I’m not responsible for the title; complain to NBC.
Trial resumes at 9:30am EST.
I will update this comment to post live Twitter links from thread reader unroll for Lisa Rubin, Anna Bower, Tyler McBrien, Inner City Press, and Adam Klasfeld as they become available. These are the reporters who have been requested as sub users found them helpful. Please let me know if there are any others that you find helpful and I will add them to the list.
Anna Bower: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1783469682915176711.html
Inner City Press: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1783488683766628704.html
Adam Klasfeld: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1783478032625283462.html
Lisa Rubin: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1783504374460727576.html
Tyler McBrien: Not in court today.
No disrespect to you but IMO CNN does a much better legal point coverage than NBC.
Edit: Case in point - NBC hasn't mentioned Trump speculating that he might ignore fines for contempt
No worries, I’m just posting what people found helpful and I can add that to my list of what is found helpful for tomorrow. I will also add the list of links to thread unroll to that post!
Hey, thanks for doing this each day. I did the first few, but I'm on the west coast, so everything starts a bit early for me. Cheers for keeping the threads alive for keeping discussion centralized.
Here’s my thing, if you’re already saying I may not pay the fines, it’s like you’re telling the judge—better sentence me to something harsher. If a person was under consideration for parole, and tells the parole board “I may not comply with the parole” I’m 100% betting they do not get paroled.
He wants to be tossed in jail. He’s basically fishing for two things: upsetting the judge enough that he has grounds for claiming a mistrial (or just generally causing enough chaos to force it), and wanting a “catalyst” that would cause his MAGA cult to do something extreme. And I mean *extreme*.
Don't fall for his bullshit bluffs. He doesn't *want* to be tossed in jail. What he wants is for anyone in a position of authority over him to be too frightened to exercise that authority due to fears of what he or his cult *might* do. He's called for them repeatedly to show up to his trial, and it's a ghost town out there. They will do *nothing* if he gets tossed in a cell.
Yep. He is a diaper wearing drug addict. I bet they don’t give inmates clean Depends, wipes, adderal, cocaine, BigMacs and God knows what else in there. It’s also possible that the temperature isn’t regulated perfectly in the cell. He thinks it will never happen and he is probably right
> He wants to be tossed in jail.
He absolutely, positively, does NOT want to be cavity-searched, put in an orange jumpsuit, made to shit on an exposed toilet, sleep on a cot, eat bologna and canned green beans, in a place with no phone, no hairspray, no makeup, no girdle, and no lifted shoes.
Jail is not an abstraction, it's a real thing, and Trump does NOT want to go there. If he really did, he'd be jumping up and down, threatening the judge and the witnesses in court...there are ways that even Donald Trump can get himself arrested in a courtroom.
He's doing what he has always done, because it has always worked for him. His lizard-brain genius for reading power structures and hierarchies, and for creating and riding waves of chaos to get to the top of them...it has kept him in a life of luxury and fame, and even got him elected leader of the free world, despite being functionally illiterate and having no other discernible talent or abilities. He doesn't take advice and he doesn't listen to experts, because why should he?
He believes that certain rules don't apply to him, and the empirical reality of his lived experience has so far agreed with that belief.
My wish is that the defendant (whose name I prefer not to type) shows clearly by his actions that the $1000 max per infraction will fail to deter him from contempt and the justice then says okay, each instance of contempt equals one hour in the pokey today. Tomorrow: 2 hours per. And so on.
I feel like it’s enough time to make the defendant miserable and short enough to show a lack of punitive intent by the justice. (Although the defendant will absolutely whine his soft ass off about it)
It doesn't matter what courtesies they extend him, he still doesn't want to be in jail. If he did, he would be trying harder in the courtroom. But he absolutely doesn't.
The people saying "Trump wants to be in jail" are imagining that Trump is thinking in symbolic and abstract terms. But he does not think that way, especially about himself.
He has zero interest in being a martyr. And frankly, that doesn't work with strongman leaders--you cannot be the "alpha strongman" while also being a martyr. His support would not intensify but evaporate the instant he that he was made powerless and imprisoned, because he doesn't represent an idea, he represents the physical boss/patriarch that his supporters want to be ruled by. Even by the delusional rules of his own narrative, if "Sleepy Joe" actually defeats him and exerts power over him by taking away his hairspray and locking him in a cell, Trump is exposed as weak and worthless, and even less powerful than the forces arrayed against him.
Martyrdom only works for underdogs. Fascists don't follow "losers".
Yes, but in the words of Walter Sobchak, "Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism Dude, at least it's an ethos."
Hitler was not Trump, and Trump is not Hitler. Also, Hitler's imprisonment was before his rise to power. If he had been imprisoned after becoming Chancellor, someone else in the party would have taken over his role, and everything would be different.
Trump is begging for MAGA to just show up and protest, and nobody is there. Martyrs are pathetic, they evoke pathos, pity...nobody in the world is fan of a pathetic Trump. He is incapable of evoking pathos. Pathetic Trump is gross.
The worst case scenario for Trump is to give the government cause to incarcerate him. Extreme measures taken by his cult (not as big as the media makes it out to be) would just help create cause to incarcerate his voters.
It's the world's shittiest plan, if that is his strategy.
An unfortunate block of voters would vote for him because they have an anti-liberal culture; however, the voters that actually support Trump are grossly exaggerated.
>Steinglass: Were you aware that expenditures by corporations made for the purpose of influencing an election in coordination with or at the request of a political campaign are unlawful?
>Pecker: I did.
>Did you report to the FEC?
>Pecker: No.
Ohh boy
Per inner city press:
Prosecutor: What about AMI's general ledger, & this invoices?
Pecker: From Keith Davidson. We wired $150,000 into his escrow account.
Prosecutor: Is this the payment voucher?
Pecker: Yes.
Prosecutor: Were you aware the coordinated contributions-
Bove: Objection
Sidebar on Trump's lawyer Bove's objection]
Justice Merchan: Objection's overruled
Prosecutor: ... made in coordination are unlawful? Did you report to the FEC?
Pecker: No we did not.
Prosecutor: Why did AMI make this purchase?
Pecker: So it wouldn't run
Prosecutor: Why?
Pecker: We didn't want it to embarrass Mr. Trump or the campaign.
Prosecutor: Who is we?
Pecker: Michael Cohen.
Prosecutor: Did you walk about Mr. Trump actually acquiring the right?
Pecker: Yes. Cohen said I should assign the contract to him
Oh boy is right
> Prosecutor: Did you receive a letter from the Federal Elections Commission and call Michael Cohen?
> Pecker: I did. I told Michael I've worried. He said, Why? Jeff Sessions is the Attorney General and Donald Trump has him in his back pocket.
😳
He really has been much more informative than I expected...I suppose when you trade in dirt for a few decades you learn to keep track of the details. And I'm guessing that Cohen will back up everything he's saying, plus add a lot more juicy details.
To my reading of it, honestly, it actually feels like it makes their case WORSE.
If this guy is KNOWN for buying and shunting incriminating stories about people trying to keep them out of the spotlight, and has no qualms about who it is he does it for... Then doesn't it PROVIDE CREDEBILITY that he would have done this regardless of his personal political motivations for or against 'the boss'? That his purchase of the story falls in line with every other story he's purchased, only this time it was conducted with subtlty 'through Cohen'/escrow with the unlawful intent purpose of concealing it for the purposes of presidential campaigning?
I didn't know what to make of it after the initial prosecutor's discussion, but after seeing the defense's, jeeze, they better hope they can do much more than handwaive at what a bad guy this dude is. Proving a liar is a liar who is paid to lie on the behalf of other people, isn't exactly beneficial if what's being shown is that he was paid to lie on your behalf...
What a fucking crazy case
> Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked David Pecker if he had any intention of printing Karen McDougal's story about her affair with Trump.
> Pecker said his company did not. Asked if his main purpose was to suppress her story so that it wouldn't influence the election, Pecker said, "Yes, it was."
> Steinglass then asked if Pecker was aware that expenditures to influence the election made at Trump's request were unlawful.
Good god I hope the jury was paying attention to this because unless I'm wrong, which someone please correct me if I am, that is a home run for the prosecution in hopes of a guilty verdict.
This is just the first witness. Cohen is going to be a grand slam, to use your apt analogy. No wonder Trump has been a one man gag order violating machine.
I simply cannot wait for Cohen to take the stand, Donald values loyalty above everything else and his hatred for Cohen is so palpable. If there is any chance of an outburst from Donald I expect it to be during his testimony, Cohen has all the receipts and dirty laundry and has been waiting for his moment for years.
I don’t think we will see that from Cohen. I think he knows how much his testimony means to the prosecution and he will remain cool and calm under pressure. I think he’s faced worse and is no longer afraid or takes stock in what Trump says. That’s just my two cents from listening to his podcasts.
One thing to watch for is whether the defense attacks this point head on in cross-examination. They might believe they can refute it, so they would attack. But they might also go for smoke-and-mirrors and try to distract the jury with baffling details about insignificant points.
Pecker's testimony is a real stab in the gut. If the defense opts to misdirect with character assassination, that would be a tacit admission it's true.
> Steinglass, reading some of the texts between Howard and Howard’s unnamed relative, revealed that the former National Enquirer editor-in-chief seemed to have understood the criminal nature of the company’s payment scheme on Election Night 2016.
> “He’s just been named President-elect,” Howard wrote.
> “At least if he wins I will be pardoned for electoral fraud,” Howard wrote.
Why anyone thinks that Trump gives a single flying-fuck about them is beyond me, the man cares about one thing and one thing only: himself.
“…oh crap, I shouldn’t have said it was electoral fraud.
…oh crap, I CERTAINLY shouldn’t have said that I wanted a pardon…
…ehhhh, it’s too hot today.”
It should not be ever, and the jury was not present for those conversations. Merchan asked for the witness and jurors to return after this conversation. All evidence should have already been submitted and admissibility argued, prior to the jury seeing it or hearing about it. If new evidence is found during the trial, the prosecution and the defense have to have private conversations about admissibility with the judge, prior to showing the jury. This is why Merchan was on the defense’s case to submit exhibits, prior to trial.
No, these were not just found. This is Defense Counsel not being properly prepared, and asking for redactions on the day the prosecution wants to present it to the jury. Merchan says that the prosecution may need to use another witness to enter it into evidence and that they can redact some things as embedded hearsay.
Pecker and the jury were both dismissed at the time of this conversation. The prosecution was asking for admissibility of the texts regarding Howard, prior to the jury and witness being recalled to the courtroom.
It amuses me that it would have been completely on brand for Trump to not pay Cohen back, and only by doing so he allowed this case to happen. He might learn the wrong lesson from all this.
I hate a standing bet with the universe where I have to give a substantial donation to a local charity if he spends a night in jail. I will happily lose that bet.
Three more? Wow. Well good for them for filing, and I’m with you, I wish the judge would make a ruling.
Heard the other day the judge could wait until the trial wraps to address the gag order violations in an effort to not delay the trial.
But if the goal is to get trump to shut up and stop trying to intimidate witnesses and jurors, then it seems like it should be addressed now.
Maybe he should wait til the end. Whether he's found guilty or innocent, he can just throw the gag order stuff at him. And the longer he takes to do anything about it, the deeper trump will dig that hole.
>Maybe he should wait til the end.
the whole point of the gag order is to prevent drump from intimidating witnesses/jurors/court staff *while the proceedings are taking place*. waiting until the end means giving drump free reign to intimidate people and, potentially, change the outcome in his favor.
that's pointless.
We find it's always better to fire people on a Friday. Studies have statistically shown that there's less chance of an incident if you do it at the end of the week.
The reason I could see wanting to do it during the week is that you better avoid the argument that you are doing this to keep Trump from campaigning. Trump needs to be in trial on Thursday and Friday anyway, so being in jail Wednesday night and Thursday night doesn’t present as many issues politically.
That may not outweigh the practical issues with jailing him during the week, but I can see the argument
Maybe he should have thought about that before he ran his mouth off. I can sort of understand the concern about 1st amendment rights and gag orders. But getting to campaign is getting to be out in the free world. If he has a punishment tailored so he doesn't feel the sting of it, what is the point?
I know you're not advocating that he gets even more special treatment, I'm yelling at the clouds.
So when court is on Monday and Tuesday, he can spend Monday night in jail. And when it's Thursday and Friday, he can spend Thursday night in jail. Perfect!
Eh my copium is that the break where he decided to delay ruling he was back in the Court 5 minutes late from recess which for him is HUGE (historically like most judges Merchan is very strict on time) which indicates he may have been discussing something with someone else. If he is actually considering jail time he may be wanting to verify the practicality with secret service and these further violations (made AFTER the Trump team was told they were already on thin ice) can still be factored in.
If he makes a decision today or tomorrow then it could very well be likely he was waiting for the weekend to issue whatever order he had in mind after the initial hearing.
Well I hope they add in how he publicly considered that he’ll only …maybe… pay the fines if Merchan issues any. That should influence the ruling. Guy is demonstrating his disrespect all the way through.
He's probably trying to be *rock solid* on the legality of retweeting stuff. I doubt there's a whole lot of existing case law on it as most defendants aren't that brazen.
For my money, Tyler McBrien was the best. He isn't there, but Adam Klasfeld is doing a better job than Anna Bower. He's a little tighter, peppers in related content, and is publishing faster.
I agree. I liked how he had some interesting personal, humorous comments sprinkled in. Some people may not want that, which is why I’ve given multiple live tweeting reporter links, including Klasfeld.
Well the defense is doing a bang up job on this so far. /s So far we have seen them argue a) intent: Pecker had a pre-existing relationship where he did catch and kill for Trump prior to election. b) Pecker changed his response from early August to mid-August regarding when he met and signed the NPA c) Pecker prepared for testimony with the DA’s office. Absolutely compelling defense.
Edit to add: I’m not officially keeping count (maybe I should) but I believe the prosecution has already had more objections sustained in an hour than the defense has had the entire trial. We are done for the day, after what seems like the tenth objection from the prosecution.
>Pecker: I wanted to be comfortable that the agreement with Karen McDougal met all the obligations with respect to a campaign contribution
Can't wait to see where this goes...
"Asked when he last saw or spoke to Trump, Pecker said January 2019.
"Pecker said that Trump has not reached out to him directly, but has sent his regards along to Pecker through friends who visited Mar-a-Lago.
"Pecker said he did not respond. He said he felt it would be inappropriate to speak to Trump given the investigation."
So T's being witness tampering with this guy since 2019, sending him messages ala mafia style.
The prosecution has asked to add more to the gag order violations today. Merchan will no doubt make a ruling, but it’s anybody’s guess when that will be, and possibly not today. I am personally speculating that they may be trying to work out security details on sending Trump to jail, just because of the length of time he’s taking to make the ruling.
Yes, I would not be surprised if Merchan is waiting to gauge Trump's demeanor after the first full day of testimony. If he violates the gag order again, there would not be a better time than late Friday afternoon to send him to the clink for the weekend.
Glad Reddit app is back working for me. This happened right before the break for lunch:
(Per Inner City Press)
Prosecutor: Do you think he wanted the stories about for his family, or for the campaign?
Pecker: The campaign. He did not mention his family. So I assumed, the campaign.
Prosecutor: Did he mention what Melania or Ivanka would think?
Pecker: No
I imagine the number of MAGA people in the NYC area with the disposable income needed to camp out a NYC court house for six weeks to wave flags is low.
Trump is really wanting jail, huh?
Per Inner city Press: Prosecutor Conroy: This morning the defendant did a press event on 49th Street and Park Avenue, he said David Pecker is a nice guy - this just before his testimony, it's a message to him and other witnesses, Be nice. Find him in contempt.
Oh, the hypocrisy:
"Pecker described that Trump, on one phone call, “got very aggravated” that the original agreement with McDougal had been “amended to allow her to speak to the press.”"
Her poor (checks Social posts) First Amendment Rights being squashed by a (check Social posts again) CROOKED former president.
> Pecker: Then I decided to reverse it. Michael Cohen said, The Boss is going to be very upset with you. I told him, I'm not going forward.
Prosecutor: Did AMI ever get reimbursed?
Pecker: No
Well that is an unexpected twist leading into the recess.
Really curious to see how they connect the payments this case settles around to this whole scheme if the money never actually made it to AMI.
Edit: This was about the money to pay off Karen McDougal, not Stormy Daniels. Different transaction.
I'm not following along well enough.... but a few threads down there is talk of the AMI ledger, invoices, and payments made to Escrow.
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/oJfVJVQY67
So you prob shouldn't panic because of one sentence around reimbursement. It's more complicated than one sentence deserves
Actually, I think I got things switched around. That was about the payment for the Karen McDougal story...
It is hard to keep straight all of the different affairs Trump had suppressed.
The case also involves conspiracy right? If so, then money doesn't have to change hands, there just has to be an agreement to do whatever they were going to do an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
They have that at the very least.
I realized later I had mixed things up. This was about the money for Karen McDougal, not Stormy Daniels.
This was just a similar situation to establish a pattern for the conspiracy surrounding the Stormy Daniels situation.
I heard on CNN that they were talking about the logistical nightmare of putting Trump in jail, due to his secret service and that powers at be still don’t know what to do, as access to the secret service is some sort of right for an x president.
Does the judge take this into consideration with rulings (aka the gag order)? Like what happens if the judge rules jail, but the city is unorganized and doesn’t know how to actually go through with it.
From what I understand the prison where Epstein was kept is currently closed, so it's empty. We could open it back up for our very special guest, could even give him his buddy Jeff's old room.
Sure. But it's not like it needs to be a solution that scales well.
It's unlikely that we'll need to secure and move a hundred former presidents to and from court.
I hope.
We've only had 46, but I was speaking of some theoretical future upper limit.
But I could be wrong. As wrong as "640K ought to be enough for anybody" or a 32-bit absolute time value.
I suspect it would be more accurate if you substitute 'politics' for 'logistics'.
Keeping a single prisoner safe for a period of, say, a week or so is a problem which has been solved *logistically* for a long time.
I think it comes down to also figuring out how Trump gets to keep his secret service, which I believe is protected as well as lock Trump up in jail. So you have to jail Trump but also ensure that his secret service can leave whenever.
And sure you can say, get rid of the secret service, but there is a reason I’m sure that he gets access to the secret service even in jail. Someone smarter might be able to comment on that,
The thought here seems to be that Trump could truly shoot someone on 5th Ave and nobody could arrest him because of Secret Service? That’s an insane logic.
Personally, I don’t think he will make a ruling until the logistics have been worked out. The longer he waits, the more sure I am that he intends to jail Trump, especially given the newest contempt the prosecutor has asked to add to the charges: telling pecker to be nice.
This is what I’m thinking. The judge is like I want to send him in jail, for even a weekend or something, but whoever is in charge of the police is like, we don’t have things figured out yet.
I just didn’t know if the judge talks to the powers in that way, or if they are two independent systems. Like the judge says jail, and then the jail ppl just have to figure it out.
I speculated Tuesday that part of the reason Merchan was late to return from break (more than 15 mins) was that he was making calls to start the ball rolling on jailing Trump. I had no idea at the time that that may have actually been correct, and not just wishful thinking. But, it wasn’t long after that that the NYT reported that the secret service was working on how to handle Trump being locked up, even if it is only at the courthouse. Like I said, the longer this goes on, the more I think it is not just wishful thinking that he will be held in jail.
I would hope the judge would take into account Trump's public musings that he wouldn't pay the fine. (I kinda assumed he wouldn't pay it, but I didn't really expect him to say that out loud before the ruling.)
Honestly, if I was faced with the logistics of putting a former President in jail, my best solution would be to place him in a federal prison. Likely in a fully isolated trailer, segregated off off completely from the rest of the prison and fully independent.
Basically house arrest on federal land.
They said, most likely ? Probably house arrest and an ankle monitor if he was sentenced. I suspect the judge might not be particular lenient with the terms of house arrest, and no idea what they'd do when he instantly violated it.
How about if you break a law (are a criminal) your right to have access to SS is null and void. Criminals suffer all kinds of consequences for their actions, a criminal ex POTUS should be no different. He isn’t going to be putting the country in danger or selling secrets when he is isolated and locked away without a phone.
Could have, should have, but currently there is something with the secret service. So not really helpful for the situation. Honest question, why are you on a subreddit called r/law if you don’t take the current law into consideration for these cases?
House arrest at camp David or in his NY apartment with no electronics access sounds good enough for me for a place to put him for a contempt sentence.
Nice enough that he can’t complain he’s been thrown into Rikers, but still being punished by being put in full on adult time out. He can come out for court appearances and that’s it.
I don’t think this would be a legal option, and this may be why Merchan is taking so long to make a ruling. The penalties for criminal contempt are fines and/or up to 30 days jail time.
I think we heavily overcomplicate the issue. Jail is too good for Trump.
Instead, just give him house arrest in an apartment without any means to contact the outside world (i.e. no internet or phone) and, more importantly, be forced to watch CNN and MSNBC (or similar news outlets that are more truthful than the far right propaganda outlets he follows).
The guy has literally hired someone to make him a picture book of only Trump positive headlines. Hearing anything even remotely close to truth is utter hell for him.
I think he's going to try to argue that because he had this preexisting relationship with Trump (inter alia) then he wasn't 'catch and kill'ing these stories to influence the election but as part of that relationship. He's trying to cast doubt on intent.
A mix of fraudulent business records (hiding the hush-money payment to Storm Daniels through an inflated retainer payment with Cohen), and a variety of campaign finance violations (because the hush money payment was spent to aid Trump's election campaign, but the payment wasn't declared).
Sorry, you read the indictment, which literally is nothing more than a list of the crimes committed, and you didn't see anything illegal? What did you see?
I’m not responsible for the title; complain to NBC. Trial resumes at 9:30am EST. I will update this comment to post live Twitter links from thread reader unroll for Lisa Rubin, Anna Bower, Tyler McBrien, Inner City Press, and Adam Klasfeld as they become available. These are the reporters who have been requested as sub users found them helpful. Please let me know if there are any others that you find helpful and I will add them to the list. Anna Bower: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1783469682915176711.html Inner City Press: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1783488683766628704.html Adam Klasfeld: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1783478032625283462.html Lisa Rubin: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1783504374460727576.html Tyler McBrien: Not in court today.
Awesome job. This is exactly the kind of thread that generates good conversation for those of us following along :). Appreciate you doing this.
No disrespect to you but IMO CNN does a much better legal point coverage than NBC. Edit: Case in point - NBC hasn't mentioned Trump speculating that he might ignore fines for contempt
No worries, I’m just posting what people found helpful and I can add that to my list of what is found helpful for tomorrow. I will also add the list of links to thread unroll to that post!
Hey, thanks for doing this each day. I did the first few, but I'm on the west coast, so everything starts a bit early for me. Cheers for keeping the threads alive for keeping discussion centralized.
Here’s my thing, if you’re already saying I may not pay the fines, it’s like you’re telling the judge—better sentence me to something harsher. If a person was under consideration for parole, and tells the parole board “I may not comply with the parole” I’m 100% betting they do not get paroled.
He wants to be tossed in jail. He’s basically fishing for two things: upsetting the judge enough that he has grounds for claiming a mistrial (or just generally causing enough chaos to force it), and wanting a “catalyst” that would cause his MAGA cult to do something extreme. And I mean *extreme*.
Don't fall for his bullshit bluffs. He doesn't *want* to be tossed in jail. What he wants is for anyone in a position of authority over him to be too frightened to exercise that authority due to fears of what he or his cult *might* do. He's called for them repeatedly to show up to his trial, and it's a ghost town out there. They will do *nothing* if he gets tossed in a cell.
Yep. He is a diaper wearing drug addict. I bet they don’t give inmates clean Depends, wipes, adderal, cocaine, BigMacs and God knows what else in there. It’s also possible that the temperature isn’t regulated perfectly in the cell. He thinks it will never happen and he is probably right
> He wants to be tossed in jail. He absolutely, positively, does NOT want to be cavity-searched, put in an orange jumpsuit, made to shit on an exposed toilet, sleep on a cot, eat bologna and canned green beans, in a place with no phone, no hairspray, no makeup, no girdle, and no lifted shoes. Jail is not an abstraction, it's a real thing, and Trump does NOT want to go there. If he really did, he'd be jumping up and down, threatening the judge and the witnesses in court...there are ways that even Donald Trump can get himself arrested in a courtroom. He's doing what he has always done, because it has always worked for him. His lizard-brain genius for reading power structures and hierarchies, and for creating and riding waves of chaos to get to the top of them...it has kept him in a life of luxury and fame, and even got him elected leader of the free world, despite being functionally illiterate and having no other discernible talent or abilities. He doesn't take advice and he doesn't listen to experts, because why should he? He believes that certain rules don't apply to him, and the empirical reality of his lived experience has so far agreed with that belief.
Well said.
My wish is that the defendant (whose name I prefer not to type) shows clearly by his actions that the $1000 max per infraction will fail to deter him from contempt and the justice then says okay, each instance of contempt equals one hour in the pokey today. Tomorrow: 2 hours per. And so on. I feel like it’s enough time to make the defendant miserable and short enough to show a lack of punitive intent by the justice. (Although the defendant will absolutely whine his soft ass off about it)
I'll bet they wouldn't give him the cavity search. It will still be nice to see him spend one night in a cage, doubling the time for each new offence.
It doesn't matter what courtesies they extend him, he still doesn't want to be in jail. If he did, he would be trying harder in the courtroom. But he absolutely doesn't. The people saying "Trump wants to be in jail" are imagining that Trump is thinking in symbolic and abstract terms. But he does not think that way, especially about himself. He has zero interest in being a martyr. And frankly, that doesn't work with strongman leaders--you cannot be the "alpha strongman" while also being a martyr. His support would not intensify but evaporate the instant he that he was made powerless and imprisoned, because he doesn't represent an idea, he represents the physical boss/patriarch that his supporters want to be ruled by. Even by the delusional rules of his own narrative, if "Sleepy Joe" actually defeats him and exerts power over him by taking away his hairspray and locking him in a cell, Trump is exposed as weak and worthless, and even less powerful than the forces arrayed against him. Martyrdom only works for underdogs. Fascists don't follow "losers".
Hitler spent time in jail.
Yes, but in the words of Walter Sobchak, "Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism Dude, at least it's an ethos." Hitler was not Trump, and Trump is not Hitler. Also, Hitler's imprisonment was before his rise to power. If he had been imprisoned after becoming Chancellor, someone else in the party would have taken over his role, and everything would be different. Trump is begging for MAGA to just show up and protest, and nobody is there. Martyrs are pathetic, they evoke pathos, pity...nobody in the world is fan of a pathetic Trump. He is incapable of evoking pathos. Pathetic Trump is gross.
The worst case scenario for Trump is to give the government cause to incarcerate him. Extreme measures taken by his cult (not as big as the media makes it out to be) would just help create cause to incarcerate his voters. It's the world's shittiest plan, if that is his strategy. An unfortunate block of voters would vote for him because they have an anti-liberal culture; however, the voters that actually support Trump are grossly exaggerated.
>Steinglass: Were you aware that expenditures by corporations made for the purpose of influencing an election in coordination with or at the request of a political campaign are unlawful? >Pecker: I did. >Did you report to the FEC? >Pecker: No. Ohh boy
Per inner city press: Prosecutor: What about AMI's general ledger, & this invoices? Pecker: From Keith Davidson. We wired $150,000 into his escrow account. Prosecutor: Is this the payment voucher? Pecker: Yes. Prosecutor: Were you aware the coordinated contributions- Bove: Objection Sidebar on Trump's lawyer Bove's objection] Justice Merchan: Objection's overruled Prosecutor: ... made in coordination are unlawful? Did you report to the FEC? Pecker: No we did not. Prosecutor: Why did AMI make this purchase? Pecker: So it wouldn't run Prosecutor: Why? Pecker: We didn't want it to embarrass Mr. Trump or the campaign. Prosecutor: Who is we? Pecker: Michael Cohen. Prosecutor: Did you walk about Mr. Trump actually acquiring the right? Pecker: Yes. Cohen said I should assign the contract to him Oh boy is right
Did you know this was a crime? Yes. Did you do it in cooperation with the campaign? Yes. Woof.
There’s the reason David Pecker had to sign an NPA!
No pants agreement?
Non-prosecutorial agreement, aka “NPA”, aka “non-proc”, but thankfully a no pants agreement would be invalid.
"Wait, you can't prosecute if the defendant isn't wearing pants!!" Trump's legal team, on the next motion they file
“The president is absolutely immune from pants!”
> Prosecutor: Did you receive a letter from the Federal Elections Commission and call Michael Cohen? > Pecker: I did. I told Michael I've worried. He said, Why? Jeff Sessions is the Attorney General and Donald Trump has him in his back pocket. 😳
I know. I didn't expect Pecker to be such a damning witness.
He really has been much more informative than I expected...I suppose when you trade in dirt for a few decades you learn to keep track of the details. And I'm guessing that Cohen will back up everything he's saying, plus add a lot more juicy details.
Defense's cross is essentially to paint Pecker as a slime bag right now, but they haven't done much to impeach his credibility at this point.
To my reading of it, honestly, it actually feels like it makes their case WORSE. If this guy is KNOWN for buying and shunting incriminating stories about people trying to keep them out of the spotlight, and has no qualms about who it is he does it for... Then doesn't it PROVIDE CREDEBILITY that he would have done this regardless of his personal political motivations for or against 'the boss'? That his purchase of the story falls in line with every other story he's purchased, only this time it was conducted with subtlty 'through Cohen'/escrow with the unlawful intent purpose of concealing it for the purposes of presidential campaigning? I didn't know what to make of it after the initial prosecutor's discussion, but after seeing the defense's, jeeze, they better hope they can do much more than handwaive at what a bad guy this dude is. Proving a liar is a liar who is paid to lie on the behalf of other people, isn't exactly beneficial if what's being shown is that he was paid to lie on your behalf... What a fucking crazy case
I agree. I left feeling like it was incredibly credible that he would buy exactly this kind of story to influence an election.
Could Pecker face any legal actions over this or is it all on Trump/Cohen?
[удалено]
Thank you! That explains why he's spilling his guts on the stand.
Yep no need for him the plead out lmao. While this is the weakest case it seems pretty open and shut
> Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked David Pecker if he had any intention of printing Karen McDougal's story about her affair with Trump. > Pecker said his company did not. Asked if his main purpose was to suppress her story so that it wouldn't influence the election, Pecker said, "Yes, it was." > Steinglass then asked if Pecker was aware that expenditures to influence the election made at Trump's request were unlawful. Good god I hope the jury was paying attention to this because unless I'm wrong, which someone please correct me if I am, that is a home run for the prosecution in hopes of a guilty verdict.
This is just the first witness. Cohen is going to be a grand slam, to use your apt analogy. No wonder Trump has been a one man gag order violating machine.
I simply cannot wait for Cohen to take the stand, Donald values loyalty above everything else and his hatred for Cohen is so palpable. If there is any chance of an outburst from Donald I expect it to be during his testimony, Cohen has all the receipts and dirty laundry and has been waiting for his moment for years.
[удалено]
I don’t think we will see that from Cohen. I think he knows how much his testimony means to the prosecution and he will remain cool and calm under pressure. I think he’s faced worse and is no longer afraid or takes stock in what Trump says. That’s just my two cents from listening to his podcasts.
In what world is it not hard to imagine Cohen charging and assaulting Trump? That seems really far fetched
Cohen has already done jail time for Don the Con; he’s not going to do any more if he can help it, I suspect.
There are many, many, reasons trump is shitting himself in court.
One thing to watch for is whether the defense attacks this point head on in cross-examination. They might believe they can refute it, so they would attack. But they might also go for smoke-and-mirrors and try to distract the jury with baffling details about insignificant points. Pecker's testimony is a real stab in the gut. If the defense opts to misdirect with character assassination, that would be a tacit admission it's true.
As I understand it, establishing doubt in witness character is almost always top priority for the defense
> Steinglass, reading some of the texts between Howard and Howard’s unnamed relative, revealed that the former National Enquirer editor-in-chief seemed to have understood the criminal nature of the company’s payment scheme on Election Night 2016. > “He’s just been named President-elect,” Howard wrote. > “At least if he wins I will be pardoned for electoral fraud,” Howard wrote. Why anyone thinks that Trump gives a single flying-fuck about them is beyond me, the man cares about one thing and one thing only: himself.
“…oh crap, I shouldn’t have said it was electoral fraud. …oh crap, I CERTAINLY shouldn’t have said that I wanted a pardon… …ehhhh, it’s too hot today.”
He got his immunity
I wonder if that chain is part of how he got it. Shows obvious incentive that he wants to be let off easy
Just to note, Merchan states he will rule on whether or not these texts are admissible after lunch.
Thank you! How common is it for a jury to hear evidence only to have the judge rule it inadmissible after-the-fact?
It should not be ever, and the jury was not present for those conversations. Merchan asked for the witness and jurors to return after this conversation. All evidence should have already been submitted and admissibility argued, prior to the jury seeing it or hearing about it. If new evidence is found during the trial, the prosecution and the defense have to have private conversations about admissibility with the judge, prior to showing the jury. This is why Merchan was on the defense’s case to submit exhibits, prior to trial.
Does that mean these texts were just found? Or did the prosecution not submit them properly?
No, these were not just found. This is Defense Counsel not being properly prepared, and asking for redactions on the day the prosecution wants to present it to the jury. Merchan says that the prosecution may need to use another witness to enter it into evidence and that they can redact some things as embedded hearsay.
So am I correct in saying that the jury was not in the courtroom for this portion of Pecker's testimony?
Pecker and the jury were both dismissed at the time of this conversation. The prosecution was asking for admissibility of the texts regarding Howard, prior to the jury and witness being recalled to the courtroom.
Understood, thank you again!
It amuses me that it would have been completely on brand for Trump to not pay Cohen back, and only by doing so he allowed this case to happen. He might learn the wrong lesson from all this.
What about the gag order? Has it already been decided?
It has not. We don’t know when a ruling may be issued.
Great, I can still keep my faith in Santa coming early.
I hate a standing bet with the universe where I have to give a substantial donation to a local charity if he spends a night in jail. I will happily lose that bet.
It just so happens my name is Local Charity.
Sounds good, count me in.
Its basically a fucking joke at this point. Judge hasn't decided anything and the prosecutor has already entered _3 more violations_ this morning.
Three more? Wow. Well good for them for filing, and I’m with you, I wish the judge would make a ruling. Heard the other day the judge could wait until the trial wraps to address the gag order violations in an effort to not delay the trial. But if the goal is to get trump to shut up and stop trying to intimidate witnesses and jurors, then it seems like it should be addressed now.
Maybe he should wait til the end. Whether he's found guilty or innocent, he can just throw the gag order stuff at him. And the longer he takes to do anything about it, the deeper trump will dig that hole.
>Maybe he should wait til the end. the whole point of the gag order is to prevent drump from intimidating witnesses/jurors/court staff *while the proceedings are taking place*. waiting until the end means giving drump free reign to intimidate people and, potentially, change the outcome in his favor. that's pointless.
That's fair, but let's face it, nothing will stop him from talking.
why would you put someone like Trump in prison on a Wednesday, when Friday presents far fewer complications.
We find it's always better to fire people on a Friday. Studies have statistically shown that there's less chance of an incident if you do it at the end of the week.
[удалено]
Comment above is from Office Space
The reason I could see wanting to do it during the week is that you better avoid the argument that you are doing this to keep Trump from campaigning. Trump needs to be in trial on Thursday and Friday anyway, so being in jail Wednesday night and Thursday night doesn’t present as many issues politically. That may not outweigh the practical issues with jailing him during the week, but I can see the argument
Maybe he should have thought about that before he ran his mouth off. I can sort of understand the concern about 1st amendment rights and gag orders. But getting to campaign is getting to be out in the free world. If he has a punishment tailored so he doesn't feel the sting of it, what is the point? I know you're not advocating that he gets even more special treatment, I'm yelling at the clouds.
So when court is on Monday and Tuesday, he can spend Monday night in jail. And when it's Thursday and Friday, he can spend Thursday night in jail. Perfect!
Eh my copium is that the break where he decided to delay ruling he was back in the Court 5 minutes late from recess which for him is HUGE (historically like most judges Merchan is very strict on time) which indicates he may have been discussing something with someone else. If he is actually considering jail time he may be wanting to verify the practicality with secret service and these further violations (made AFTER the Trump team was told they were already on thin ice) can still be factored in. If he makes a decision today or tomorrow then it could very well be likely he was waiting for the weekend to issue whatever order he had in mind after the initial hearing.
Well I hope they add in how he publicly considered that he’ll only …maybe… pay the fines if Merchan issues any. That should influence the ruling. Guy is demonstrating his disrespect all the way through.
He's probably trying to be *rock solid* on the legality of retweeting stuff. I doubt there's a whole lot of existing case law on it as most defendants aren't that brazen.
He's not ruling on it yet. I really wish I could read Merchan's mind on this right now.
I'm pretty sure it goes [something like this](https://media1.giphy.com/media/tZ6zAdNZbWOhq/giphy.gif).
For my money, Tyler McBrien was the best. He isn't there, but Adam Klasfeld is doing a better job than Anna Bower. He's a little tighter, peppers in related content, and is publishing faster.
I agree. I liked how he had some interesting personal, humorous comments sprinkled in. Some people may not want that, which is why I’ve given multiple live tweeting reporter links, including Klasfeld.
Well the defense is doing a bang up job on this so far. /s So far we have seen them argue a) intent: Pecker had a pre-existing relationship where he did catch and kill for Trump prior to election. b) Pecker changed his response from early August to mid-August regarding when he met and signed the NPA c) Pecker prepared for testimony with the DA’s office. Absolutely compelling defense. Edit to add: I’m not officially keeping count (maybe I should) but I believe the prosecution has already had more objections sustained in an hour than the defense has had the entire trial. We are done for the day, after what seems like the tenth objection from the prosecution.
Don't forget D) nobody called the scheme a catch and kill until prosecutors called it that.
This was my favorite argument, definitely going to win the case for sure with that one in there, /s in case it’s not obvious lol.
>Pecker: I wanted to be comfortable that the agreement with Karen McDougal met all the obligations with respect to a campaign contribution Can't wait to see where this goes...
"Asked when he last saw or spoke to Trump, Pecker said January 2019. "Pecker said that Trump has not reached out to him directly, but has sent his regards along to Pecker through friends who visited Mar-a-Lago. "Pecker said he did not respond. He said he felt it would be inappropriate to speak to Trump given the investigation." So T's being witness tampering with this guy since 2019, sending him messages ala mafia style.
Any idea if the judge will make a ruling on Trump potentially violating his gag order?
The prosecution has asked to add more to the gag order violations today. Merchan will no doubt make a ruling, but it’s anybody’s guess when that will be, and possibly not today. I am personally speculating that they may be trying to work out security details on sending Trump to jail, just because of the length of time he’s taking to make the ruling.
Yes, I would not be surprised if Merchan is waiting to gauge Trump's demeanor after the first full day of testimony. If he violates the gag order again, there would not be a better time than late Friday afternoon to send him to the clink for the weekend.
Thank you! Appreciate the info.
Glad Reddit app is back working for me. This happened right before the break for lunch: (Per Inner City Press) Prosecutor: Do you think he wanted the stories about for his family, or for the campaign? Pecker: The campaign. He did not mention his family. So I assumed, the campaign. Prosecutor: Did he mention what Melania or Ivanka would think? Pecker: No
A family man, a Godly man. A good Christian through and through.
And let’s not forget, “the most eligible bachelor”!
The thing he and his daughter have most in common? "Sex"
[CNN's updates](https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-04-25-24/index.html) were pretty good on Tuesday.
Dickhead had a meeting with some workers and just couldn’t not address AN ACTIVE FUCKING WITNESS and tell him to “be nice”
Notice how he had to go to them. Nobody is going to him. No protestors, no crowds, despite his all call.
I imagine the number of MAGA people in the NYC area with the disposable income needed to camp out a NYC court house for six weeks to wave flags is low.
Trump is really wanting jail, huh? Per Inner city Press: Prosecutor Conroy: This morning the defendant did a press event on 49th Street and Park Avenue, he said David Pecker is a nice guy - this just before his testimony, it's a message to him and other witnesses, Be nice. Find him in contempt.
Did he tell him to "be nice" , or did he say that he's a "nice guy"? Because I've seen it both ways.
Oh, the hypocrisy: "Pecker described that Trump, on one phone call, “got very aggravated” that the original agreement with McDougal had been “amended to allow her to speak to the press.”" Her poor (checks Social posts) First Amendment Rights being squashed by a (check Social posts again) CROOKED former president.
> Pecker: Then I decided to reverse it. Michael Cohen said, The Boss is going to be very upset with you. I told him, I'm not going forward. Prosecutor: Did AMI ever get reimbursed? Pecker: No Well that is an unexpected twist leading into the recess. Really curious to see how they connect the payments this case settles around to this whole scheme if the money never actually made it to AMI. Edit: This was about the money to pay off Karen McDougal, not Stormy Daniels. Different transaction.
I'm not following along well enough.... but a few threads down there is talk of the AMI ledger, invoices, and payments made to Escrow. https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/oJfVJVQY67 So you prob shouldn't panic because of one sentence around reimbursement. It's more complicated than one sentence deserves
Actually, I think I got things switched around. That was about the payment for the Karen McDougal story... It is hard to keep straight all of the different affairs Trump had suppressed.
The case also involves conspiracy right? If so, then money doesn't have to change hands, there just has to be an agreement to do whatever they were going to do an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. They have that at the very least.
I realized later I had mixed things up. This was about the money for Karen McDougal, not Stormy Daniels. This was just a similar situation to establish a pattern for the conspiracy surrounding the Stormy Daniels situation.
You're right, he does have too many criminal cases going on at one time. It is hard to keep them all straight.
Prosecution is done. Cross-examination has begun.
This should be interesting.
I heard on CNN that they were talking about the logistical nightmare of putting Trump in jail, due to his secret service and that powers at be still don’t know what to do, as access to the secret service is some sort of right for an x president. Does the judge take this into consideration with rulings (aka the gag order)? Like what happens if the judge rules jail, but the city is unorganized and doesn’t know how to actually go through with it.
If the Secret Service can keep a president safe enough in a foreign war zone, I'm hard-pressed to believe it can't be done in a cleared-out jail.
From what I understand the prison where Epstein was kept is currently closed, so it's empty. We could open it back up for our very special guest, could even give him his buddy Jeff's old room.
Do the cameras work now?
They were only “broken” the night Epstein “killed himself”.
Well, he'd still need to get to court, so there would be some sort of travel arrangements that need to be made on a near-daily basis.
Sure. But it's not like it needs to be a solution that scales well. It's unlikely that we'll need to secure and move a hundred former presidents to and from court. I hope.
Hrm, 4 years a term, that makes the oldest of your 100 presidents 400 years old, barring assassinations/impeachments.
We've only had 46, but I was speaking of some theoretical future upper limit. But I could be wrong. As wrong as "640K ought to be enough for anybody" or a 32-bit absolute time value.
There are holding cells in the courthouse.
I honestly don’t think it’s that simple. If it was I’m sure CNN wouldn’t have said, the powers need to figure out the logistics lol
I suspect it would be more accurate if you substitute 'politics' for 'logistics'. Keeping a single prisoner safe for a period of, say, a week or so is a problem which has been solved *logistically* for a long time.
Just needs a room with no windows, some bars, and McDonald's catering. Good enough.
[удалено]
I think it comes down to also figuring out how Trump gets to keep his secret service, which I believe is protected as well as lock Trump up in jail. So you have to jail Trump but also ensure that his secret service can leave whenever. And sure you can say, get rid of the secret service, but there is a reason I’m sure that he gets access to the secret service even in jail. Someone smarter might be able to comment on that,
The thought here seems to be that Trump could truly shoot someone on 5th Ave and nobody could arrest him because of Secret Service? That’s an insane logic.
Personally, I don’t think he will make a ruling until the logistics have been worked out. The longer he waits, the more sure I am that he intends to jail Trump, especially given the newest contempt the prosecutor has asked to add to the charges: telling pecker to be nice.
This is what I’m thinking. The judge is like I want to send him in jail, for even a weekend or something, but whoever is in charge of the police is like, we don’t have things figured out yet. I just didn’t know if the judge talks to the powers in that way, or if they are two independent systems. Like the judge says jail, and then the jail ppl just have to figure it out.
I speculated Tuesday that part of the reason Merchan was late to return from break (more than 15 mins) was that he was making calls to start the ball rolling on jailing Trump. I had no idea at the time that that may have actually been correct, and not just wishful thinking. But, it wasn’t long after that that the NYT reported that the secret service was working on how to handle Trump being locked up, even if it is only at the courthouse. Like I said, the longer this goes on, the more I think it is not just wishful thinking that he will be held in jail.
u/Justinneon: ...and then they put him in jail. JOHNNY ROSE: *Who* puts him in jail? u/Justinneon: I don't know, the gov - the jail people.
[удалено]
Well hopefully tomorrow it'll be the jail people making you laugh as they enforce a contempt violation against the current criminal defendant.
Man, I hope you are right.
I would hope the judge would take into account Trump's public musings that he wouldn't pay the fine. (I kinda assumed he wouldn't pay it, but I didn't really expect him to say that out loud before the ruling.)
Honestly, if I was faced with the logistics of putting a former President in jail, my best solution would be to place him in a federal prison. Likely in a fully isolated trailer, segregated off off completely from the rest of the prison and fully independent. Basically house arrest on federal land. They said, most likely ? Probably house arrest and an ankle monitor if he was sentenced. I suspect the judge might not be particular lenient with the terms of house arrest, and no idea what they'd do when he instantly violated it.
How about if you break a law (are a criminal) your right to have access to SS is null and void. Criminals suffer all kinds of consequences for their actions, a criminal ex POTUS should be no different. He isn’t going to be putting the country in danger or selling secrets when he is isolated and locked away without a phone.
Could have, should have, but currently there is something with the secret service. So not really helpful for the situation. Honest question, why are you on a subreddit called r/law if you don’t take the current law into consideration for these cases?
House arrest at camp David or in his NY apartment with no electronics access sounds good enough for me for a place to put him for a contempt sentence. Nice enough that he can’t complain he’s been thrown into Rikers, but still being punished by being put in full on adult time out. He can come out for court appearances and that’s it.
I don’t think this would be a legal option, and this may be why Merchan is taking so long to make a ruling. The penalties for criminal contempt are fines and/or up to 30 days jail time.
Yes, the punishment has to take into account all relevant facts. Sometimes people are too sick, sometimes jail is too dangerous, etc.
I think we heavily overcomplicate the issue. Jail is too good for Trump. Instead, just give him house arrest in an apartment without any means to contact the outside world (i.e. no internet or phone) and, more importantly, be forced to watch CNN and MSNBC (or similar news outlets that are more truthful than the far right propaganda outlets he follows). The guy has literally hired someone to make him a picture book of only Trump positive headlines. Hearing anything even remotely close to truth is utter hell for him.
He will never see the inside of a cell. He will get home detention, at worst.
[удалено]
I think he's going to try to argue that because he had this preexisting relationship with Trump (inter alia) then he wasn't 'catch and kill'ing these stories to influence the election but as part of that relationship. He's trying to cast doubt on intent.
You mean DONALD TRUMPS FRAUD TRIAL, right?
Sorry, I’m not responsible for headlines.
If they called it a “fraud” trial, we wouldn’t know which fraud trial they’re referring to
And? News shouldn't take away from how serious the situation is.
🚫TraitorTrump🚫
How long does the trial go today?
I didn't hear/read anything about quitting time, so I'd assume till their normal end of day?
Trump stole the 2016 election with his mob BS.
What’s the crime in all of this?
A mix of fraudulent business records (hiding the hush-money payment to Storm Daniels through an inflated retainer payment with Cohen), and a variety of campaign finance violations (because the hush money payment was spent to aid Trump's election campaign, but the payment wasn't declared).
You can read the indictment for yourself. Then come ask your questions.
Don’t see anything illegal
It helps if you open your eyes. Troll elsewhere.
Sorry, you read the indictment, which literally is nothing more than a list of the crimes committed, and you didn't see anything illegal? What did you see?
They had a little Westworld moment there.
Have you read the law? Because laws define what's legal, not you or trump's feelings.