Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[DDD Dad 14076]

41 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

When y’all get together, do you bring your little sticks that you point at the musicians with?

Conductors, directors, whatever it takes.

[royiv 9045]

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Conductors, directors, whatever it takes.

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

“This is a very, very large purchase,” David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, says of paying $150,000 to Karen McDougal, a Playboy model who was alleging an affair with Trump.

[Dahobbs 17250]

8 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Has anyone else other than me had the passing thought "Gosh, as I look back on my life, it might have been fun to engage in at least one or two shenanigans/deviltry/monkey business that required a Pecker to "catch and kill"?"

By that you mean you want to have boinked Karen McDougal. 

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

We are in a nitty-gritty, nuts-and-bolts part of the prosecution’s case, as they introduce invoices and vouchers showing the payments to Karen McDougal.

 

Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, is walking David Pecker through a pretty extensive set of exchanges with Michael Cohen and then transactions to create a payment voucher for McDougal’s lawyer. There’s a sense of anxiety around all that was taking place to try to justify this payment internally and placate Trump’s team.

 

Steinglass gets louder as he drills into a critical element of the prosecution’s case: that these payments to McDougal were made to influence the election. Trial lawyers often do this sort of thing, heightening their performance with a change in tone or a big gesture to command the jury’s attention.

 

Earlier, Pecker had a hard time recalling what a text message referred to, in what seemed like it could be an ominous sign for the prosecution. But he’s sounded steadily more confident here, identifying exhibits that corroborate his story about McDougal.

 

Pecker admits straightforwardly, when asked, that he didn’t “want this story to embarrass Mr. Trump or embarrass or hurt the campaign.” This is the crescendo of his story about McDougal, and hugely powerful testimony for the prosecution.

 

The testimony is leading into a clear story about knowingly violating campaign finance laws.

Edited April 25 by Francisco 2.0

[YGIFS 19445]

Is there a legal ground for McDougal to demand more compensation?  Stormy got $130,000 for one sexual encounter.  McDougal got $150,000 but had to put out multiple times for his limp-dick fatass.  Surely, there's some financial wiggle room in there.  No?  

[LTbear 4082]

Worth noting: there is no sex in the world worth $130,000. But I guess fatass morons have no choice. 

Edited April 25 by LTbear

[royiv 9045]

Just now, LTbear said:

Worth noting: there is no sex in the world worth $130,000.

It’s all relative. If you’ve got Saudi oil sheikh or Russian oligarch money, that kind of money can be found in the couch cushions of your private 747.

[BamaATL 16247]

5 minutes ago, LTbear said:

Worth noting: there is no sex in the world worth $130,000. But I guess fatass morons have no choice. 

Not so sure about that, how many guys have paid more in a standard divorce to have sex with another woman and be done with their wife?  

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

David Pecker is now describing Trump’s interest in obtaining boxes of material regarding Karen McDougal, saying that Trump was worried about what would happen if Pecker got “hit by a bus” or his company was sold. Trump “did not want someone else to potentially publish those stories.”

 

David Pecker now testifies that he was expecting to be paid back for the $150,000 he sent to Karen McDougal. This is a very important bridge to the third and final hush-money deal. Because Pecker had such a hard time getting Trump to reimburse him, he was later unwilling to buy a third story, Stormy Daniels’s story of having had sex with Trump (which Trump denies). Thus, Michael Cohen bought her story instead, leading us straight to the criminal charges at issue in this trial. There’s a sidebar right now, the lawyers speaking privately with the judge during another crucial moment.

 

This case is spread through time and hush-money deals in a highly unusual way. We still haven’t reached the payment from which the criminal charges themselves ultimately stem. But Pecker’s testimony about the McDougal deal is important for the prosecution’s argument about Trump’s intent: They argue that he was seeking to win the election through illegal means and the specifics of the McDougal deal help to bolster that argument.

[LTbear 4082]

7 minutes ago, royiv said:

It’s all relative. If you’ve got Saudi oil sheikh or Russian oligarch money, that kind of money can be found in the couch cushions of your private 747.

I stand by my statement 

[LTbear 4082]

3 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Not so sure about that, how many guys have paid more in a standard divorce to have sex with another woman and be done with their wife?  

To clarify, no one time sexual encounter is worth 130k. If that's what someone has to pay for divorce to get out of a shitty marriage, so be it. 

[tx 3 putt 75522]

Karen McDougal is damn hot 🔥🔥🔥

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

Daniel Rotstein, the man David Pecker used in an ultimately failed effort to secretly obtain reimbursement for the Karen McDougal deal, was his own fixer of sorts. Pecker had long used him to deliver the news that employees would be fired, to the point that Rotstein became known at Pecker’s company as “Dr. Death.”

 

David Pecker is describing Michael Cohen’s creation of a shell company, Resolution Consultants, to reimburse Pecker for his payoff to Karen McDougal. Cohen, who was then Trump's fixer, would later set up a similarly named company, Essential Consultants, to pay off Stormy Daniels.

 

We are pretty far into the weeds of disguised monetary transactions related to the McDougal deal. But most of the jurors, perhaps refreshed after their Wednesday off, are still paying close attention, turning their heads from the prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, to the witness, Pecker, and back again.

Edited April 25 by Francisco 2.0

[Red Five 40449]

Sydney Sweeney. $130k. Hmmm.

[Upgrayedd 5777]

Just now, Red Five said:

Sydney Sweeney. $130k. Hmmm.

$3.9 million per hour.  

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, wraps up his questioning about Karen McDougal by asking David Pecker about a contentious exchange with Michael Cohen, in which Pecker got concerned about the potentially unlawful implications of the deal. Cohen was upset with him and screamed: “The boss is going to be very angry at you.” But Pecker — thoroughly anxious at this point — stood firm. “The deal is off,” Pecker recalls telling him then. Pecker concludes by saying that he was never paid for the McDougal deal and we begin a 20-minute break.

[Js1 83620]

28 minutes ago, LTbear said:

Worth noting: there is no sex in the world worth $130,000. But I guess fatass morons have no choice. 

@Brisketexan’s talk on this site says otherwise. He’d probably shell that out for Sela 

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

Just now, Js1 said:

@Brisketexan’s talk on this site says otherwise. He’d probably shell that out for Sela 

Or another.

 

 

 

[Willfully Horn 7890]

The Senate majority leader, in 2020: (approximately “Convicting on impeachment charges is not necessary. We have a criminal judgement system which is the proper forum for these charges.)” 

 

Trump’s lawyer, arguing before SCOTUS: “The only remedy for illegal acts committed by POTUS is impeachment. It has been exactly so for over 240 years.”

Fuck these fucks in their fucking fuckholes.

[Red Five 40449]

We'd probably all pitch in at this point for Hoffs. 

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

This has been a strong morning for the prosecution, and we haven’t even gotten to the hush-money deal with Stormy Daniels yet. But the defense may begin cross-examining Pecker today, and it’s hard to assess how well one side is doing until you see the other side.

 

Listening to David Pecker’s testimony, you can’t help but wonder how many other powerful politicians and public figures he cut secret deals with as publisher of The National Enquirer to kill incredibly newsworthy stories. We heard of just two, so far. Trump and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[Red Five 40449]

Just now, Willfully Horn said:

 

The Senate majority leader, in 2020: (approximately “Convicting on impeachment charges is not necessary. We have a criminal judgement system which is the proper forum for these charges.)” 

 

Trump’s lawyer, arguing before SCOTUS: “The only remedy for illegal acts committed by POTUS is impeachment. It has been exactly so for over 240 years.”

Fuck these fucks in their fucking fuckholes.

Hell, one of Trump's attorneys argued that in one of his impeachment trials. "No no, this is legal, not political!"

"Fine, we're pressing charges."

"No no, this is political, not legal!" 

[Rimbo 25247]

50 minutes ago, royiv said:

Calling Trump frugal is the most ridiculous thing ever. The man has the most garish taste where gold plated and things being yuge equate to classy. He’s not frugal, he’s a deadbeat welcher.

"Frugal" is a very nice way of describing behavior we've pointed out about Trump here and elsewhere: It's not that he doesn't buy; it's that he won't pay afterwards.

[Rimbo 25247]

25 minutes ago, LTbear said:

To clarify, no one time sexual encounter is worth 130k. If that's what someone has to pay for divorce to get out of a shitty marriage, so be it. 

Eh, if that much money were the only thing between me and a night of intimate and slippery bliss with Mila Kunis, I'd be on the phone with my bank to convert equity to cash that minute.

23 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Karen McDougal is damn hot 🔥🔥🔥

She was reasonably okay before she became Trump's sloppy seconds. She ain't hot enough to overcome that.

[BamaATL 16247]

23 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Sydney Sweeney. $130k. Hmmm.

Unlike her Netflix deals, I'd leave her with residuals.  

[Rimbo 25247]

12 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Or another.

 

 

 

Someone who could show him how to walk like an Egyptian. I reckon $130k would be a bargain.

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

Hey, the Times is also doing a narrative about the Supreme Court hearing:

 

Alito suggests there are not enough legal safeguards in place to protect presidents against malicious prosecution if they don’t have some form of immunity. He tells Dreeben that the grand jury process isn’t much of a protection because prosecutors, as the saying goes, can indict a ham sandwich. When Dreeben tries to argue that prosecutors sometimes don’t indict people who don’t deserve it, Alito dismissively says, “Every once in a while there’s an eclipse too.”

If you are just joining in, the justices are questioning the Justice Department lawyer, Michael Dreeben, about the government’s argument that former President Trump is not absolutely immune from prosecution on charges that he plotted to subvert the 2020 election. Dreeben has faced skeptical questions from several of the conservative justices, including both Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, who have suggested that the fraud conspiracy statute being used against the former president is vague. That statute is central to the government’s case against Trump.

 

Justice Alito now joins Justice Kavanaugh in suggesting that the fraud conspiracy statute is very vague and broadly drawn. That is bad news for the indictment brought against Trump by Jack Smith, the special counsel.

The scope and viability of this fraud statute, which is absolutely central to the Trump indictment, wasn’t on the menu of issues seemingly at play in this hearing. Kavanaugh and Alito appear to have gone out of their way to question its use in the Trump case.

 

Justice Sotomayor points out that under the Trump team’s theory that a criminal statute has to clearly state that it applies to the presidency for it to cover a president’s official actions, there would essentially be no accountability at all. Because only a tiny handful of laws mention the president, that means a president could act contrary to them without violating them. As a result, the Senate could not even impeach a president for violating criminal statutes, she says — because he would not be violating those laws if they don’t apply to the president.

 

Dreeben is under heavy fire from the court’s conservatives.

 

Justice Gorsuch is questioning Drebeen directly on whether another key charge against Trump — an obstruction statute — should apply to Trump’s alleged disruption of the certification of the election. The court held a hearing earlier this month on whether that obstruction law should be applied to members of the pro-Trump mob that attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6. Trump was never mentioned in that hearing. But now the use of the obstruction law against Trump has come up.

 

Dreeben says there are some core constitutional functions of a presidency — he cites the pardon power, the power to recognize foreign nations, the power to veto legislation, the power to make appointments — that Congress cannot regulate and so criminal statutes cannot be applied to such actions. Justice Gorsuch declares that is essentially immunity for some official acts.

 

Justice Kavanaugh just dropped a bit of bombshell, saying that the main fraud conspiracy statute Trump has been charged with in this case — 18 U.S.C. 371 — is written so vaguely that an aggressive prosecutor could use it against future presidents in a very broad way.

 

Dreeben argues that the Constitution has explicit textual immunity for legislative acts by members of Congress (the Speech and Debate clause) because there had been an historical example of legislators being harassed and prevented from doing their jobs. The framers of the Constitution did not put anything like that in for presidents, he argues, because they had a very different concern — after rebelling against the British king, one of their chief concerns was the risk of presidential misconduct.

 

Overall, several justices — maybe a majority — apear to have suggested through their questions that presidents should indeed enjoy some level of immunity from criminal prosecution. The questions seem to be how to decide what actions are protected from criminal charges and whether the allegations in Trump’s indictment in particular would qualify for immunity.

 

Justice Thomas cites “Operation Mongoose” in asking why no ex-presidents have been charged in the past. That is an odd example. President John F. Kennedy ordered Operation Mongoose — a covert operation in Cuba. Of course, Kennedy never had an opportunity to be an ex-president.

 

An exchange with Sauer a few minutes ago and now Dreeben’s opening statement gets at a central question: is the fact that no ex-president was charged with a crime before Trump evidence that presidents have always been understood to be immune, or is it evidence that there are layers of protection against abusive or politicized prosecutions of ex-presidents who did not really commit crimes like Trump allegedly did?

 

Michael Dreeben, speaking for the government, lays out his bottom line. Executive immunity would license a president to commit “bribery, treason sedition, murder” and, as in Trump’s case “conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power.”

“The framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong,” Dreeben says.

 

 

Edited April 25 by Francisco 2.0

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

Justice Jackson presses Trump’s lawyer about why presidents, uniquely among the numerous government officials who make life and death consequential decisions, can’t be constrained by the risk of prosecution if they commit a crime. She fears that future leaders would be "emboldened."

 

If immunity is taken off the table wouldn’t presidents be emboldened to commit crimes, Justice Jackson asks. “I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is of turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminality,” she says.

 

“If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they are in office?” Jackson asks, adding: “Once we say ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President. You can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

 

Justice Jackson steps in to question the assumption that presidents should be immune even for their official actions. Why, she asks, should a president not have to follow the law while doing his or her job? Sauer responds that a president is required to follow the law but what is the remedy if there’s a crime committed? Should the president be sent to prison for a bad decision, he asks.

 

Justice Barrett asks why presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for official acts unless convicted at impeachment — Trump’s theory — when other officials subject to impeachment, like Supreme Court justices, are not. Trump's lawyer, Sauer, invokes the view of the former solicitor general Robert Bork, when he was helping Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal in 1973. Here is the brief Sauer was referencing.

 

By my count, there are now at least two justices — Gorsuch and Kavanaugh — who have expressed interest in holding further proceedings to determine whether the allegations in the indictment are presidential acts or private acts. Even holding proceedings would be a victory for Trump because they could easily take months to complete and all but ensure there would be no trial until after the election.

 

Justice Kavanaugh is asking about the “clear statement rule.” The idea is that if a criminal law is going to apply to an official act by a president, rather than just applying to ordinary people, Congress would have to clearly state in the statute that lawmakers meant for it to apply to the president’s official acts.

 

Sauer deflects on the answer about whether a president can pardon himself, saying that the central concern is actually whether a president will be able to make bold decisions as the country’s leader without worrying about whether his political opponents may come after him.

 

Out of left field, Justice Gorsuch asks whether presidents can pardon themselves as a way to prevent successor administrations from prosecuting them.

Here is an article exploring whether presidents can pardon themselves, something none has ever purported to do so there is no court precedent about whether it can be done.

 

Justice Kagan is pushing Sauer to take a position on whether a president ordering the military to stage a coup to keep him in power could be considered an official act. Sauer clearly does not want to answer question, saying it depends on circumstance.

 

Kagan seemed displeased by the exchange with Sauer saying there is no presidential immunity in the Constitution and the framers could have put one in if they had wanted to. “Wasn’t the whole point that the president wasn’t a monarch and the president wasn’t above the law?” she asked.

 

Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, is falling back on their theory that ex-presidents can be prosecuted for official acts if they were first convicted by the Senate at an impeachment trial. Lower courts have found implausible the notion that there is a link between the political impeachment process and criminal law.

Notably, at Trump’s second impeachment trial, when he was no longer president, his lawyers urged the Senate to find that he was not subject to conviction because he was no longer in office. Many of the Republican senators who voted to acquit him cited that as their reason. Justice Kagan points out that a former president who left office before impeachment would thereby be immune for, say, having ordered the military to stage a coup.

 

The issue of timing now emerges squarely. Justice Sotomayor suggests that the question of what is an official act and what is a private act could be argued at trial in front of a jury. If the court ends up deciding in that way, it could mean that the election interference case goes to trial before the election in November.

 

Justices Alito and Justice Sotomayor are getting at an important issue: If the Supreme Court says there can be no criminal liability for official actions (e.g. Trump talking to the Justice Department), could prosecutors still introduce evidence of the official actions at the trial? Those actions, Sotomayor points out, are still relevant for inferring what Trump’s mental state was for his private actions. Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, wants prosecutors banned from even bringing up official actions to a jury.

 

If you’re just joining in, the justices have been hearing from Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, in the first part of the oral argument. The justices, both liberal and conservative, have focused much of their questioning around whether a president can face criminal prosecution for private actions taken while in office, as well as how to draw the distinction between private and official acts.

[Sawbonz 26892]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's mostly because Merchan holds a mental health court on Wednesdays and considers it too important to push off.

Good for him.

For the next six weeks every day is going to be mental health court for him

[jimmyjazz 45206]

16 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

But the defense may begin cross-examining Pecker today,

I cross-examined my Pecker today.

[DDD Dad 14076]

19 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

 

The Senate majority leader, in 2020: (approximately “Convicting on impeachment charges is not necessary. We have a criminal judgement system which is the proper forum for these charges.)” 

 

Trump’s lawyer, arguing before SCOTUS: “The only remedy for illegal acts committed by POTUS is impeachment. It has been exactly so for over 240 years.”

Fuck these fucks in their fucking fuckholes.

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

A part of this exchange between Justice Alito and the Justice Department's lawyer, Dreeben, gets at a pressure point in American-style democracy and the rule of law. One of the safeguards against illegitimate prosecutions of ex-presidents, Dreeben says, is that if the Justice Department has advised the president that doing something would be lawful, the department could not later turn around and prosecute the now-former president for relying on that advice and doing that thing.

 

Alito points out that this creates an incentive for presidents to appoint attorneys general who will just tell them that anything they want to do would be legal. Indeed — that is a critique of the Office of Legal Counsel system, in which politically appointed lawyers decide what the law means for the executive branch.

An example: During the George W. Bush administration, memos about post-9/11 surveillance and torture were written by a politically appointed lawyer with idiosyncratically broad views of a president’s supposed power, as commander in chief, to authorize violations of surveillance and torture laws. The Justice Department later withdrew those memos as espousing a false view of the law, but held that officials who had taken action based on those memos could not be charged with crimes.

Justice Alito suggests that there is a risk to our stable democracy if presidents who lose close elections would not be allowed to retire in peace but could face prosecution. He has essentially flipped the situation under consideration upside down: that Trump is being prosecuted for having used fraud to remain in power after losing a close election.

 

Much of the discussion this morning has swirled around the question of whether, without immunity, presidents will be hounded by their rivals with malicious charges after leaving office. Alito and other conservatives on the court seem concerned that the Trump prosecutions will open the door to endless attacks against future presidents.

 

Edited April 25 by Francisco 2.0

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

Back in NYC:

 

The jurors are still on break but the lawyers have been arguing for some time about a complex legal matter involving hearsay in certain exhibits. We’re not going to get into the weeds of the issue — the defense appears to have succeeded in not allowing in text messages about Trump's election between Dylan Howard, who was the editor of The National Enquirer in 2016, and a family member. But Juan Merchan, the judge, also continues to endorse — out of earshot of the jury — the prosecution’s interpretation of Pecker’s arrangement with Trump and Michael Cohen as a conspiracy.

Pecker has just returned to the stand, and prosecutors and defense lawyers have made clear he’ll still be there tomorrow.

 

With David Pecker back on the stand, we are turning to the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape.

 

The tape, which Pecker is describing, featured an outtake of Trump on that show from the 2000s, boasting about grabbing women’s genitals. Pecker describes it as “very embarrassing, very damaging” to the campaign. It was released on Oct. 7, 2016.

The jurors are mostly maintaining poker faces, but they look incredibly focused.

Trump muttered something out loud when Pecker offered this analysis.

Edited April 25 by Francisco 2.0

[Captainant 26927]

8 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Justice Alito suggests that there is a risk to our stable democracy if presidents who lose close elections would not be allowed to retire in peace but could face prosecution. He has essentially flipped the situation under consideration upside down: that Trump is being prosecuted for having used fraud to remain in power after losing a close election.

Seems like the fix there is to nullify the DOJ memo, rather than create a king every 4 years

[C-Man 26736]

12 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Much of the discussion this morning has swirled around the question of whether, without immunity, presidents will be hounded by their rivals with malicious charges after leaving office. Alito and other conservatives on the court seem concerned that the Trump prosecutions will open the door to endless attacks against future presidents.

 

It is very sobering that one colossal piece of shit American is close to dismantling 250+ years of American democracy in such a short period of time. Maybe this was always coming and Trump is simply the useful idiot for those who've been plotting this for a long time.

Edited April 25 by C-Man

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

And in DC:

 

The Supreme Court’s relatively new process (coming out of Covid) of letting each justice ask questions at the end in order of seniority has an interesting consequence, as seen here. Dreeben kept wanting to say these things about government legal memos and to go into the details about the actions Trump is accused of taking, but the Republican-appointed justices kept cutting him off. It’s the turn of Kagan, a Democratic appointee, to ask any final questions she wants, and she is letting him talk on and on.

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

Back to NYC, and I'm going to go fetch some lunch:

Joshua Steinglass, a prosecutor, just brought up Hope Hicks, Trump’s former communications aide, asking about an email chain that was forwarded to her the day after the Access Hollywood tape came out. Steinglass also asks Pecker if he’s ever known Trump to use email. The answer was no (although Trump has, in the last 18 months or so, started texting with people for the first time).

 

A lot of key characters are being introduced right now, including Stormy Daniels, a.k.a. Stephanie Clifford, whom Pecker identifies as a porn star. Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, asks Pecker: “How do you know of her?” Then he laughs and says he’ll ask the question in a different way. He takes a slightly safer approach, and Pecker begins to describe how his employees came to be in contact with Daniels.

 

David Pecker describes an urgent call from The National Enquirer's editor, Dylan Howard, in October 2016, in which he was informed that Stormy Daniels was shopping a story of a sexual affair with Trump for $120,000.

Edited April 25 by Francisco 2.0

[Ten Bears 2443]

1 hour ago, Upgrayedd said:

$3.9 million per hour.  

How much for 5 minutes?  

[Willfully Horn 7890]

44 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Alito suggests there are not enough legal safeguards in place to protect presidents against malicious prosecution if they don’t have some form of immunity.

Maybe I missed it in the NYT synopsis, but the rebuttal to the notion that a motivated prosecutor could indict even a presidential ham sandwich with Dijon, is that presidents are afforded abundant legal counsel, and the precedent is that if an empowered government official declares an action legal, then an individual cannot be charged, much less convicted, for that action.

 

Who knew so many high court justices were DT posters? Holy shit, with their skin crawling they sharply rebuke any mention of the particulars of Trump’s indictments. The claim that what’s important is the abstract, the general effect of their eventual ruling. Hey fuckwads, if the meta doesn’t address this micro, then it is bullshit.

[LTbear 4082]

2 minutes ago, Ten Bears said:

How much for 5 minutes?  

You gonna try to go 5 times?

[SydneyCarton 47486]

1 minute ago, Willfully Horn said:

Maybe I missed it in the NYT synopsis, but the rebuttal to the notion that a motivated prosecutor could indict even a presidential ham sandwich with Dijon, is that presidents are afforded abundant legal counsel, and the precedent is that if an empowered government official declares an action legal, then an individual cannot be charged, much less convicted, for that action.

 

Who knew so many high court justices were DT posters? Holy shit, with their skin crawling they sharply rebuke any mention of the particulars of Trump’s indictments. The claim that what’s important is the abstract, the general effect of their eventual ruling. Hey fuckwads, if the meta doesn’t address this micro, then it is bullshit.

Uh, all of us. And for a long time now. Watchu talking 'bout, Willis?

[gernblansten 3159]

32 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Back to NYC, and I'm going to go fetch some lunch:

Joshua Steinglass, a prosecutor, just brought up Hope Hicks, Trump’s former communications aide, asking about an email chain that was forwarded to her the day after the Access Hollywood tape came out. Steinglass also asks Pecker if he’s ever known Trump to use email. The answer was no (although Trump has, in the last 18 months or so, started texting with people for the first time).

 

A lot of key characters are being introduced right now, including Stormy Daniels, a.k.a. Stephanie Clifford, whom Pecker identifies as a porn star. Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, asks Pecker: “How do you know of her?” Then he laughs and says he’ll ask the question in a different way. He takes a slightly safer approach, and Pecker begins to describe how his employees came to be in contact with Daniels.

 

David Pecker describes an urgent call from The National Enquirer's editor, Dylan Howard, in October 2016, in which he was informed that Stormy Daniels was shopping a story of a sexual affair with Trump for $120,000.

[Willfully Horn 7890]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

Uh, all of us. And for a long time now. Watchu talking 'bout, Willis?

Gotcha. I was surprised that one Justice would so readily interrupt, and cut off, another Justice. I have little experience with SCOTUS arguments.

[Js1 83620]

49 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Much of the discussion this morning has swirled around the question of whether, without immunity, presidents will be hounded by their rivals with malicious charges after leaving office. Alito and other conservatives on the court seem concerned that the Trump prosecutions will open the door to endless attacks against future presidents.

 

God this pisses me off

We had 44 presidents before Trump and NONE of them were ever prosecuted for what they did in office.  The only fucking moron who opened that door was Trump - BECAUSE HE DID ILLEGAL THINGS THAT WERE NOT OFFICIAL ACTS

Fuck, no one in Obama's DOJ even seriously entertained prosecuting Bush for war crimes.  Because going to war is within the purview of the office of the President.

Attempting to overturn an election that went against you and inciting an insurrection is not part of the office. 

[Pato del Muerto 52114]

Well, they’re called arguments. 

[Pato del Muerto 52114]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

God this pisses me off

We had 44 presidents before Trump and NONE of them were ever prosecuted for what they did in office.  The only fucking moron who opened that door was Trump - BECAUSE HE DID ILLEGAL THINGS THAT WERE NOT OFFICIAL ACTS

Fuck, no one in Obama's DOJ even seriously entertained prosecuting Bush for war crimes.  Because going to war is within the purview of the office of the President.

Attempting to overturn an election that went against you and inciting an insurrection is not part of the office. 

How are they going to use this to grant him immunity from illegal acts he has done and been indicated for from before and after his presidency (stormy payment laundering and moving of documents)?

[Goredho 17181]

If the supreme court gives the President immunity from prosecution, the next President can act with an assumed impunity.  That's true regardless of who is elected in November.  It could be true for the current sitting President.

Which makes me wonder, what are the odds either Biden or Trump2 is assassinated before leaving office?

[Mdhorn 5837]

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

Sydney Sweeney. $130k. Hmmm.

Does that require a catch and kill point man?  Because I'd want everybody to know.

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

And I'm back.   From NY:

We have our first mention of Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son-in-law and adviser.

Pecker says he was walking outside Trump Tower when Kushner “tapped me on the shoulder.” Pecker adds that Kushner said:  “I’ll get you upstairs.”

 

David Pecker is now describing a post-election meeting he had with Michael Cohen at Trump Tower. Pecker said Cohen told him he had not been reimbursed for his payment to Stormy Daniels. Cohen, who also wanted to be paid a bonus for the year, asked Pecker “if I would talk to the boss on his behalf.”

 

David Pecker has at least three times described Michael Cohen as warning him that “the boss” — meaning Trump — would be “angry” if Pecker didn’t do whatever was being asked of him in that moment. Prosecutors, who have focused on Trump’s tendency to intimidate people in asking for a gag order, know what they’re drawing out here.

“I wanted to protect my company, I wanted to protect myself and I wanted also to protect Donald Trump. ”
David Pecker, former publisher of The National Enquirer

Pecker reiterates the importance of keeping Karen McDougal’s story quiet, in a striking comment that relates directly to the prosecution’s argument that he conspired with Trump to help him get elected.

 

Prosecutors showed jurors this article, which I co-authored while at The Wall Street Journal. It revealed The National Enquirer’s $150,000 payment to Karen McDougal. It was published four days before the 2016 election and first introduced the term “catch and kill.”

Pecker, before a tense and focused courtroom, is recounting Trump calling him three days before election day, after the Journal article was published. He was “very upset, saying how could this happen, I thought you had this under control, either you or one of your people have leaked the story,” Pecker says. The call ended with no goodbye from Trump.

 

David Pecker, Michael Cohen and others frequently contacted each other on an app called Signal. For those who don’t know it, it’s a free encrypted messaging service that goes to great lengths to keep electronic communications private.

As the testimony about Stormy Daniels picks up speed, Trump is growing more animated. He has motioned to both of the lawyers sitting next to him, adjusted his shoulders and crossed his arms over his chest.

The jury seems largely rapt as the Daniels tale starts to unspool. I did notice one yawn, however, from a juror as we slide towards lunchtime.

As Pecker testifies about conversations he and Michael Cohen had about Stormy Daniels, he keeps his eyes glued to the exhibit and to the prosecutors. I have not seen him glance over at Trump once. He takes a big sip of water and continues to answer questions.

 

Joshua Steinglass has seemed at ease during this direct examination of David Pecker. He is the most recent addition to this prosecution team but he is a veteran prosecutor at the Manhattan district attorney’s office. He previously led the effort to convict the Trump Organization in 2022 and also secured a conviction against two Proud Boy extremists for a violent brawl in 2019.

 

David Pecker says he didn’t want The National Enquirer associated with a porn star, meaning Stormy Daniels, because one of the tabloid's biggest distributors was Walmart, where a lot of families shop.

 

 

David Pecker says that he refused to pay $120,000 for Stormy Daniels's story, noting his previous payments to a doorman shopping an apparently false story about a child fathered by Trump and to Karen McDougal, who said she had an affair with him. “I am not a bank,” Pecker said, explaining his decision.

Since the Stormy Daniels story would never have been published, Pecker’s assertion that it would have offended its readers doesn’t make sense — unless he was focused on building a case for plausible deniability were anyone to suggest the payment was an illegal campaign finance violation.

Pecker is explaining why he and The National Enquirer wanted nothing to do with paying Daniels for her story: “After paying out the doorman, after paying out Karen McDougal, we’re not paying out any more monies,” he told Michael Cohen. And he says he suggested to Cohen “that you should buy this story and you should take it off the market.” He added to Cohen: “If you don’t and it gets out, I believe the boss is going to be very angry with you.”

 

 

Edited April 25 by Francisco 2.0