Francisco 2.0

Formula 1 isn't fucking around: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2024/04/26/trump-fundraiser-miami-grand-prix/

New witness--Gary Farro Donald Trump’s motorcade left 100 Centre Street at 4:42 pm. A few dozen gawkers, including a small gaggle of conspicuous Trump supporters waving four large flags, strained in vain for a glimpse of the former president. Through the afternoon, those demonstrators traded chants of “We Love Trump” with another group of protesters, who yelled back, “Lock Him Up.” Court will not be in session on Monday. We will be back Tuesday morning. And now we're adjourned for the day. Trump looks utterly spent as he rises at the end of the long first week of testimony in his criminal trial. As he passes reporters, he grimaces, then glares, putting on a braver face as he leaves the courtroom. The defense has already told the jurors that Michael Cohen is a liar who is out to get his revenge on Trump. But the witnesses have painted a slightly different portrait — of a very anxious, harried man, who, while he still worked for Trump, would do whatever he could for his boss. “Every time Michael Cohen spoke to me, he gave me a sense of urgency,” Gary Farro just said. This material is dry but the prosecutor, Rebecca Mangold, is questioning Gary Farro slowly and deliberately. Farro said that Michael Cohen was eager to connect with him and wanted to open a limited liability company immediately. Farro then took steps to open an account for him and specified with his team that Cohen didn’t want addresses on the checks. Trump is leaning forward, reading an email that is being read into evidence about Gary Farro missing a call from Michael Cohen. Enter Michael Cohen, Trump's former fixer. “Do you know someone named Michael Cohen,” Rebecca Mangold, the prosecutor, asks. “Yes I do,” Farro answered. His knowledge of Cohen, who was assigned to him as a client, is the reason he’s here, of course. For those familiar with Cohen, Farro is making a number of telling statements. He says that he was thought of as someone who was good at working with “individuals who may be a little challenging,” though he says he didn’t find Cohen “difficult.” He also comments on Cohen’s apparent excitement to be working for Trump. After the first two witnesses testified about Trump’s personal behavior, we’re getting a dry recitation of banking transactions now, a reminder of what this trial’s charges relate to. First Republic Bank, Gary Farro reminds the jurors, no longer exists. It was seized and sold by regulators last year, one of several banks that were the casualties of bank runs after interest rate hikes. Farro, colorfully, referred to this as “last year’s demise.” Rebecca Mangold will question Gary Farro for the prosecution. She has been on the team for several years, and she typically sits with Christopher Conroy, another prosecutor, behind the main table. This may be the first time I’ve heard her speak in court. Justice Merchan is back on the bench. Prosecutors call Gary Farro to the stand as the third witness. Farro was a banker at First Republic when Michael Cohen was seeking to arrange the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. Cohen, seeking to get the money together, was contacted by Farro’s assistant at First Republic Bank Prosecutors forgot something very important — the jury. They will have to call Farro again once the jurors enter. It’s Friday afternoon, all right.

New witness---Rhona Graff Rhona Graff is now done testifying. Trump stands as Graff is leaving and approaches her, touching her hand. The judge, Juan Merchan, is standing too, waiting for the lawyers to come to the bench. Given all the focus on witnesses and Trump interacting with them, that was a striking moment. The court is taking a brief recess. Susan Necheles, Trump's lawyer, just asked Graff a clever question: Whether she wants to be here or not. Graff says she does not, and indicates that the only reason she’s testifying is because the Trump Organization is paying her legal fees. Rhona Graff is testifying adoringly upon cross-examination about the success of “The Apprentice,” calling it THE most popular television show and saying that Trump had acquired “rock-star status.” This was typical in the trial of Trump's company in 2022: Many of his former employees remain quite fond of their old boss, and seem happy to sing his praises. In the past few minutes, we again heard the name of Hope Hicks, Trump’s spokeswoman during the 2016 campaign and in the White House. There was not, to my ear, a key reason to reintroduce Hicks, so it may be that prosecutors are seeking to set her up as a key witness. Susan Hoffinger, the prosecutor, wraps up. Susan Necheles is now cross-examining Rhona Graff for the defense. Trump cracks a small smile as Graff speaks glowingly of her time working for Trump. She says she never had the same day twice and called Trump “fair” as a boss. We are now looking at a redacted entry from the Trump Organization's computer system that contains contact information for Karen McDougal and “Stormy.” Susan Hoffinger, the prosecutor, is asking Graff to verify that she compiled records of various items like emails, contact lists and calendar entries. Graff says her lawyers are being paid by the Trump Organization. This is a running theme with some witnesses close to Trump — he or his political-action committee have continued to pay their legal fees. Michael Cohen flipped on Trump, partly because the Trump Organization stopped paying his legal fees. Graff is a witness covering her time working for the Trump Organization. It is common for companies to pay the legal fees of people dragged into litigation related to their employment, though people may also hire independent counsel. Rhona Graff says she worked at the Trump Organization for 34 years. Her understanding was that Donald Trump owned the company and she worked directly for him. Susan Hoffinger, the head of the district attorney’s investigations division, will question Graff, who is the second witness. Graff was Trump’s former assistant at the Trump Organization. Hoffinger, along with Joshua Steinglass, led the team that convicted Trump’s company two years ago. Graff was Trump’s primary gatekeeper for many, many years. “The people call Rhona Graff,” per Susan Hoffinger, one of the proecutors. David Pecker is now off the stand. It’s worth reiterating, as Emil Bove continues with re-cross-examination, that we have no idea how the jury is processing what they’re hearing from either the prosecution or the defense. These jurors have been quite stone-faced throughout. And trials exist for a reason: we don’t know the result until it’s done.

Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, asks David Pecker if prosecutors have tried to influence his testimony. “Absolutely not,” Pecker says. Then, after prompting Pecker to say that prosecutors had only told him to tell the truth, Steinglass concludes his redirect. When Pecker said this, Trump chuckled and shook his head. Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, is reading back to David Pecker portions of his testimony from yesterday that Emil Bove, the Trump lawyer, sought to raise questions about earlier. The testimony relates to Pecker saying Trump thanked him for killing stories about Karen McDougal and the ultimately uncorroborated story about a child conceived out of wedlock during their meeting on Jan. 6, 2017. Steinglass promised Pecker that he wouldn’t be on the stand much longer, and it’s clear he is moving quickly this afternoon. David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, is returning to the witness stand, possibly for the last time. As a reminder, this is now his fourth day of testimony. Donald J. Trump is back in the courtroom after the lunch break, his hair looking a bit windswept. He’s trailed by his lawyers. The afternoon session will start soon. Notably, I don’t remember having seen the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, in the courtroom yesterday or today. Trump’s legal adviser, Boris Epshteyn, is in the second row. A corrective note: I pointed out Epshteyn’s cell phone use yesterday. He’s sitting in the rows reserved for lawyers for either party, so the ban on cell phone use in the well of the court does not apply to him, and he is allowed to have his.

We are now breaking for lunch. David Pecker will remain on the stand when we return around 2:15. Before leaving the courtroom for lunch, Todd Blanche, one of Trump's lawyers, asked Juan Merchan, the judge, to direct prosecutors to say who the next witness would be. One of the prosecutors responded that Susan Necheles, another Trump lawyer, was aware of the person's identity. Trump leaned over and asked Necheles, “Who is it?” She appears to have responded because he said, “Ah.” Then he stood up. Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, asks David Pecker about the overlap between The Enquirer's readership and Trump's political base. “All that base loved reading positive stories about Donald Trump,” Pecker says. “And when he announced his presidency, going from The Apprentice to running for the president of the United States, our sales increased. Newsstand sales increased.” Steinglass sums up their back and forth: “Running stories about Mr. Trump appealed to your readership.” Steinglass then makes the point that it was not in The Enquirer’s best interest to kill the McDougal story, because it would have sold well. But they killed it because doing so helped Trump. “Yes,” Pecker says. Emil Bove, the defense lawyer, spent a lot of time pushing the argument that David Pecker’s work on Trump’s behalf was typical for The National Enquirer. It was a simple, clear point. But there’s a downside to putting much of your stock in a single argument, and Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, is now able to use the same sense of repetition here against the defense. I’ll be very curious to see whether Steinglass seeks to clarify some of the seeming contradictions that Bove tried to catch Pecker in — and that Pecker fought back on — or just lets them go. Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, uses Emil Bove’s repetition of the phrase “standard operating procedure” against him, as he points out all the parts of the agreement with Karen McDougal that were not so standard. Pecker agrees with Steinglass throughout as he asks him these questions, hurting the defense's argument. Steinglass is systematically getting Pecker to lay out the ways in which The Enquirer's arrangement with Trump was sui generis. Steinglass, a veteran prosecutor at the Manhattan D.A.’s office, had a relaxed conversational style with Pecker on direct examination. Now, while the rapport is still there, he has raised his voice and become more assertive. This is likely because he’s trying to emphasize these points now that Pecker has an opportunity to clarify his testimony from his cross-examination. Emil Bove, the defense lawyer, just did something that I’ve never seen one of Trump’s lawyers do with the former president in the room: Politely and calmly, he asked for a moment to speak privately with the prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, and did so. Trump’s lawyers are typically very aggressive with the opposing side when their client is present, and it can work against them, as they don’t come to agreements easily, even on minor issues. However, it’s not clear that the chat helped matters. As Steinglass continues with redirect, Bove lodges an objection and asks to be heard. Bove is now talking to the judge.

During the cross-examination, Joshua Steinglass had looked completely unfazed when Emil Bove tried to catch David Pecker in several contradictions. As Steinglass begins the redirect, Trump crosses his arms over his chest. Redirect describes the further questioning conducted by prosecutors after cross-examination is finished. Prosecutors typically seek to clean up any issues that they thought the defense raised, in hopes of clarifying matters for the jury. We may get a glimpse of what prosecutors are worried about from cross based on Steinglass’s next few questions. We’ve now had several of these exchanges, in which the defense lawyer Emil Bove has tried to catch David Pecker in a contradiction. But Pecker is not playing along, and he is repeatedly disagreeing with Bove. He is fighting back against these attacks and seeming a bit more like the tough tabloid publisher that he used to be. It’s hurting the effectiveness of the points the defense is trying to land, confusing matters more than clarifying them. Bove concludes his cross-examination, asking Pecker about his obligations in cooperating with the prosecution at this trial. “To be truthful,” Pecker says, still seemingly in a fighting mood. Then the former publisher adds, “I’ve been truthful to the best of my recollection.” Bove sits down. David Pecker just did prosecutors a big favor. Emil Bove has been trying to get him to admit that his testimony contradicted something his lawyers told state prosecutors in 2019. The statement in question concerns the all-important meeting at Trump Tower four years earlier, in which Pecker agreed to help suppress negative stories about Trump. Bove said Pecker’s lawyer had told state prosecutors that it was inaccurate that Pecker had agreed, during that meeting, to suppress the stories on Trump's behalf. But Pecker clarifies from the stand that what his lawyer said in 2019 was simply that he had never offered to buy those stories on Trump’s behalf. As Pecker reminds us, he instead offered to serve as Trump’s eyes and ears, looking out for negative stories. We had an interesting moment just now. Emil Bove, the defense lawyer, was asking David Pecker to interpret legal language in an agreement Pecker struck with federal prosecutors in 2018. It was clear that Bove understood the language well, and thought its implications would be important. But Pecker, who is not a lawyer, was at a loss to understand it. This is characteristic of much of Bove’s questioning this morning. He has a command of the details, but not everyone in the courtroom — including the witness and perhaps even the jurors — is able to follow along. When Emil Bove, one of Trump's lawyers, is at the lectern cross-examining Pecker, or speaking to the judge, Todd Blanche, another defense lawyer, moves over into his empty seat. It’s reminiscent of Boris Epshteyn taking the seat held by Alina Habba, Trump’s lawyer in the E. Jean Carroll civil trial, when she would be called to a sidebar. Blanche seems intent on flanking Trump as much as possible. We're back from the break. As the jurors walked past the defense table and returned to the jury box, most if not all of them once again avoided looking at Trump.

Emil Bove’s voice just got very sharp as he asked Pecker about whether Pecker had made an error yesterday when he said Trump thanked him for catching and killing the doorman’s story. “Was that another mistake?” the lawyer asked, loudly. “Do you believe that President Trump said that to you as you sit here right now?” Pecker answered so quietly that I couldn’t be sure what he said. Bove underscored with Pecker that he understands it’s a crime to lie under oath. He’s going somewhere with this. To be clear, Pecker said Trump thanked him at that Jan. 6, 2017 meeting Pecker attended at Trump Tower, along with a coterie of soon-to-be administration officials. Bove is suggesting that Pecker testified inconsistently, and Pecker, who had been resisting the implication, finally agrees. Bove is satisfied he’s made his point and the jurors are excused for a break. Emil Bove raises the Jan. 6, 2017 meeting that Pecker described having observed yesterday. It took place in Trump’s office at Trump Tower with James Comey, then the F.B.I. director, Mike Pompeo, soon to be the C.I.A. director, Reince Priebus, soon to be the White House chief of staff, and Sean Spicer, soon to be the White House press secretary. Bove then tries asking a question about how Comey and Trump later had a contentious relationship. Prosecutors object, and Bove asks for a sidebar. Justice Merchan sustains the objection. I often find myself wondering about what the jurors must be thinking. They went through an often emotional jury selection process, and then in four (sometimes truncated) trial days, they have been placed into meetings at Trump Tower involving figures they’ve only heard of before in the news. It must be a jarring experience, made only more surreal by the former president sitting feet away from them. David Pecker, who has been on the stand for four days, has been even-keeled in the extreme, answering most questions — particularly from the defense — with a simple “yes” (and occasional “no”), like a man confirming an order at a deli. As a reminder, he is the first witness in the first criminal prosecution of a former American president. The material today has been dull, and for those of us without a clear view of Trump, it's easy to forget — as it was in his civil fraud trial — that he is even in the room. There’s little tension in here right now. It’s just sort of sleepy as the clocks tick on toward the lunch break.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/26/24141403/tesla-autopilot-nhtsa-investigation-recall-software-fix

Emil Bove, the defense lawyer, is pressing David Pecker about having told Michael Cohen, Trump’s fixer, that the agreement with Karen McDougal was “bulletproof.” Bove is taking advantage of Pecker having tried to please two masters: Cohen, who wanted the story buried, and his lawyers, who were concerned that the deal with McDougal could be illegal. Pecker, of course, doesn’t want to say that he was being misleading, but Bove is hitting on a contradiction: Either Pecker misled Cohen, or the legal agreement was in fact “bulletproof” and thus not unlawful, as prosecutors have indicated. Bove then seeks to emphasize that McDougal’s primary focus was not cash, but the desire to restart her career. Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer, gets confused for a moment, but eventually agrees that McDougal was focused on her career. This is not a earth-shattering point, but, if the jury is able to follow it, it helps pick away at the prosecution’s argument about this agreement. Though it’s difficult to follow, Bove is making an important point right now about an agreement that The National Enquirer made with Karen McDougal, the former Playboy model whose story about an affair with Trump the tabloid purchased and sought to bury. Prosecutors had tried to suggest that the agreement — which included a number of different benefits for McDougal — was made to disguise a $150,000 hush money payment. But Bove is pointing out that it was not a mere disguise: that Ms. McDougal actually did receive the benefits of the agreement. Bove’s point is that American Media Inc., The Enquirer’s parent company, did print health columns by McDougal — ghostwritten by others — and put her on magazine covers, not in The Enquirer but in its lifestyle publications. But after executing the deal in August, the company did none of that until well after Wall Street Journal reporters, of which I was one, revealed the existence of the deal in October 2016. And when Pecker finally wanted to put McDougal on a magazine cover, of Men’s Journal, she refused to cooperate, so they used an old image of her for the cover. His staff believed Pecker did that to make the case that their deal was legitimate. Pecker later claimed that the issue with McDougal sold extremely well. This morning’s testimony has been in the weeds. Trump’s lawyer, Emil Bove, has jumped between topics during his cross-examination of David Pecker. Although Trump seemed engaged yesterday when this line of questioning began, today he appears more lethargic. He is mostly sitting slumped back in his chair, and moments ago, he tried to disguise a yawn. Prosecutors repeatedly object to the defense team’s use of “President Trump” to refer to a meeting in June 2016, pointing out that Trump wasn’t president at that point. Justice Merchan sustains. Pecker is having trouble remembering some details about that conversation with Trump, resulting in a couple of long pauses. It’s one of the few times he’s seemingly had problems recalling anything. Another reminder of how Pecker helped Trump in the past: When Trump tried to run for president in 2012, Pecker devoted his company’s resources to propping up Trump’s advancement of the birther conspiracy against Barack Obama. Bove is asking Pecker about Dino Sajudin, the doorman with a salacious story to sell about Trump fathering a child out of wedlock. Sajudin was at the heart of the first catch-and-kill deal, in which The National Enquirer purchased the story and did not publish it. Bove asks Pecker to repeat that he believed that if the story were true, “it could be the biggest National Enquirer article ever.” Bove appears to be trying to suggest — in a somewhat confusing way — that Pecker would have in fact published the story had he been able to ascertain that it was true. Even though Pecker knew the story was false, he paid $30,000 for it. He previously testified that he thought it would have been an embarrassment to the Trump campaign. But Bove is trying to get Pecker to agree that he instead paid for the story to avoid losing it to another publication. The suggestion by Trump’s lawyer that what Pecker did for Trump was standard procedure is belied by what was actually almost a two-decade pattern of Pecker helping him. It started when Pecker arrived at The Enquirer in 1999, when the tabloid said that a poll showed Trump was a top contender for the White House. “Get ready for President Trump? Poll Shocker,” it wrote. Trump then told the CNN host Larry King, in October 1999, “National Enquirer did a poll that’s unbelievable, that says I win.” Emil Bove, the defense lawyer, is currently arguing that it was fairly well-known, if not widely spoken about, that The Enquirer was trying to help Trump during his 2016 campaign. So it’s worth calling back to something Trump said when one of the negative Enquirer stories about Ted Cruz, one of his rivals, came out in 2016: “I did not know about it, and have not, as yet, read it," Trump said at the time. "Likewise, I have nothing to do with the National Enquirer and unlike Lyin’ Ted Cruz I do not surround myself with political hacks and henchman and then pretend total innocence.” Emil Bove, leading the cross-examination of David Pecker, is trying to drive home the idea that The National Enquirer recycled news from other publications. Pecker seems unfazed by making this admission. It is seemingly an effort by Bove to show that Pecker wasn’t moving mountains to find damaging information about Trump’s Republican opponents during the 2016 presidential race. Bove, the defense lawyer, just spent a fair amount of time reviewing articles that he said had recycled content in them. But he didn’t fully explain how this was standard practice for The Enquirer, and he has now moved on to another topic. It’s a challenge for lawyers to use all the examples they want to while keeping their arguments tightly framed for jurors. There, it was somewhat difficult to follow what exactly it was that Bove was trying to imply.

And here we go: The courtroom is pretty low-energy today, and folks are fatigued after a long week of testimony. Trump appears tired. Before Pecker took the stand, Trump briefly checked his phone. He has had a few brief conversations with his lawyers, but for the most part, he is sitting at the defense table with his eyes shut as Pecker testifies. Bove now asks Pecker to describe the negative stories that The National Enquirer ran about Trump’s 2016 Republican opponents, including Ben Carson, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. He argues, as he did yesterday, that it was standard operating procedure to run articles like these, in which The Enquirer aggregated previously reported content. Bove is still trying to convince the jury that Pecker didn’t have some special arrangement with Trump: Instead, his publication was doing what it had always done. The jury is seated and one of the defense lawyers, Emil Bove, resumes his cross examination of David Pecker. Bove apologizes for making it seem yesterday as if Pecker had lied in a conversation with federal prosecutors about whether Hope Hicks had been present for a meeting in Trump Tower. Prosecutors have described the meeting, which occurred in 2015, as central to a conspiracy at the heart of this case. Bove blames himself, saying, “this was my fault.” Bove says that if he messes up like that again, Pecker should tell him, but then jokes that one of the prosecutors, Joshua Steinglass, may get there first, drawing some laughs in the courtroom. (The court officers yell “quiet!” each time members of the gallery laugh.) David Pecker is back in the courtroom, wearing another dark grey suit. He takes the stand and greets the judge, who greets him in return and calls for the jury. The judge is on the bench and we are set to begin with a few legal issues before the jury comes in. First, the judge, Juan Merchan, makes a scheduling clarification, saying that another hearing to determine whether Trump violated a gag order that bars him from attacking witnesses and others four additional times will be held next Thursday morning. We are still waiting for the outcome of an earlier hearing on the gag order, in which prosecutors asked that Trump be held in contempt and fined at least $10,000. Trump has walked into the courtroom, with his adviser Boris Epshteyn, who was just indicted in Arizona, back in tow. Trump opts for a blue tie today and adopts a familiar scowl as still photographers do a quick spray of shots. Donald Trump, addressing reporters before entering the courtroom, wished his wife, Melania, a happy birthday on camera and said he would be flying to Florida to spend time with her after court adjourned for the day. Prosecutors have entered the courtroom, laden down with their usual boxes of documents. It’s a beautiful, sunny morning in Lower Manhattan. The public line outside the courthouse to get in to see the trial was as long as it has been, stretching past the press line, which was shorter than usual. I am guessing the fact there are fewer reporters here today resulted in court security opening up several extra rows of public seating in the overflow room. There are fewer people in the courtroom as well. Some members of the general public, who have now become familiar to us because we have seen them waiting in line to get in, got better seats than usual because more were available. The public observers are an interesting and motley bunch. We’ve had students and retired couples come to see the action. One man in a cowboy hat and a tasseled leather jacket, holding a legal notepad, said he was a lawyer from Colorado who had come to watch the trial. Good morning from the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse, where today we expect that the testimony of the first witness in Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial will conclude. The witness, David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer, has already spent three days on the stand. He detailed two hush-money deals his company arranged during the 2016 election on Trump’s behalf, and began to describe a third deal, with the porn star Stormy Daniels, that was ultimately executed by Trump’s fixer, Michael D. Cohen.

Sov Cit in Colorado indicted, sentenced for 12 years for threatening to possess homes of judges in 3 counties https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/gunnison-man-indicted-for-threatening-to-possess-homes-of-judges-in-3-counties/

And we’re stopping for the day. Pecker will be back tomorrow for his fourth day on the stand. Defense lawyers will continue their cross-examination in the morning. Emil Bove, handling Trump’s cross-examination, just pushed David Pecker on a couple of inconsistencies involving dates. It was an aggressive tack that did not seem to ruffle Pecker. Bove softens a bit. Bove is walking a fine line with some of these questions about Pecker's memory. He initially pushed Pecker harder about a specific detail, but — seemingly realizing the optics of aggressively cross-examining a man in his early 70s — he pulled back. A lot of big names have come up in court today: Arnold Schwarzenegger, John F. Kennedy Jr., and now Tiger Woods have all been mentioned, as well as a raft of Republican notables, including Reince Priebus, James Comey and Mike Pompeo. Moments later, David Pecker even mentions the actor Mark Wahlberg. The testimony in court today has been like a tabloid come to life. Bove is doing a very effective cross here. David Pecker is testifying that he suppressed stories on behalf of Ari and Rahm Emanuel. Rahm Emanuel, of course, is a well-known Democrat, former mayor of Chicago, White House chief of staff to Barack Obama and currently, the U.S. ambassador to Japan. Emil Bove is doing something that trial lawyers often do: He is dropping a single phrase into his questions over and over again to try to plant it in jurors’ minds. The phrase he’s using is “standard operating procedure.” He’s said it at least three times so far. The reason, as we’ve said, is to suggest that Pecker’s relationship with Trump was totally standard, and thus, not criminal. Another self-acknowledged practitioner of repetition to plant ideas into people’s minds is Donald Trump. Some of the jurors are watching Bove, going back and forth between him and Pecker. Emil Bove is now walking David Pecker through how he engaged in very similar behavior to help Arnold Schwarzenegger’s campaign for governor of California, orchestrating catch-and-kill deals to protect him. The jurors seem engaged as Emil Bove, the defense lawyer, presses Pecker. He just emphasized his authority for the panel by catching Pecker in a small error. Then he had Pecker note that he had given Trump a heads up about negative stories for years — not just during the election. Bove’s tone has changed: He’s now being kinder, gentler, seeking to lure Pecker in. Bove is getting Pecker to say that he had never heard the phrase “catch and kill” until he first heard it from a prosecutor. The implication, again, is this wasn’t a practice engaged in specifically to benefit Trump.

What Emil Bove is doing does not take away from the possibility that, as prosecutors claim, Trump participated in a conspiracy with Pecker and Cohen. But he's doing a nice job here of blurring the lines between right and wrong, raising doubts in the minds of jurors. Muddying the waters — arguing that whatever he’s doing is either standard practice generally, or something that other people are actually engaging in — is a Trump specialty, legally and in public relations. In an admission of the ugly side of the tabloid trade, Pecker says that his magazines would buy negative stories as leverage against celebrities to coerce them into providing interviews and other access. This is going to be the heart of an argument by the defense: that this wasn’t criminal, and wasn’t a conspiracy related to Trump. Emil Bove, the defense lawyer, is questioning David Pecker about his history of “checkbook journalism,” and drawing out that his magazines only published about half of the stories that they bought. Bove is so far smooth as he is trying to present what took place with McDougal as “standard operating procedure” under Pecker. His questioning will be jurors' first chance to see the defense lawyers in action during witness testiony. Bove is smooth and calm in front of the judge, but he’s asserting a more aggressive posture with Pecker, asking him rat-a-tat questions about how The Enquirer's parent company, A.M.I., paid its sources. I believe Bove is seeking to show that the catch-and-kill deals were not standalone examples of a shady conspiracy, but rather standard practice at the publisher.

Emil Bove, the Trump lawyer cross-examining Pecker, is the newest addition to Trump’s trial team. He previously served as a federal prosecutor in New York. One notable point about the end of prosecutors’ questioning of Pecker was that they hammered home the idea that he isn’t out to get Trump. That is how the defense plans to frame Michael Cohen's actions — as vindictive. That was quite a way to end the direct questioning. Pecker had only just begun to describe the hush-money payment made to Stormy Daniels. That means that other witnesses, likely including Michael Cohen, will be left to give most of the testimony about it. The lack of testimony from Pecker about Daniels also makes me wonder if Daniels herself might testify: We still don’t know. The prosecution is done questioning David Pecker. He will be cross-examined by Trump's defense team next. The lawyer Emil Bove will handle the cross-examination for Trump’s defense. He says that he hasn't spoken to Trump since 2019. “Even though we haven't spoken, I still consider him a friend,” Pecker adds, as he testifies against Trump at his criminal trial. Trump is showing the most emotion he has during the trial so far as David Pecker discusses a non-prosecution agreement with the Manhattan district attorney's office. He has shaken his head multiple times, whispered to his lawyer and tightly folded his arms over his chest. Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, asks David Pecker if he has any bad feelings or ill will toward Trump. “On the contrary,” Pecker responds, adding: “I felt that Donald Trump was my mentor. He helped me throughout my career.” Pecker then tells a story in which an editor on his staff inhaled anthrax after the Sept. 11 attacks and died. Pecker says he was in a very difficult place from a business and personal standpoint, and that Trump was the first to call him when he needed help.

Prosecutors are now asking David Pecker to walk through his non-prosecution agreement in connection with the 2018 federal investigation into the actions of Michael Cohen and American Media Inc., The National Enquirer's parent company. Justice Merchan tells the jury that this is being offered to provide context and to help them assess Pecker’s credibility. He adds that this is not evidence of the defendant’s guilt. Pecker is still reading the non-prosecution agreement into the record. It is soporific.

We don’t often notice the jurors looking directly at the former president: They look at the prosecutor, the witness, the floor, the ceiling, their notes. But they really seem to try to avoid, for the most part, looking straight at Trump. David Pecker is now describing a conversation he had with Trump more than a year after he was elected president, prompted by Karen McDougal having given a television interview. “I thought you had — we had — an agreement with Karen McDougal that she can’t give any interviews or be on any television shows,” Pecker recalls Trump saying then. When Pecker explained that he had amended the agreement, he says, “Mr. Trump got very aggravated.” To emphasize, again, Pecker is saying that the president of the United States continued to monitor McDougal’s movements while in office. Joshua Steinglass, a prosecutor, is guiding David Pecker through testimony about a dinner that Trump invited Pecker and his wife to at the White House. Pecker’s wife didn’t want to go, so The National Enquirer's top editor, Dylan Howard, and others. The dinner, prosecutors establish, was in July 2017. By then, Trump was under investigation by the special counsel Robert Mueller after firing the F.B.I. director, James Comey, amid the investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russians. Trump was slumped in his chair at the beginning of Pecker’s afternoon testimony. He muttered to his lead lawyer, Todd Blanche, after Pecker detailed a conversation he had with Trump at the White House. He says Trump asked “how Karen is doing.” Prosecutors showed a photo of Trump and Pecker walking together on the White House grounds. Pecker says they were discussing Karen McDougal at that moment. This was a real wow moment for me. The photo was taken from behind, the two men were clearly deep in conversation. Now Pecker tells us that the conversation was, at least in part, about Karen McDougal. “How is Karen doing,” Pecker says Trump asked him. She is doing well, he says he responded. “She is quiet.”

Lunch break over: We’re back for the afternoon session, and David Pecker will return to the stand. Trump is back in the courtroom, with his coterie of lawyers and aides. Boris Epshteyn, Trump’s legal adviser who was indicted yesterday in Arizona, is in the courtroom. Epshteyn is aggressively using his cell phone, which is barred in court. The court officers who patrol journalists doing the same don’t seem to notice as they walk by the aisle.