Quote:

---

Trump attorney Todd Blanche is now talking about David Pecker, the former chairman of the National Enquirer's parent company.
"It's not a scheme, unless a scheme means something that doesn't matter, that's not illegal," Blanche said of the "catch-and-kill" agreement with Pecker.
Blanche urged the jury to listen to Pecker's testimony over the next couple of days.
He encouraged the jurors to listen to Pecker's motivation to sell magazines when he testifies.

---

Tarasoff will be a key Trump witness:

Trump's lawyer Blanche: Cohen did legal work for President Trump and the First Lady. A ledger is just like a checkbook. You will hear it was done by Deb Tarasoff. She is not going to say she had any conversation with President Trump about this

— Inner City Press (@innercitypress) April 22, 2024

Should be resuming any minute now

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is back on the bench after a short break.

---

Quote:

---

As the then-chairman of American Media Inc., which publishes the National Enquirer, David Pecker was involved in numerous "catch-and-kill" schemes he orchestrated on behalf of Trump, and he allegedly helped broker the deal with adult film start Stormy Daniels.

According to court documents, an agent for Daniels contacted AMI in October 2016 and said she was willing to go public with her allegations of an affair with Trump. Pecker then allegedly contacted Cohen, who subsequently negotiated the deal, per court filings from Cohen's plea agreement.

In a separate incident, AMI agreed to pay model and actress Karen McDougal $150,000 months before the 2016 election for her silence about an alleged affair with Trump. While this payment is not part of the charges against the former president, prosecutors are expected to use it to establish a pattern of such payments.

Pecker has been granted immunity in exchange for his testimony and AMI signed a non-prosecution agreement with prosecutors.

---

Quote:

---

David Pecker entered the courtroom from a side door. He walked behind Donald Trump's chair but didn't look at him as he walked slowly to the witness box.

Trump attorney Todd Blanche whispered to Trump after Pecker was called.

---

Quote:

---

More than half the jurors raised their hands when Judge Juan Merchan asked if they wanted writing materials.

Jurors are allowed to take notes during the trial.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is now walking through David Pecker's background, including that he's married, his educational background and his work as a consultant.

Donald Trump is looking at Pecker as he testifies.

---

In reply to aggiehawg

Quote:

---

The Manhattan district attorney's office objected to two statements about Michael Cohen lying, which Judge Juan Merchan sustained.

He asked lawyers to approach the bench.

Blanche accused Cohen of perjuring himself at Trump's civil fraud trial last fall.
The objection was sustained. Blanche continues.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors say if Trump testifies, they want to use his past legal run-ins to discredit him to the jury this includes his Civil Fraud and E. Jean Carroll defamation verdicts among other legal run-ins.

---

L
O
L

Quote:

---

The National Enquirer was founded and published by Generoso Pope, Jr. '46, a former CIA operative who graduated from MIT in less than three years.

---

Absolutely stunned to learn this. No way this can be true.

Quote:

---

David Pecker, the ex-publisher of the National Enquirer, said he had "the final say on the celebrity side of the magazines."
"We used checkbook journalism," he added, describing how the tabloids paid for stories.
Pecker testifies that editors could spend up to $10,000 to investigate and publish a story, but anything more than that would have to be vetted and approved by him.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked if David Pecker had final say on "big stories" involving celebrities.
"Yes I did," he said.
Pecker also walked through "editor meetings" for the jury and explained how they would look at the cover of magazines.

---

Quote:

---

David Pecker said he had two email addresses, one for general work and another private one for emails, "I didn't want my assistant to see."
Earlier, he laughed a few times on the stand when he was asked to give last four digits of multiple phone numbers. He confused one but then was proud that he remembered another
"This isn't a quiz," Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass joked, drawing a loud laugh from Pecker.
Trump attorney Todd Blanche laughed at the routine. Trump is sitting forward facing Pecker, seemingly watching him closely as he testifies.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is asking David Pecker about Dylan Howard, who was editor in chief of the National Enquirer.
"Dylan reported directly to me," Pecker said.
When asked, Pecker confirmed that Howard ran the network of sources for AMI. His job was to maintain and cultivate relationships with potential sources, he said.
When it came to "juicy stories," Steinglass asked, did Howard run those decisions by you?
"Yes he did," Pecker said.
Pecker said he and Howard are no longer in contact. Pecker said it's his understanding that Howard is living in Australia and has a "spinal condition" that prohibits him from traveling internationally.

---

Short day.

Quote:

---

The judge is excusing the jury.
He told them to return at 11 a.m. ET and said court will go until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
The hearing over whether Donald Trump violated the gag order is set for 9:30 a.m. ET tomorrow.

---

Quote:

---

David Pecker is stepping down from the jury box. He smiled and said "Hi" to Trump's table.

---

Quote:

---

The defense team and prosecutors are still in the courtroom following Judge Juan Merchan dismissing the jury for the day.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass was asked to approach the bench over scheduling.
Trump is sitting alone at the table watching them.

---

Quote:

---

Donald Trump's lawyers are objecting to David Pecker's testimony about the whereabouts of Dylan Howard, who was editor in chief of the National Enquirer.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said it's appropriate to elicit the hearsay testimony about Howard to tee up why he won't be available to testify at trial.
Earlier, Pecker said he and Howard are no longer in contact. Pecker said it's his understanding that Howard is living in Australia and has a "spinal condition" that prohibits him from traveling internationally.
Judge Juan Merchan noted the objection but didn't rule otherwise.

---

Pecker's "understanding" is hearsay as he does not have personal knowledge since he has not been in contact with Howard.

Blast from the past, last year.

Alvin Bragg, sometimes called “Fat Alvin”, built his case off of copying and pasting the same charge 34 times around “concealing another crime” in order to make it a felony but didn’t include the crime being covered up in the indictment because “the law does not so require” pic.twitter.com/6AOvqRkYv2

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) April 4, 2023

Quote:

---

The first witness took the stand in former President Donald Trump's hush money trial on Monday after both sides laid out parts of their cases to the jury in opening statements.
During his testimony, David Pecker described his job at the time as the former chairman of the National Enquirer's parent company.
Here's a recap of what he said:

• Pecker told the jury about his role at National Enquirer's parent company and said that any big stories involving celebrities had to go through him.
• He said editors could spend up to $10,000 to investigate and publish a story, but anything more than that would have to be vetted and approved by him.
• Pecker also testified that he had a private email for things he didn't want his assistant to see.
• Remember: Pecker has been granted immunity in exchange for his testimony and the parent company, American Media Inc., signed a non-prosecution agreement with prosecutors.
• During opening statements, prosecutor Matthew Colangelo focused on the case, telling the jury it is "about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up."
• During his turn, Trump's attorney Todd Blanche told the jury, "President Trump is innocent" and that "none of this was a crime." He said they will find "plenty of reasonable doubt" in the prosecution's case.

The judge has excused the jury until 11 a.m. ET tomorrow.

---

Quote:

---

While speaking with Judge Juan Merchan, Trump attorney Emil Bove addressed a few issues that they expect to come up with David Pecker's testimony.
Bove asked for limiting instructions to the jury about American Media Inc., the parent company of the National Enquirer, and its non-prosecution agreement, similar to Michael Cohen's.
Bove said it needs to be modified slightly and Merchan asked to submit a proposal this afternoon

---

Quote:

---

Lawyers in the courtroom now discussing evidence related to newspaper articles and business records from AMI, the National Enquirer's parent company.

As Donald Trump attorney Emil Bove is discussing the records with the judge, Trump and another one of his attorneys, Todd Blanche, are whispering to each other.

---

Quote:

---

The judge asks both sides if there's anything more they like to submit ahead of tomorrow's hearing on the gag order.
Donald Trump attorney Emil Bove said no, but prosecutor Chris Conroy asked if they could approach the bench.

---

Quote:

---

Trump's team learned David Pecker was the first witness at 3 p.m. ET on Sunday, the former president's attorney Emil Bove said.
Bove said they would've brought up the records issue sooner had they known Pecker was first up in the witness order.
Some background: Prosecutors initially refused to give Trump's team a witness lineup, saying they don't trust Trump won't post on social media or attack them publicly.
On Friday, Joshua Steinglass acquiesced and said that they'd inform Trump's team of the first witness with brief notice, so Trump wouldn't have ample time to attack the witnesses on social media.

---

Quote:

---

The court has adjourned for the day.

There will be a hearing tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. ET over whether Donald Trump violated the gag order. The jury will return at 11 a.m. ET.

---

So any thoughts on the opening statements? Seems to me the state threw a lot of extraneous crap at the jury that is not all that relevant much less material to the charges within the indictment. That means muddying the waters instead of presenting a tight case that follows the statutes cited in the indictment.

Confusing to me. I thought David Pecker was very pro Trump. What are the prosecution expecting Pecker to say that will help them ?

So let me see if I have this right trying to catch up on the details...

The felony charge is related to covering up another crime....the prosecution doesn't have to say what the other crime is being covered up....when it's the NDA payment to stormy which isn't a crime to have an NDA....thus the "crime" they are using for basis of the felony charge isn't even really a crime?

Only in NY...

In reply to Gyles Marrett

Quote:

---

So let me see if I have this right

---

You don't quite have it right.

The crime alleged to have been attempted or covered up is not the creation of an NDA.

It is believed to be breaking federal campaign finance laws.

Now, there is a whole host of problems with that being the "other crime" but that is the case Bragg is going with.

Also, from the opening statement, it appears Bragg may also allege there was some tax evasion issue here, but like most things in the case, that is not clear.

In reply to Im Gipper

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

So let me see if I have this right

---

You don't quite have it right.

The crime alleged to have been attempted or covered up is not the creation of an NDA.

It is believed to be breaking federal campaign finance laws.

Now, there is a whole host of problems with that being the "other crime" but that is the case Bragg is going with.

Also, from the opening statement, it appears Bragg may also allege there was some tax evasion issue here, but like most things in the case, that is not clear.

---

Ok I have a two questions then...

1) Famous powerful people use NDA's all the time to protect their reputation. Could the argument be made that these payments I'm assuming they are saying were to help his campaign would have been made by Trump regardless of running for president or not to protect his reputation as a celebrity with future business opportunities?

2) Did he make these payments with campaign funds? If not I don't understand at all how this is a campaign finance violation. Can't an individual spend their own money however they seem fit? Is every expense someone running for office makes considered a campaign donation if it helps them in some form? Hell, if I have to give a speech and have a migraine so I go buy some excedrine at CVS to help me get through the speech while running for office was that a campaign donation?

We can't tell you the underlying crime and it may be one of a few things, but we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump did his records this way (paid his lawyers and wrote legal expenses in the ledger) with the intent to commit that crime. He knows. But we don't. And it's beyond a reasonable doubt.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan said that if Donald Trump takes the stand, the court will allow prosecutors "to inquire into the following six determinations including four separate proceedings."

He is now reading through them.

He will allow Trump to be cross-examined on the civil fraud verdict that found he violated the law by fraudulently inflating the value of his properties and was ordered to pay penalties.

Merchan will also allow prosecutors to ask Trump about the two violations of Judge Arthur Engoron's gag order during the trial last fall.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors will be permitted to ask former President Donald Trump about both E. Jean Carroll verdicts in federal court where juries found that Trump defamed her when he denied her rape allegations.

---

Let the three ring circus begin.

---

So, basically...

Trump is ALLOWED to testify, but the judge has let him know that he will be punished for it.

In reply to Gyles Marrett

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

So let me see if I have this right

---

You don't quite have it right.

The crime alleged to have been attempted or covered up is not the creation of an NDA.

It is believed to be breaking federal campaign finance laws.

Now, there is a whole host of problems with that being the "other crime" but that is the case Bragg is going with.

Also, from the opening statement, it appears Bragg may also allege there was some tax evasion issue here, but like most things in the case, that is not clear.

---

Ok I have a two questions then...

1) Famous powerful people use NDA's all the time to protect their reputation. Could the argument be made that these payments I'm assuming they are saying were to help his campaign would have been made by Trump regardless of running for president or not to protect his reputation as a celebrity with future business opportunities?

2) Did he make these payments with campaign funds? If not I don't understand at all how this is a campaign finance violation. Can't an individual spend their own money however they seem fit? Is every expense someone running for office makes considered a campaign donation if it helps them in some form? Hell, if I have to give a speech and have a migraine so I go buy some excedrine at CVS to help me get through the speech while running for office was that a campaign donation?

---

Campaign funds were not used. Both the FEC and the SDNY looked at these transctions and declined to act further as they found no violation. Reminder that the FEC did fine the Hillary Clinton camapign for claiming campaign funds spent towards Perkins, Coie were legal expenses when they were pass through payments to Fusion, GPS for the Steele Dossier. Further, John Edwards was prosecuted for using his campaign donor, Bunny Mellon, to pay off his baby mama into keeping quiet and he was acquitted.

So the campaign finance question has been throughly investigated and no fines nor charges brought in Trump's case involving Daniels.

In reply to Science Denier

Science Denier said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

From what I have gathered from your posts is that it seems that the judge saying that the law says that if he's found guilty of not properly accounting for the NDA payment, he's covering up a crime, thus is guilty, even if no crime actually has been proven.

---

A bit more complicated than that. The alleged improper accounting is a misdemeanor under NY law. Those misdemeanors are time barred by the statute of limitations.

But Bragg (actually Biden lackey Colangelo) crafted (created really) a felony that has a longer statute of limitations and would not be time barred. It is the predicate crime that supposedly supports the elevation to a felony that remains unclear.

---

So, does the prosecution have to prove the improper accounting was to cover up for a felony or not? Seems that's the hurdle. Does the jury decide that or the judge? Seems that's the determination if the improper accounting is actually a felony or misdemeanor, if I understand what has been posted on this thread.

---

This is the strategy that the prosecution intends to use in the case (knowing it will work in NYC):

In reply to Ag with kids

Ag with kids said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan said that if Donald Trump takes the stand, the court will allow prosecutors "to inquire into the following six determinations including four separate proceedings."

He is now reading through them.

He will allow Trump to be cross-examined on the civil fraud verdict that found he violated the law by fraudulently inflating the value of his properties and was ordered to pay penalties.

Merchan will also allow prosecutors to ask Trump about the two violations of Judge Arthur Engoron's gag order during the trial last fall.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors will be permitted to ask former President Donald Trump about both E. Jean Carroll verdicts in federal court where juries found that Trump defamed her when he denied her rape allegations.

---

Let the three ring circus begin.

---

So, basically...

Trump is ALLOWED to testify, but the judge has let him know that he will be punished for it.

---

They obviously think Trump getting to speak would really hurt their case so in essence are making intimidation threats to discourage him doing so...

In reply to Gyles Marrett 1) Yes, Trump is arguing that he had no intent to pay Stormy anything. He paid Cohen $35k a month for legal work, and does not know what Cohen did with it. Further, is Stormy was paid, that could be done in context of just protecting his reputation regardless of any campaign.


2) There is no allegation campaign funds were used. Bragg argues that because these payments were made through a third party company called Essential Consultants, LLC and it benefited Trump personally, the were required to be reported. Note: The Federal Election Commission has never told Trump there was an issue to my knowledge.

(Don't shoot the messenger.)

In reply to Ag with kids

Quote:

---

So, basically...

Trump is ALLOWED to testify, but the judge has let him know that he will be punished for it.

---

Every criminal defendant runs that risk if they choose to testify. There are tests for when such evidence is admissible and when it is not.

Merchan tried to split the baby a little here.

In reply to Ag with kids

Ag with kids said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan said that if Donald Trump takes the stand, the court will allow prosecutors "to inquire into the following six determinations including four separate proceedings."

He is now reading through them.

He will allow Trump to be cross-examined on the civil fraud verdict that found he violated the law by fraudulently inflating the value of his properties and was ordered to pay penalties.

Merchan will also allow prosecutors to ask Trump about the two violations of Judge Arthur Engoron's gag order during the trial last fall.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors will be permitted to ask former President Donald Trump about both E. Jean Carroll verdicts in federal court where juries found that Trump defamed her when he denied her rape allegations.

---

Let the three ring circus begin.

---

So, basically...

Trump is ALLOWED to testify, but the judge has let him know that he will be punished for it.

---

That's the way I see it too. To Trump: you can testify but then the prosecution can bring in all the other stuff unrelated to this case: civil trail of the property inflation, E Jean Carroll crapola, etc.

Seems very underhanded to prevent Trump from testifying himself (which could be a blessing in disguise) but maybe that's just par for the course in trials where the defendant testifies????

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

So let me see if I have this right

---

You don't quite have it right.

The crime alleged to have been attempted or covered up is not the creation of an NDA.

It is believed to be breaking federal campaign finance laws.

Now, there is a whole host of problems with that being the "other crime" but that is the case Bragg is going with.

Also, from the opening statement, it appears Bragg may also allege there was some tax evasion issue here, but like most things in the case, that is not clear.

---

Ok I have a two questions then...

1) Famous powerful people use NDA's all the time to protect their reputation. Could the argument be made that these payments I'm assuming they are saying were to help his campaign would have been made by Trump regardless of running for president or not to protect his reputation as a celebrity with future business opportunities?

2) Did he make these payments with campaign funds? If not I don't understand at all how this is a campaign finance violation. Can't an individual spend their own money however they seem fit? Is every expense someone running for office makes considered a campaign donation if it helps them in some form? Hell, if I have to give a speech and have a migraine so I go buy some excedrine at CVS to help me get through the speech while running for office was that a campaign donation?

---

Campaign funds were not used. Both the FEC and the SDNY looked at these transctions and declined to act further as they found no violation. Reminder that the FEC did fine the Hillary Clinton camapign for claiming campaign funds spent towards Perkins, Coie were legal expenses when they were pass through payments to Fusion, GPS for the Steele Dossier. Further, John Edwards was prosecuted for using his campaign donor, Bunny Mellon, to pay off his baby mama into keeping quiet and he was acquitted.

So the campaign finance question has been throughly investigated and no fines nor charges brought in Trump's case involving Daniels.

---

Well to the average legal minded Joe like myself that seems to blow up the prosecutions entire case before it even gets started....but it is a NY jury.

My other question would be if Trump's accountant testifies that no one including Trump instructed them how to record the expense and they simply saw a payment to Cohen as Trumps attorney and assumed "legal expenses" was the correct way to document, does that not also show Trump made no effort to hide or disguise the expense?

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo began the opening statements with a focus on the case against former President Donald Trump.
"This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a coverup," Colangelo said.
"The defendant Donald Trump orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election. Then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again."

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said that the "conspiracy began" a few months after Donald Trump announced his candidacy in 2015 at a meeting with Trump, David Pecker and Michael Cohen.

Quote:

---

They "formed a conspiracy at that meeting to influence the presidential election by concealing negative information about Mr. Trump in order to help him get elected," Colangelo said.

---

Colangelo said that the conspiracy extended to payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels by Cohen, just weeks before the 2016 election.

---

Quote:

---

Assistant district attorney Matthew Colangelo says Michael Cohen made the hush money payment "at the defendant's direction and he did it to influence the presidential election."

After the election, Donald Trump reimbursed Cohen for that payment, and they "disguised what the payments were for," the prosecutor added in his opening statement.

Trump "said in business records that he was paying Cohen for legal services pursuant to a retainer agreement. But those were lies. There was no retainer agreement," Colangelo.

---

---

So...from this:

Quote:

---

They "formed a conspiracy at that meeting to influence the presidential election by concealing negative information about Mr. Trump in order to help him get elected," Colangelo said.

---

It appears the Democrats and media are guilty of a conspiracy to conceal negative information about both Hillary and Biden.

In reply to Ag with kids

Ag with kids said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo began the opening statements with a focus on the case against former President Donald Trump.
"This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a coverup," Colangelo said.
"The defendant Donald Trump orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election. Then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again."

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said that the "conspiracy began" a few months after Donald Trump announced his candidacy in 2015 at a meeting with Trump, David Pecker and Michael Cohen.

Quote:

---

They "formed a conspiracy at that meeting to influence the presidential election by concealing negative information about Mr. Trump in order to help him get elected," Colangelo said.

---

Colangelo said that the conspiracy extended to payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels by Cohen, just weeks before the 2016 election.

---

Quote:

---

Assistant district attorney Matthew Colangelo says Michael Cohen made the hush money payment "at the defendant's direction and he did it to influence the presidential election."

After the election, Donald Trump reimbursed Cohen for that payment, and they "disguised what the payments were for," the prosecutor added in his opening statement.

Trump "said in business records that he was paying Cohen for legal services pursuant to a retainer agreement. But those were lies. There was no retainer agreement," Colangelo.

---

---

So...from this:

Quote:

---

They "formed a conspiracy at that meeting to influence the presidential election by concealing negative information about Mr. Trump in order to help him get elected," Colangelo said.

---

It appears the Democrats and media are guilty of a conspiracy to conceal negative information about both Hillary and Biden.

---

Sounds like a revisit needs to be made to that letter all the intel agency folks signed off on that Hunter's laptop was not a real story LOL...That took far more conspiring.

In reply to 4stringAg

Quote:

---

Seems very underhanded to prevent Trump from testifying himself (which could be a blessing in disguise) but maybe that's just par for the course in trials where the defendant testifies????

---

Yes. Defendants can choose to testify but cannot be compelled to do so under the 5th. BUT the state has a right to cross examine the defendant if they do take the stand and part of that cross is the attempt to impeach the defendant's credibility. It is a balancing act under the rules of evidence and criminal procedure.

In reply to 4stringAg

4stringAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan said that if Donald Trump takes the stand, the court will allow prosecutors "to inquire into the following six determinations including four separate proceedings."

He is now reading through them.

He will allow Trump to be cross-examined on the civil fraud verdict that found he violated the law by fraudulently inflating the value of his properties and was ordered to pay penalties.

Merchan will also allow prosecutors to ask Trump about the two violations of Judge Arthur Engoron's gag order during the trial last fall.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors will be permitted to ask former President Donald Trump about both E. Jean Carroll verdicts in federal court where juries found that Trump defamed her when he denied her rape allegations.

---

Let the three ring circus begin.

---

So, basically...

Trump is ALLOWED to testify, but the judge has let him know that he will be punished for it.

---

That's the way I see it too. To Trump: you can testify but then the prosecution can bring in all the other stuff unrelated to this case: civil trail of the property inflation, E Jean Carroll crapola, etc.

Seems very underhanded to prevent Trump from testifying himself (which could be a blessing in disguise) but maybe that's just par for the course in trials where the defendant testifies????

---

It is absolutely "par for the course" for the prosecution to want to ask questions about previous bad/questionable conduct of the defendant if the defendant were to testify. Similarly, the defense will try to undermine prosecution witnesses; which is what they told the jury today they will try to do with Michael Cohen in this case.

That there is advance notice and hearings about it is to (1) speed the trial up and (2) protect the criminal defendant from being surprised on the stand.

In reply to Gyles Marrett

Quote:

---

Sounds like a revisit needs to be made to that letter all the intel agency folks signed off on that Hunter's laptop was not a real story LOL...That took far more conspiring.

---

By Blinken, current Sec of State.

I think it very unlikely that Trump didn't cheat on his wife and it wouldn't be that unlikely either of payoffs. But elevating Trump from a bad hubby and distasteful character into a campaign finance criminal seems pretty ridiculous and very difficult legal case to make. This trial seems like a complete waste of time. Stupid politics games.

In reply to Pumpkinhead It also doesn't seem, if Trump is "guilty" as charged, that trumps actions are all that different from many other political actors looking to hide ugly info from the public.