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

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

And from DC:

The oral argument lasted nearly three hours, as the justices tangled with a lawyer for the former president and a Justice Department lawyer. A majority of the justices appeared skeptical of the idea of sweeping presidential immunity. However, several of them suggested an interest in drawing out what actions may be immune and what may not — a move that could delay the former president’s trial if the Supreme Court asks a lower court to revisit the issues.

Many of the justices seemed to be considering the idea that presidents should enjoy some form of protection against criminal prosecution. The devil however will be in the details: How should that protection extend?

And that question will have profound relevance not only for future presidents, but much more immediately for Donald Trump. The court could decide to draw those rules itself in a broad way for history. Or it could send this case back to a lower court to set the rules of what form immunity could take. If the case is sent back for further proceedings, it could have a dramatic effect on the timing of Trump’s trial, pushing it well past the election in November.

 

Looking back, one of the main points of discussion turned on the question of which situation would be worse: a world in which presidents, shorn of any legal protections against prosecution, were ceaselessly pursued in the courts by their rivals in a never-ending cycle of political retribution, or allowing presidents to be unbounded by criminal law and permitted to do whatever they wanted with impunity.

 

Sauer, Trump’s attorney, declines to offer a rebuttal. The argument is over.

 

If the court finds that there is some immunity for official actions, one of the most important questions will be whether prosecutors can still present evidence to the jury of Trump’s official actions (like pressuring the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to do certain things) as evidence that helps illuminate Trump’s knowledge and intent for his private acts as a candidate. Dreeben says the jury needs to understand the whole “integrated conspiracy” but prosecutors would accept a jury instruction in which the judge would say they cannot impose liability for the official actions but may consider them as evidence of his knowledge and intent for the other actions. That’s how courts handle protected speech that is evidence to a larger conspiracy, he notes.

 

Justice Barrett picks up the question of timing again. She suggests that if prosecutors want to take Trump quickly to trial, they could simply drop those parts of the indictment that seem to be his official acts as president and proceed with only those parts of the indictment that reflect Trump’s private actions taken as a candidate for office. Dreeben is not wild about that idea.

Dreeben suggests that allegations in the “private acts bucket,” as Justice Jackson just called it, would include things like the scheme to create fake electors and the way in which Trump fomented a mob of his supporters to violently attack the Capitol on Jan. 6.

 

Justice Barrett seems to signal that she is less likely to find that presidents have blanket immunity for their official acts. When Dreeben says the system needs to balance the effective functioning of the presidency and accountability for a former president under the rule of law, and the existing system does that pretty well or maybe needs a few ancillary rules but that is different from the “radical proposal” put forward by Trump’s legal team, she says: “I agree.”

Dreeben, in a balancing act that seems to acknowledge that the court is looking for some form of criminal immunity for presidents, says he is trying to do two things at once, neither of them easy. He wants to design a system to find some rules that preserve the “effective functioning of the presidency” but that still allows for “accountability” if presidents violated the law.

 

Kavanaugh asks Dreeben about Obama’s drone strike that killed an American citizen suspected of terrorism, Anwar al-Awlaki, which Trump’s lawyer invoked in his opening. Dreeben notes that the Office of Legal Counsel analyzed the question and found that the murder statute did not apply to presidents when they were acting under public authority, so authorizing the strike was lawful. This is the way the system can function, he said — the Justice Department analyzes laws carefully and with established principles.

 

Justice Kavanaugh signals that he is likely to find that presidents must have immunity for their official actions. He talks about how the threat of prosecution by independent counsels (under a law that lapsed in 1999) hampered Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton, and says a 1984 ruling upholding that structure as constitutional was one of the Supreme Court’s biggest mistakes. (Notably, Kavanaugh was a prosecutor on the staff of independent counsel Ken Starr during his investigation into President Bill Clinton, before becoming a White House lawyer under President George W. Bush.)

Dreeben tries to push back on Kavanaugh’s argument by saying that even after Watergate, even after all of the independent counsel investigations mentioned above, the legal system has survived without “having gone off on a runaway train” of actual criminal prosecutions against former presidents.

We are now over the two-hour mark of the Supreme Court’s arguments in the Trump immunity case. The Justice Department lawyer has continued to face skeptical questions from many of the court’s conservatives, several of whom appear particularly focused on how to draw the line between a president’s core powers and non-core powers. In other words, what actions by a president might be shielded from prosecution and what would not. The questioning suggests that some of the justices may favor a ruling that could lead to more lower-court proceedings, perhaps delaying the trial.

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

NY, Continued:

 

Seemingly important question here, as prosecutors ask David Pecker whether Trump was concerned about his wife or family finding out about his alleged affairs when he was campaigning for office. Pecker responds no. This suggests that Trump’s worries were electoral, not personal.

 

We are breaking for lunch. Back at 2:15 pm.

 

Pecker said that during that meeting, Trump referred to McDougal as “our girl” when discussing her.

One of Trump's hallmarks, as he became president, was his tendency to treat all aspects of his world as flat and the same. He did not differentiate between the F.B.I. director and the head of a supermarket tabloid in terms of their obligations to him.

 

In front of Comey, the head of the F.B.I., Trump thanked Pecker for purchasing the stories — and committing at least one crime in the process, as Pecker well knew. This is a wild, wild scene we are hearing about.

 

Pecker has just given us a very detailed description of Jared Kushner walking him into Trump Tower, and then into Trump’s office, shortly before Trump's inauguration as president. In the office were four noteworthy people: James Comey, Sean Spicer, Reince Priebus and Mike Pompeo. Three were Republicans who would go on to work in the Trump administration, while the fourth, Comey, would eventually become one of Trump’s chief adversaries. Into that tableau walks Pecker, to be asked about Karen McDougal by the president-elect.

Edited April 25 by Francisco 2.0

[Sawbonz 26889]

James Comey?!?! Was this known?

[Dnaguy 11597]

27 minutes ago, LTbear said:

You gonna try to go 5 times?

Get your money's worth......

 

[Red Five 40449]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

James Comey?!?! Was this known?

I want to visit the alternate universe where that fucker kept his mouth shut, and we avoided this nightmare for the past eight years. 

[Dnaguy 11597]

15 minutes ago, Goredho said:

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?

 

There's a part of me that wants them to rule for the immunity so Biden can then assassinate all the conservative justices by proclaiming its an official act as he wants to replace them all.

Then he just sits it out for another 4 years and due to his age he'll likely never face any real consequences when his new Supreme court rightly overturns this Calvinball court.

That would be a nice chef's kiss.

[Pato del Muerto 52114]

1 minute ago, Red Five said:

I want to visit the alternate universe where that fucker kept his mouth shut, and we avoided this nightmare for the past eight years. 

Stick to selling hot dogs!

[DigglerontheHoof 20595]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

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.

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

/Scarface/Her womb is sooo polluted./Scarface/

[Brisketexan 103647]

1 hour 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.

This is the part that's utter bullshit to me.

We already have precedent after precedent of American executives not having "absolute immunity" and being subject to criminal prosecution for crimes committed while in office: pretty much every governor of every state (I'm not aware of any states where a governor DOES have absolute immunity).  And our states seem to function just fine.  As do our governors.  And sometimes, when they have actually committed crimes, they go to fucking jail.  Tough shit.  No man is above the law, and taking office doesn't change that.

Further, these "strict textualists" on the SCOTUS are looking like they want to utterly void one of the core rules they supposedly follow: when the legislature/people know how to do something (e.g., write immunity into the Constitution/statutes), and they do so in one case but NOT in another, what the legislature did NOT write governs.  E.g., if the Constitution was amended to grant "absolute immunity" to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Transportation...but it did NOT expressly grant immunity to the Secretary of Energy or the Secretary of State, then the proper strict textualist interpretation is that Energy and State do NOT have absolute immunity, because Congress/the States knew how to grant immunity and could have done so, but plainly opted NOT to, and that decision NOT to grant immunity must be given effect.

But, our SCOTUS aren't "strict textualists" at all.  They are intellectually dishonest hacks.  And you'll see it (for the jillionth time) when they rule in this case.

[Smax 3799]

2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Karen McDougal is damn hot 🔥🔥🔥

 

Had a girlfriend of mine who was one of Playboys Houston area rep in the mid 90s early 00 and I met her a few times at events, she is one the hottest woman I've ever met

[Dnaguy 11597]

4 minutes ago, Smax said:

 

Had a girlfriend of mine who was one of Playboys Houston area rep in the mid 90s early 00 and I met her a few times at events, she is one the hottest woman I've ever met

If there was ever a time to enforce the rules, this would be one of those times.

[Party_Taco 3660]

The questioning suggests that some of the justices may favor a ruling that could lead to more lower-court proceedings, perhaps delaying the trial.

And there’s the rub… if they don’t find a way for immunity to specifically apply only to Trump, they’ll succeed in continued can kicking with the assumption that their rat fucking in the coming election makes all this moot.

Dissolve this court and nuke every Roberts decision from orbit… it’s the only way

[Smax 3799]

24 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

If there was ever a time to enforce the rules, this would be one of those times.

NSFW

https://i.ibb.co/TT3zTHT/046.jpg

https://ibb.co/2t17C3T

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

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.

Edited April 25 by Francisco 2.0

[Underdog 28229]

3 hours ago, LTbear said:

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

 

[Red Five 40449]

Is there anyone in Trump's orbit who hasn't either already gone to jail, or is facing the prospect of going to jail? 

The POD guys today were talking about how a majority of this country isn't really fazed by the republican nominee for President going on trial for committing felonies, six months before the election. That is how much this fucking shit has been normalized. But Biden had a teleprompter mishap! That's the real story today!

[C-Man 26734]

51 minutes ago, Smax said:

NSFW

https://i.ibb.co/TT3zTHT/046.jpg

https://ibb.co/2t17C3T

I've mentioned it earlier on this thread but her PMOY pictorial is one of the best I've ever seen. Most shots outdoors in the snow.

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

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.”

 

 

Edited April 25 by Francisco 2.0

[C-Man 26734]

14 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Is there anyone in Trump's orbit who hasn't either already gone to jail, or is facing the prospect of going to jail? 

The POD guys today were talking about how a majority of this country isn't really fazed by the republican nominee for President going on trial for committing felonies, six months before the election. That is how much this fucking shit has been normalized. But Biden had a teleprompter mishap! That's the real story today!

Because he's been screaming about the "witch hunt" since he was first impeached -- it's been burned into their smooth brains at this point. Somebody posted a few weeks back about Russian psy-ops during the Cold War that it took X number of months of repeatedly telling somebody a lie over and over and eventually it became fact to that subject. This is 100% what has happened with the hard-core MAGA believers, the non-wealthy ones who don't stand to benefit by Trump's "platform."

Edited April 25 by C-Man

[Red Five 40449]

2 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Because he's been screaming about the "witch hunt" since he was first impeached -- it's been burned into their smooth brains at this point. Somebody posted a few weeks back about Russian cy-ops during the Cold War that it took X number of months of repeatedly telling somebody a lie over and over and eventually it became fact to that subject. This is 100% what has happened with the hard-core MAGA believers, the non-wealthy ones who don't stand to benefit by Trump's "platform."

I go through this shit in real life. They go on and on about how Biden is senile and corrupt, etc. I let them finish and then say something like "How do you feel about Trump's 91 felony counts and being found liable for rape?"

They waive it off like I just mentioned a speeding ticket from 30 years ago. Just fucking amazing.

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

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.

Edited April 25 by Francisco 2.0

[Dnaguy 11597]

1 hour ago, Smax said:

NSFW

https://i.ibb.co/TT3zTHT/046.jpg

https://ibb.co/2t17C3T

you are a scholar and a saint.

Edited April 25 by Dnaguy

[TexEx15 17325]

 

[UncleSonny 6460]

[GenXer 2556]

9 minutes ago, UncleSonny said:

Has this asshole ever heard of the night of the long knives?

[Cairn Horn88 8089]

2 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

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)?

They aren’t going to grant him immunity for private illegal acts….before or after his presidency.

 

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

 

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.

 

 

Edited April 25 by Francisco 2.0

[Chuckie Finster 22342]

3 minutes ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

They aren’t going to grant him immunity for private illegal acts….before or after his presidency.

Then he should order their assassinations as well.

[DigglerontheHoof 20595]

3 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

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.

 

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.

 

 

[Red Five 40449]

It wasn't out of the kindness of his heart, I can assure you. 

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

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.

Edited April 25 by Francisco 2.0

[Shut up Lou Holtz 1987]

8 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

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.

 

 

I know they won’t but I’d love for this to read “trump crosses his arms like a sad little bitch” or something just as colorful 

[SydneyCarton 47486]

11 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

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.

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Red Five said:

It wasn't out of the kindness of his heart, I can assure you. 

Exactly. Trump saw the opportunity to get a national tabloid mag under his thumb at the right time, and it clearly paid off by 2016

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

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.

 

 

 

Edited April 25 by Francisco 2.0

[Fudge Nuggets 18995]

1 hour ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

They aren’t going to grant him immunity for private illegal acts….before or after his presidency.

 

Problem is they are going to fart around for months and not make it official until way after the election. Job done. 

[Ten Bears 2443]

4 hours ago, LTbear said:

You gonna try to go 5 times?

Baby, I'm not from Havana!

[Chewbacca 7625]

5 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Karen McDougal is damn hot 🔥🔥🔥

She was one of my favorites back in the day, for sure.  Great turd cutter.

[C-Man 26734]

2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

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.

Not ashamed to admit I had to look up the definition of sopoforic.

 

2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

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.

Sure, it might be "standard operating procedure" to buy stories and not run them for whatever reason. I don't believe that part is inherently illegal. Unethical, perhaps, but not against the law. The illegality is on Trump (and Cohen and others) for trying to conceal how the payments were handled and how they were accounted for.

 

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Problem is they are going to fart around for months and not make it official until way after the election. Job done. 

He has to lose in November. The courts are not going to handle this for us. They might bury him after the fact but he must lose the election first. Otherwise, we're turbo-fucked.

[C-Man 26734]

CNN poll conducted 4/18-4/23 says if 76% of Trump supporters could support him regardless of whether he's convicted of a crime, 24% might reconsider support. Jesus fucking Christ. The talking head goes on to say of the 24%, eight out of 10 of those said they would NEVER vote for Biden.

[pyrohornIII 4772]

3 hours ago, Red Five said:

It wasn't out of the kindness of his heart, I can assure you. 

Probably wanted to alert Pecker that he now had the tallest building in NYC.

[Sawbonz 26889]

3 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Emil Bove, the Trump lawyer cross-examining Pecker

[Js1 83618]

46 minutes ago, C-Man said:

CNN poll conducted 4/18-4/23 says if 76% of Trump supporters could support him regardless of whether he's convicted of a crime, 24% might reconsider support. Jesus fucking Christ. The talking head goes on to say of the 24%, eight out of 10 of those said they would NEVER vote for Biden.

They don’t have to vote for Biden. They just don’t have to vote for Trump. 

[dcbc 14282]

1 hour ago, C-Man said:

CNN poll conducted 4/18-4/23 says if 76% of Trump supporters could support him regardless of whether he's convicted of a crime, 24% might reconsider support. Jesus fucking Christ. The talking head goes on to say of the 24%, eight out of 10 of those said they would NEVER vote for Biden.

What could you expect from a pig but a grunt?

Edited April 25 by dcbc

[TexasEd 8030]

1 hour ago, C-Man said:

Sure, it might be "standard operating procedure" to buy stories and not run them for whatever reason. I don't believe that part is inherently illegal. Unethical, perhaps, but not against the law. The illegality is on Trump (and Cohen and others) for trying to conceal how the payments were handled and how they were accounted for.

Well that and the fact that Pecker testified the reason Trump wanted it done was not to keep it From Baron and Melania but because of the election which means that it wasn't a personal favor it was a campaign contribution.  The fact that Trump never repaid it reinforces this.

[C-Man 26734]

They don’t have to vote for Biden. They just don’t have to vote for Trump. 

Definitely. He can’t afford to lose any of the support he had in 2020 so the numbers aren’t meaningless from the election standpoint.

I’m just more disgusted that a conviction only culls 24% of those who would otherwise vote for him.

Refresh my memory but doesn’t a felony conviction make him ineligible or is it simply because he will not have exhausted all appeals by the election if convicted?

[C-Man 26734]

The Trump team had (drum roll) … McDonald’s for lunch!

[dcbc 14282]

57 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Refresh my memory but doesn’t a felony conviction make him ineligible

I don't think there's any rule about this unfortunately.  If there is, it's state by state.

[C-Man 26734]

I don't think there's any rule about this unfortunately.  If there is, it's state by state.

That’s right. But I don’t think he can vote for himself as a convicted felon.

What a country! /yakovsmirnoff

[dcbc 14282]

21 minutes ago, C-Man said:

That’s right. But I don’t think he can vote for himself as a convicted felon.

What a country! /yakovsmirnoff

If that happens, hopefully, it comes down to this.

 

[Biff Tannen 45208]

2 hours ago, C-Man said:

I’m just more disgusted that a conviction only culls 24% of those who would otherwise vote for him.

They've convinced themselves that it's all a conspiracy against dear leader.  It's really wild and sad.