters at the New York attorney general’s office.

    JOSHUA STEINGLASS — A Manhattan prosecutor for more than 25 years, he has worked on some of the office’s more high-profile cases, including the Trump Organization’s tax fraud conviction in 2022, and cases involving violent crimes.

    SUSAN HOFFINGER — The chief of the district attorney’s Investigation Division, she returned to the office in 2022 after more than 20 years in private practice with her sister, Fran. She worked with Steinglass on the Trump Organization tax fraud prosecution.

    TRUMP’S LAWYERS

    TODD BLANCHE — A former federal prosecutor, Blanche previously represented Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, in a mortgage fraud case — and got it thrown out. Blanche successfully argued that the case, brought by the same prosecutor’s office now taking on Trump, was too similar to one that landed Manafort in federal prison and therefore amounted to double jeopardy.

    SUSAN NECHELES — A former Brooklyn prosecutor, Necheles is a respected New York City defense lawyer who represented Trump’s company at its tax fraud trial last year. In the past she served as counsel to the late Genovese crime family underboss Venero Mangano, known as Benny Eggs, and defended John Gotti’s lawyer, Bruce Cutler, in the early 90s.

    EMIL BOVE — A star college lacrosse player, Bove was a veteran federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York. He was involved in multiple high-profile prosecutions, including a drug-trafficking case against the former Honduran president’s brother, a man who set off a pressure cooker device in Manhattan and a man who sent dozens of mail bombs to prominent targets across the country.

    THE JUDGE

    JUAN M. MERCHAN — The judge presiding over the case. He was also the judge in the Trump Organization’s tax fraud trial in 2022 and is overseeing a border wall fraud case against longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon. Merchan has twice denied requests by Trump’s lawyers that he step aside from the case. They contend he is biased because his daughter runs a political consulting firm that has worked for Democrats, including President Joe Biden. Merchan has said he is certain of his “ability to be fair and impartial.”

    ___

    Associated Press writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

    Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    Michael R. Sisak, Associated Press

    Source link

  • Key players: Who’s who at Donald Trump’s hush money criminal trial

    Key players: Who’s who at Donald Trump’s hush money criminal trial

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK – Donald Trump’s hush money criminal trial shifts to opening statements Monday, followed by the start of witness testimony. A jury of seven men and five women, plus six alternates, was picked last week.

    The trial centers on allegations the former president falsified his company’s internal records to obscure the true nature of reimbursement payments to his former fixer and lawyer Michael Cohen, who arranged hush money payments to bury negative stories about him during his 2016 presidential race.

    The witnesses include a porn actor, a former tabloid publisher and Cohen, who went to federal prison for his role in the hush money matter and for other crimes, including lying to Congress. Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass forewarned prospective jurors that they have “what you might consider to be some baggage.”

    Here’s a look at the key players in the historic first criminal trial of a former U.S. president:

    DEFENDANT

    DONALD TRUMP — The former president of the United States and the presumptive Republican nominee, who parlayed his success as reality television star and celebrity businessman and won the presidential election in 2016, becoming America’s 45th president. The trial involves allegations that he falsified his company’s records to hide the true nature of payments to Cohen, who helped bury negative stories about him during the 2016 presidential campaign. He’s pleaded not guilty.

    WITNESSES

    MICHAEL COHEN — Trump’s former lawyer and fixer. He was once a fierce Trump ally, but now he’s a key prosecution witness against his former boss. Cohen worked for the Trump Organization from 2006 to 2017. He later went to federal prison after pleading guilty to campaign finance violations relating to the hush money arrangements and other, unrelated crimes.

    STORMY DANIELS — The porn actor who received a $130,000 payment from Cohen as part of his hush-money efforts. Cohen paid Daniels to keep quiet about what she says was a sexual encounter with Trump years earlier. Trump denies having sex with Daniels.

    KAREN MCDOUGAL — A former Playboy model who said she had a 10-month affair with Trump in the mid-2000s. She was paid $150,000 in 2016 by the parent company of the National Enquirer for the rights to her story about the alleged relationship. Trump denies having sex with McDougal.

    DAVID PECKER — The National Enquirer’s former publisher and a longtime Trump friend. Prosecutors say he met with Trump and Cohen at Trump Tower in August 2015 and agreed to help Trump’s campaign identify negative stories about him.

    HOPE HICKS — Trump’s former White House communications director. Prosecutors say she spoke with Trump by phone during a frenzied effort to keep allegations of his marital infidelity out of the press after the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape leaked weeks before the 2016 election. In the tape, from 2005, Trump boasted about grabbing women without permission.

    PROSECUTORS

    ALVIN BRAGG — A former civil rights lawyer and law professor, Bragg is a Democrat in his first term as Manhattan’s district attorney. He inherited the Trump investigation when he took office in 2021. He oversaw the prosecution of Trump’s company in an unrelated tax fraud case before moving to indict Trump last year.

    MATTHEW COLANGELO — A former high-ranking Justice Department official who was hired by Bragg in 2022 to lead the Trump investigation. They previously worked together on Trump-related matters at the New York attorney general’s office.

    JOSHUA STEINGLASS — A Manhattan prosecutor for more than 25 years, he has worked on some of the office’s more high-profile cases, including the Trump Organization’s tax fraud conviction in 2022, and cases involving violent crimes.

    SUSAN HOFFINGER — The chief of the district attorney’s Investigation Division, she returned to the office in 2022 after more than 20 years in private practice with her sister, Fran. She worked with Steinglass on the Trump Organization tax fraud prosecution.

    TRUMP’S LAWYERS

    TODD BLANCHE — A former federal prosecutor, Blanche previously represented Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, in a mortgage fraud case — and got it thrown out. Blanche successfully argued that the case, brought by the same prosecutor’s office now taking on Trump, was too similar to one that landed Manafort in federal prison and therefore amounted to double jeopardy.

    SUSAN NECHELES — A former Brooklyn prosecutor, Necheles is a respected New York City defense lawyer who represented Trump’s company at its tax fraud trial last year. In the past she served as counsel to the late Genovese crime family underboss Venero Mangano, known as Benny Eggs, and defended John Gotti’s lawyer, Bruce Cutler, in the early 90s.

    EMIL BOVE — A star college lacrosse player, Bove was a veteran federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York. He was involved in multiple high-profile prosecutions, including a drug-trafficking case against the former Honduran president’s brother, a man who set off a pressure cooker device in Manhattan and a man who sent dozens of mail bombs to prominent targets across the country.

    THE JUDGE

    JUAN M. MERCHAN — The judge presiding over the case. He was also the judge in the Trump Organization’s tax fraud trial in 2022 and is overseeing a border wall fraud case against longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon. Merchan has twice denied requests by Trump’s lawyers that he step aside from the case. They contend he is biased because his daughter runs a political consulting firm that has worked for Democrats, including President Joe Biden. Merchan has said he is certain of his “ability to be fair and impartial.”

    ___

    Associated Press writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

    Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    Michael R. Sisak, Associated Press

    Source link

  • Court Rules Stormy Daniels Must Pay Trump $122,000 In Trump Legal Bills

    Court Rules Stormy Daniels Must Pay Trump $122,000 In Trump Legal Bills

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES (AP) — Stormy Daniels must pay nearly $122,000 of Donald Trump’s legal fees that were racked up in connection with the porn actor’s failed defamation lawsuit, an appeals court ruled Tuesday.

    The decision in California came at about the same time that that Trump became the only ex-president to be charged with a crime. Trump pleaded not guilty in a New York City courtroom to a 34-count felony indictment accusing him falsifying business records in a scheme to hush up allegations of extramarital affairs with Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal that broke during his first White House run.

    She sued him for defamation after he dismissed her claims of being threatened to keep quiet about the tryst as a “total con job.” A judge threw out the case in 2018.

    On Tuesday, a commissioner for the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump’s attorneys “reasonably spent” more than 183 hours on an appeal of the case but denied a request for another $5,150 in other fees because it wasn’t itemized.

    In all, Daniels has been ordered to pay more than $600,000 in Trump’s legal fees, tweeted Harmeet Dillon, one of his attorneys in the case.

    After a federal appeals court upheld that award last year, Daniels stated: “I will go to jail before I pay a penny.”

    Messages seeking comment from her attorney, Oklahoma lawyer Clark Brewster, weren’t immediately returned after hours Tuesday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Report: Trump Could Actually Be Criminally Charged for the Stormy Daniels Hush Money Payment

    Report: Trump Could Actually Be Criminally Charged for the Stormy Daniels Hush Money Payment

    [ad_1]

    The 2016 presidential election represented many historical firsts. It was the first time a major party elected a woman as its nominee. It was the first time a nominee boasted he could shoot someone on a major thoroughfare and not lose any votes. It was the first time a candidate for office asked a foreign adversary to hack his opponent’s email account. And, of course, it was the first time someone running for president had his lawyer pay a porn star six-figures to cover up an alleged affair.

    Obviously, that last item refers to one Donald Trump and one Stormy Daniels—who Trump has denied having an affair with—and a payment that, like so many things, the ex-president has never faced any consequences for. And he still might not, though his chances of avoiding the consequences just got significantly worse.

    The New York Times reports that the Manhattan District attorney’s office was scheduled to begin “presenting evidence to a grand jury” about Trump’s role in the 2016 hush money scheme on Monday, “laying the groundwork for potential criminal charges against the former president in the coming months, according to people with knowledge of the matter.” According to the paper, the jury was recently selected and witness testimony will start shortly, “a clear signal that the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, is nearing a decision about whether to charge Mr. Trump.”

    One of those witnesses is reportedly David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer. His testimony could be of particular consequence, as the Times notes, due to an agreement he struck in 2016 to watch out for potentially damaging stories about Trump and ensure they never saw the light of day. For instance, in August of that year, American Media, Inc., the publisher of the National Enquirer and the company Pecker was CEO of at the time, paid $150,000 to secure the rights to the story of former Playboy model Karen McDougal—who alleged also she’d had an affair with the then Republican nominee—and never published anything. (Trump has denied having an affair with McDougal.) Two months later, Daniels was in talks about the possibility of selling her rights to the tabloid, but this time things were different.

    As the Times notes:

    Mr. Pecker…refused to make a payment to Ms. Daniels as well. He and the tabloid’s editor, [Dylan] Howard, agreed that [Trump attorney Michael] Cohen would have to deal with Ms. Daniels’s team directly. When Mr. Cohen was slow to pay, Mr. Howard pressed him to get the deal done, lest Ms. Daniels go public with their discussions about suppressing her story. “We have to coordinate something,” Mr. Howard texted Mr. Cohen in late October 2016, “or it could look awfully bad for everyone.”

    Two days later, Mr. Cohen transferred the $130,000 to an account held by Ms. Daniels’s attorney.

    According to the Times, prosecutors have sought to interview Howard and Trump Organization employees Jeffrey McConney and Deborah Tarasoff before the grand jury, noting that while McConney and Tarasoff “were not central players, they helped arrange for the Trump Organization to reimburse Mr. Cohen for the $130,000 he paid Ms. Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.”

    Meanwhile, Michael Cohen—who pleaded guilty in 2018 to campaign finance violations, bank fraud, and tax evasion, and said he arranged the payments at Trump’s direction—has apparently been happy to tell investigators what he knows about the hush money matter. (According to the Times, Cohen was at the district attorney’s office earlier this month meeting with prosecutors, and “is expected to return for at least one additional interview with the prosecutors in February.”)

    As for what would have to happen to indict Trump:

    …the core of any possible case is the way in which the Trump Organization reimbursed Mr. Cohen for the $130,000 he paid Ms. Daniels and how the company recorded that payment internally. According to court papers in Mr. Cohen’s federal case, the company falsely identified the reimbursements as legal expenses.

    The district attorney’s office now appears to be focusing on whether erroneously classifying the payments to Mr. Cohen as a legal expense ran afoul of a New York law that prohibits the falsifying of business records. Violations of that law can be charged as a misdemeanor. To make it a felony, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors would need to show that Mr. Trump falsified the records to help commit or conceal a second crime—in this case, violating a New York State election law, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. That second aspect has largely gone untested, and would therefore make for a risky legal case against any defendant, let alone the former president.

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link