In reply to 4stringAg

4stringAg said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Pecker is now describing receiving a call from Trump while he was at an investors meeting in New Jersey.
Pecker says of the phone call: "When I got on the phone, Mr. Trump said to me, 'I spoke to Michael. Karen is a nice girl. Is it true that a Mexican group is looking to buy the story for $8 million?'"
Pecker said he told him he absolutely did not believe that was true.
According to Pecker, Trump said, "what do you think I should do?"
Pecker testified that he said, "I think you should buy the story and take it off the market"
"I believe that when Mr. Trump said that 'She was a nice girl,' I believe that he knew who she was," Pecker said.
He felt it'd be "very embarrassing" for Trump and for the campaign, Pecker said.

---

Quote:

---

Steinglass is asking Pecker how he felt about Cohen's assertion that Trump would reimburse him.
"Over the years that I know, that I worked with Michael Cohen, I know he didn't have any authorization to spend or to disperse any funds from Trump Organization," Pecker says.
Pecker said he was authorized to move forward with former National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard, who would negotiate the terms, but at this point they hadn't discussed the purchase price for the Karen McDougal story yet.
He says every time he and Cohen would go for lunch, he paid, not Cohen.

---

---

Really seems like the prosecution is really hoping the jury will buy into somehow that an NDA is not a normal practice and is an illegal conspiring action. Nothing in that testimony is illegal but sure seems they're hoping it be interpreted that way.

---

This is it exactly. The prosecutors know a crime hasn't been committed. They are using scary words like "conspiracy" and "election interference" for the jury to assume a crime was committed because they are a heavily partisan jury who all get fed negative news about Trump daily. Complete and utter twisting of the justice system.

---

Just taking a wild guess, but I'd be more than willing to bet more than half that jury due the new sources they consume still believe Trump "conspired" with Russian to win the 2016 election. Attempting to read any of this testimony thinking of the mindset of such a person, no doubt it all sounds like a slam dunk conviction to their programed minds.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump's attorney objected to a series of questions by Steinglass about Pecker's knowledge of campaign finance laws at the time of the transaction. The objection is overruled.
Steinglass is asking whether Pecker was aware that corporations making campaign expenditures in coordination with a campaign without disclosing them was unlawful.
Yes, Pecker says.
Pecker also confirms the transaction was not reported under campaign finance obligations.
Trump passed a note from one of his attorneys to the other at that moment.

---

Isn't that asking for a legal conclusion? From a lay witness?

---

But this wasn't a corporation making campaign expenditures. This was a corporation not running a story. What corporation made an expenditure?

In reply to WHOOP!'91

Quote:

---

But this wasn't a corporation making campaign expenditures. This was a corporation not running a story. What corporation made an expenditure?

---

Pecker said he used another corp for what he termed "large expenditures" to avoid having his financial guys at AMI learning about them and leaking them. FWIW.

Quote:

---

Pecker testifies that he had lunch with McDougal and her attorney Keith Davidson for lunch in New York. in New York in August 2017.
According to Pecker, McDougal talked about the articles that she was working on with ghost writers. She was a little upset because Howard had to change ghostwriters because they weren't working well with Karen, Pecker says.
She also complained she hadn't been given media training, noting she still wanted to be the red carpet anchor for RADAR magazine, Pecker says.
Describing the the purpose of the meeting, Pecker says it was to make sure AMI was holding up their end of the agreement.

---

She can't write and needs media training on how to do red carpet interviews? Main question is, Who are you wearing?" meaning the designer. Needs traiing for that? LOL.

Quote:

---

Pecker says he wanted to extend McDougal's contract so she wouldn't say anything negative about AMI, which is the National Enquirer's parent company, or Trump.

When asked, Pecker confirms McDougal filed a lawsuit against AMI. She wanted to get back her lifetime rights, Pecker says.

Pecker says Trump was skeptical of the idea. "He said it's your business, you should do whatever you plan on doing," Pecker says of Trump.

They settled the lawsuit and AMI returned her lifetime rights to her, Pecker says.

---

Quote:

---

Pecker testifies that Trump called him about the Daniels' interview with Anderson Cooper.

He told Pecker that based on the agreement she signed with Michael Cohen that she should owe him $24 million for breaching the agreement by talking about Trump in the interview, Pecker said.

---

Quote:

---

Pecker recalled a conversation that he and Cohen had about letters from the Federal Election Commission in 2018.
Pecker said, "We committed a campaign violation."
He testified that he was worried, but Cohen said he was not, telling Pecker: "Jeff Sessions is the attorney general and Donald Trump has him in his pocket."

---

The FEC issues fines. Rarely refer for criminal charges and Sessions was recused from any Trump matters.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is now reading his limiting instruction to the jury about the non-prosecution agreement (NPA).
Steinglass is having Pecker go over parts of the non-prosecution agreement from September 20, 2018.
Merchan instructs the jury about the NPA with the US attorney's office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and the conciliation agreement. He says they are to "assist you in assessing David Pecker's credibility and to help provide context surrounding some of the events."
Merchan says they may not consider this information when considering Trump's guilt as to the charges at issue in this trial.
Part of the agreement, shown in court, says SDNY will not criminally prosecute American Media Inc. for any crimes "related to its participation, between in or about August 2015 up to and including in or about October 2016, in making a contribution and expenditure aggregating $25,000 and more during the 2016 calendar year, to the campaign of a candidate for President of the United States."
Remember: Pecker was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony and AMI signed a non-prosecution agreement with prosecutors.

---

whoops. Wrong thread

Finally!

Quote:

---

Trump attorney Emil Bove now takes the podium to begin cross-examination of David Pecker

---

Quote:

---

Trump's attorney asks Pecker if he managed AMI to make money.

Quote:

---

"That's correct," Pecker says.
"AMI wasn't a charity?" Bove asks. "No, it was not," Pecker says.
"Part of AMI's business model was to purchase stories, correct?" Bove asked.
"Yes, it was," Pecker responded.

---

Bove confirms with Pecker that the business model included buying stories, reiterating Pecker's own words that AMI uses "checkbook journalism."
Bove also confirms source agreements are "standard operating procedure" for AMI, to give the company control of how, if at all, the information might be released.

---

Duh. That's how paparrazzi and tabloids do business.

Quote:

---

Bove is asking Pecker to describe other instances where AMI would purchase a story, including sometimes "as leverage against a celebrity."
The former publisher confirms he used a third-party consultant to facilitate large AMI payments for stories. He used this consultant to handle these sensitive payments because he was concerned about leaks, Pecker says.
Bove is confirming that using the consultant to facilitate a possible reimbursement from Michael Cohen to AMI for the Karen McDougal story rights was not unique to that situation involving Trump.
He also confirms with Pecker that around the time of the "Celebrity Apprentice" show, research showed that Trump was a top celebrity who could drive the most sales for the National Enquirer at the time.

Quote:

---

"So You ran articles about President Trump because it was good for business?"
"That's correct," Pecker said.

---

---

Quote:

---

Bove clarifies with Pecker that dating back to the 1990's it was standard practice "to not publish negative stories about President Trump."

Quote:

---

"Yes."
"Because it was not good for business?"
"Yes."

---

---

Negative stories about Trump did not sell. Just like I said before.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

…,,,.

---

Quote:

---

Merchan calls for Pecker to be brought in but the DA's office stops him to put on the record another violation of the gag order.

---

---

I hope Pecker would eventually see the light.

In reply to aggiehawg Yes you did! Good call!

In reply to Im Gipper

Im Gipper said:

---

Yes you did! Good call!

---

Take a hop across the pond. Rupert Murdoch's tabloid uses the Royal Family to sell papers by the ton. But certain royals were so beloved by the Brits that negative stories were few and far between. Princess Diana and recently Kate Middleton come to mind.

Harry & Megan? Trash away on them.

Prince Andrew? Ditto.

Queen Elizabeth? Nope.

In reply to aggiehawg

Quote:

---

Take a hop across the pond

---

Hard pass!!!

Quote:

---

Bove also walked Pecker through his "mutually beneficial" relationship with Trump, where Trump provided him with stories and information about "Celebrity Apprentice," and he tipped off Trump to negative stories and printed positive stories about Trump.

Quote:

---

"This relationship you have with President Trump is a mutually beneficial relationship. You had similar relationships with other people," Bove said.
"I did," Pecker replied, confirming there were other people he would promote in the National Enquirer and give a heads up about negative stories.

---

---

Quote:

---

"Before this, you had not heard the phrase catch and kill?" Bove asked Pecker, referring to the hush money case investigation.
"That's correct," Pecker responded.
"The first time you had heard the phrase was from a prosecutor right?" Bove asked.
"That's correct," Pecker responded.

---

Quote:

---

Bove says: "Many politicians work with the media to promote their image." Pecker confirms that's accurate.
Pecker also confirms that he's had "mutually beneficial" relationships with other celebrities not just Trump.
Bove asks if it's "standard operating procedure" for politicians to work with the media. "Yes," Pecker says.

---

Quote:

---

Bove's tactic with his early questioning of Pecker is part of a strategy to argue that the publisher's work helping Trump during the 2016 election was nothing new or out of the ordinary.

---

Quote:

---

Bove is now walking Pecker through his deal with Arnold Schwarzenegger, which he described earlier today during the prosecution's questioning.
Pecker this morning said he agreed to a "catch and kill" deal with Schwarzenegger in 2003 when Pecker was trying to acquire fitness magazines and shortly before Schwarzenegger announced his run for governor of California.
Earlier today, Bove described how women reached out to him with stories about alleged relationships or alleged sexual harassment after Schwarzenegger announced his run.
Bove in court now stated that 30 or 40 women ended up coming to AMI with stories about Schwarzenegger. Pecker confirmed the statement.
Pecker says he spent "hundreds of thousands of dollars" for stories from women about Arnold Schwarzenegger.

---

Quote:

---

Pecker said the most recent meeting he had with prosecutors was two or three weeks ago, and he's had about three to five meetings with prosecutors this year.
He said he remembered five to six meetings with federal prosecutors in June and July and August of 2018.
Bove then asked a series of questions about how prosecutors prepared Pecker to give "consistent" testimony each time he's testified.

Quote:

---

"Maybe not a script but there were no questions that surprised you right," Bove asked.
"It was a not a script," Pecker said, but he also confirmed he wasn't surprised by any questions from the prosecutor.

---

---

Quote:

---

Bove asks Pecker to confirm his prior testimony that Michael Cohen was always angling for something for himself.
The former publisher confirmed that Cohen asked Pecker to promote personal business ventures for him and his family throughout the years.
Bove says that Pecker had been working with Cohen for at least 8 years before the August 2015 meeting with Cohen. "Yes," Pecker responds.
He confirmed that in 2015 and 2016, Cohen was always clear that he was Trump's personal attorney and he was not working for the campaign.

---

Quote:

---

Bove asked Pecker whether he told agents at a July 2018 interview that Hope Hicks attended the August 2015 meeting with Cohen and Trump.
Steinglass objected to this question, and Judge Juan Merchan sustained the objection.
Bove then tries again. Pecker asks to see what Bove is referring to, where he didn't mention Hicks. Bove is trying to get Pecker to confirm that he did not mention Hicks when he first told prosecutors in 2018 about the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting.
Meanwhile, Trump is sitting with his arms crossed. He and his other attorney Todd Blanche are leaning over to whisper to each other.
The judge, attorneys and Pecker are reviewing a report from a 2018 interview Pecker had with the government.
Bove again seeks to confirm the report does not indicate that Pecker told the government Hicks was at the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting.
Pecker now confirms he didn't mention Hicks being at the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting in the government interview.

---

Quote:

---

The attorneys are at the bench.

Steinglass asked to approach over an objection to Bove's series of questions about Pecker's past testimony relating to Hope Hicks' involvement in the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is telling the jury court is wrapping up for the day. He's dismissing them for the day.
Only one juror appeared to look over at Trump at the defense table.

---

In reply to aggiehawg Loosely following this.

What is the importance of Hope Hicks?

In reply to TexAg1987

TexAg1987 said:

---

Loosely following this.

What is the importance of Hope Hicks?

---

IDK yet.

In reply to aggiehawg "Key player": Legal scholar says Hope Hicks' hush-money testimony could be "devastating" for Trump (yahoo.com)

I guess this. Trying to connect it to the campaign?

In reply to TexAg1987

TexAg1987 said:

---

"Key player": Legal scholar says Hope Hicks' hush-money testimony could be "devastating" for Trump (yahoo.com)

I guess this. Trying to connect it to the campaign?

---

That would be a mistake to keep up with the false notion that this NDA was a campaign finance violation. That dog won't hunt.

Quote:

---

After the jury left the courtroom, Steinglass brought an objection, arguing that Bove's questions to Pecker about the FBI interview were "improper" and left the jury "with a misimpression."
Judge Juan Merchan sided with Steinglass and said they'll have to correct that in front of the jury on Friday.
The judge said Bove's actions left the jury with the impression that Pecker omitted information about Hope Hicks.
Bove said, "The point of my question was that she was not in the meeting."
Merchan said he wasn't accusing Bove of doing it intentionally, but said he should "be very careful of that."

---

Quote:

---

Before leaving the bench, Judge Merchan reiterated that he signed the order to show cause regarding the prosecution's latest request to hold Trump in contempt for the four new violations of the gag order.

There will be a hearing next Wednesday at 2:15 p.m. ET about that, he said.

---

Another hearing? Is he going to rule on the first one before that?

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

After the jury left the courtroom, Steinglass brought an objection, arguing that Bove's questions to Pecker about the FBI interview were "improper" and left the jury "with a misimpression."
Judge Juan Merchan sided with Steinglass and said they'll have to correct that in front of the jury on Friday.
The judge said Bove's actions left the jury with the impression that Pecker omitted information about Hope Hicks.
Bove said, "The point of my question was that she was not in the meeting."
Merchan said he wasn't accusing Bove of doing it intentionally, but said he should "be very careful of that."

---

Quote:

---

Before leaving the bench, Judge Merchan reiterated that he signed the order to show cause regarding the prosecution's latest request to hold Trump in contempt for the four new violations of the gag order.

There will be a hearing next Wednesday at 2:15 p.m. ET about that, he said.

---

Another hearing? Is he going to rule on the first one before that?

---

So, the prosecutors are, what, 20-0 in raising objections and having them sustained...as opposed to defense counsel which is 0-30?

That's kind of what I'm getting from this thread...

Maybe its just me but seems like Bove did a good job of questioning Pecker there in raising the notion that these kinds of catch and kill tactics are commonplace in the industry, and positive stories about Trump were done going all the way back to the 90s.

In reply to TexAg1987

TexAg1987 said:

---

"Key player": Legal scholar says Hope Hicks' hush-money testimony could be "devastating" for Trump (yahoo.com)

I guess this. Trying to connect it to the campaign?

---

The commies are wanting to see Hope Hicks and Sarah Sanders indicted and arrested for something. They can't even define what crime they might have committed, but they want them arrested.

Pretty much the top trends on Twitter right now other than "Supreme Court."

In reply to 4stringAg

4stringAg said:

---

Maybe its just me but seems like Bove did a good job of questioning Pecker there in raising the notion that these kinds of catch and kill tactics are commonplace in the industry, and positive stories about Trump were done going all the way back to the 90s.

---

He did. This is NY. Really nothing see here.

In reply to aTm2004

aTm2004 said:

---

****WW FOR LANGUAGE****

I think he speaks for many New Yorkers who choose to remain silent.

Well….

I think this guys said it all.pic.twitter.com/KY0w87GV5K

— Libs Of Chicago (@Libs_OfChicago) April 25, 2024

---

⬇️Must Watch⬇️ DEMOCRATS NO MORE !! —New York Union Leader and Life Long Dem Bob Bartels: “𝘈𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 4 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 , 𝘋𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳… pic.twitter.com/3id2QzKUHM

— AGNEWSLIVE (@AMErikaNGIRLLL) April 25, 2024

In reply to Rapier108 How many more times are you going to make us scroll past your signature?

In reply to 4stringAg

4stringAg said:

---

Maybe its just me but seems like Bove did a good job of questioning Pecker there in raising the notion that these kinds of catch and kill tactics are commonplace in the industry, and positive stories about Trump were done going all the way back to the 90s.

---

They always have been.

Geez, anyone ever heard of Citizen Kane? That was about Hearst. And how Hearst created and curated news.

In reply to DamnGood86

DamnGood86 said:

---

How many more times are you going to make us scroll past your signature?

---

You can turn off signatures, btw

In reply to TexAg1987

TexAg1987 said:

---

DamnGood86 said:

---

How many more times are you going to make us scroll past your signature?

---

You can turn off signatures, btw

---

Hell yeah!