I spoke too soon. Pecker is now recanting his testimony.

Quote:

---

The prosecution is having Pecker re-confirm that the purpose of the National Enquirer's contract with former Playboy model Karen McDougal was to suppress her potentially damaging story about Donald Trump and help influence the 2016 election.
Additional items about writing articles and appearing on covers were extraneous, Pecker confirmed, in response to prosecutor Joshua Steinglass, who is bringing things back to his team's central argument about the agreement.

Quote:

---

The provisions about McDougal getting to write articles and appear on covers of the tabloid were "included in the contract as a disguise," Pecker says.

---

Pecker testifies he never told his company's general counsel that the true purpose of the deal was to influence the election. He also never told the attorney that he planned to transfer the rights to Michael Cohen, who pledged to reimburse him.

---

Yet Pecker had meetings with McDougal to address those other issues in the contract, her writing articles with ghost writers and fitness tips in other AMI publications.

Quote:

---

As he reviewed records on the stand, Pecker said the retained election law attorney billed American Media Inc. for 30 minutes of work to review the contract with Karen McDougal.
Steinglass went through the contract, asking if it mentions anything about Trump reimbursing him, Michael Cohen's name, the discussion at Trump Tower, or the word campaign.
Pecker repeatedly said "no."
"Does the contract even mention the word campaign?" Steinglass asked.
"No," Pecker said.
Steinglass noted that the contract that the outside counsel reviewed had none of these details.
Every juror is watching Steinglass as he's asking the question.
Remember: The McDougal contract is separate from the Stormy Daniels' contract at the center of the hush money case. Prosecutors have used the payoffs as evidence that the schemes were aimed at protecting Trump's electoral chances. Trump has denied affairs with both women.

---

Quote:

---

Steinglass is revisiting the Karen McDougal agreement and that Pecker only agreed to enter into it because Michael Cohen promised to reimburse him.

They had drawn up a transfer agreement and "you went so far as to sign the document?" Steinglass asks. "Yes," Pecker replies.

But Pecker says after speaking with the general counsel, "I called up Michael Cohen and told him that the deal was off and to rip up the agreement."

---

Quote:

---

Steinglass is now seeking to tie Michael Cohen to Trump's campaign.

Pecker confirms that Cohen was known to work his media contacts for the campaign. Cohen went on television to talk campaign talking points and invited Pecker to a campaign fundraiser.

"When you formulated the agreement" to help the campaign in 2015, Steinglass asks if Cohen was part of the agreement. "Yes he was," Pecker says.

---

Cohen was Trump's personal attorney, not an attorney working on the campaign.

Quote:

---

Steinglass asked Pecker whether he had ever shared positive stories about a candidate ahead of time or shared negative stories about a candidate's opponents prior to the arrangement with Trump.
Pecker said he had not previously.

Steinglass confirmed Pecker's earlier testimony that because he was friends with Trump, he didn't run negative stories about him even before the campaign.

"Prior to the August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower, did AMI ever agree to publish stories attacking Mr. Trump's political opponents?" Steinglass asks. "No," Pecker says.

Steinglass asked, "Did you ever specifically use the term catch and kill in that meeting?"
"No I did not."

---

Quote:

---

We are now breaking for lunch, and the judge is instructing the jury to not discuss the case.
Steinglass says he has less than a half hour left, and Bove says he will ask another round of questions.
Pecker is off the stand.

---

My observation is that Pecker is highly suggestible as a witness and tailors his answers to whomever is questioning him. And that alone creates some doubt as to his overall credibility. Bove can further demonstrate that on recross.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Bove is revisiting Pecker's January 6, 2017, meeting with Trump at Trump Tower.

Bove walks through Pecker's previous testimony that Reince Priebus, Mike Pompeo, Sean Spicer and James Comey were in Trump's office standing around his desk when Pecker walked in.

Bove confirmed Pecker's testimony that he believes they were discussing a shooting in Fort Lauderdale.
Bove asks Pecker for more details about how he was let into the office while Trump was being briefed on a domestic national emergency.

"Mr Trump has a large office, and I was by the door while they were talking with Mr Trump," Pecker says.

Pecker clarified he didn't overhear the national security conversation.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass objected and the lawyers are now at the bench.
Judge Juan Merchan sustains the objection.

---

---

Gosh...I'm surprised...

Quote:

---

While it is unclear who prosecutors will call next to the witness stand, CNN's chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid offers some possibilities:
Karen McDougal: While the case focuses on the payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels, prosecutors have repeatedly brought up a similar deal made with former Playboy model Karen McDougal to establish a pattern and Judge Juan Merchan has allowed McDougal to testify. However, Reid says, she might not be the best witness as she's not relevant to the heart of the charges as they relate to Daniels.
Kellyanne Conway: Former Trump campaign head Kellyanne Conway's testimony would be significant because she could talk about the Access Hollywood tape, the impact it had on the campaign and the pressure they were under to maybe suppress stories about Trump's sex life, Reid says.
Hope Hicks: Former Trump campaign press secretary Hope Hicks was involved in conversations with David Pecker and Michael Cohen about hush money payments.

---

In reply to aggiehawg

Quote:

---

My observation is that Pecker is highly suggestible as a witness and tailors his answers to whomever is questioning him

---

As a prosecutor, this is the kind of witness you DON'T want. Very easy to reasonable doubt start to seep in.

If that is how he's coming across, thats good for Trump

In reply to Im Gipper

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

My observation is that Pecker is highly suggestible as a witness and tailors his answers to whomever is questioning him

---

As a prosecutor, this is the kind of witness you DON'T want. Very easy to reasonable doubt start to seep in.

If that is how he's coming across, thats good for Trump

---

Yes. I originally thought Bove was questioning Pecker's accuracy in his memory but then Steinglass was able to lead him in the complete opposite direction.

If he flips again on recross?

Quote:

---

On re-direct prosecutors were trying to re-establish David Pecker's credibility after the defense exposed small inconsistencies in the tabloid king's statements.
Here's what happened:

• Prosecutor Josh Steinglass sought to infer to the jury that an election law attorney reviewed the Karen McDougal agreement without the underlying context of Pecker's secret agreement to benefit Donald Trump's campaign.
• Pecker also re-confirmed that the purpose of the contract with McDougal was to acquire her life rights and suppress her story to influence the election, and the additional items about writing articles and appearing on covers were extraneous.
• Prosecutors also sought to establish that the deal with Trump's former doorman was not "standard" as the defense had tried to paint it because it had a $1 million liquidated damages clause and was in perpetuity.
• Pecker reiterated the content of the August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower. He outlined that it was his understanding that he would flag negative stories to Michael Cohen. Steinglass also elicited that before the arrangement made at that meeting, Pecker had never shared positive stories about a candidate ahead of time or shared negative stories about a candidate's opponent.
• American Media Inc.'s 2021 conciliation agreement with the Federal Election Commission: The defense had tried to hone in that Pecker did not have to admit to a campaign finance violation. Pecker disputed that. Steinglass asked Pecker whether AMI acknowledged in the agreement that "the conduct it had admitted in connection with the Karen McDougal payment" had violated federal campaign election law. "Yes," Pecker responded.

---

Remember this is a biased CNN crew.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Bove is revisiting Pecker's January 6, 2017, meeting with Trump at Trump Tower.

Bove walks through Pecker's previous testimony that Reince Priebus, Mike Pompeo, Sean Spicer and James Comey were in Trump's office standing around his desk when Pecker walked in.

Bove confirmed Pecker's testimony that he believes they were discussing a shooting in Fort Lauderdale.
Bove asks Pecker for more details about how he was let into the office while Trump was being briefed on a domestic national emergency.

"Mr Trump has a large office, and I was by the door while they were talking with Mr Trump," Pecker says.

Pecker clarified he didn't overhear the national security conversation.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass objected and the lawyers are now at the bench.
Judge Juan Merchan sustains the objection.

---

---

Seems to be a very consistent theme.

Is it just me, or is all of this focus on McDougal, who is not listed in the indictment, very similar to the tactic used in Weinstein's trial that has just been overturned by the appellate court?

The prosecution seems to be trying to establish a pattern, or a behavior, or something that it wants to infer is part of an illegal action and/or conspiracy, but Trump isn't charged with conspiracy.

Why wouldn't the defense object to the entire line of questioning using the appellate decision on the Weinstein conviction as the basis?

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

While it is unclear who prosecutors will call next to the witness stand, CNN's chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid offers some possibilities:
Karen McDougal: While the case focuses on the payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels, prosecutors have repeatedly brought up a similar deal made with former Playboy model Karen McDougal to establish a pattern and Judge Juan Merchan has allowed McDougal to testify. However, Reid says, she might not be the best witness as she's not relevant to the heart of the charges as they relate to Daniels.
Kellyanne Conway: Former Trump campaign head Kellyanne Conway's testimony would be significant because she could talk about the Access Hollywood tape, the impact it had on the campaign and the pressure they were under to maybe suppress stories about Trump's sex life, Reid says.
Hope Hicks: Former Trump campaign press secretary Hope Hicks was involved in conversations with David Pecker and Michael Cohen about hush money payments.

---

---

After I saw the Weinstein reversal this week, apparently the fact that the prosecutors brought in women that were not part of the indictment was one of the big reasons for overturning the conviction.

Isn't bringing up McDougal similar?

ETA: I did NOT see jdr's post above me when I started writing this post...it appears he has the same question..

In reply to aggiehawg

Quote:

---

If he flips again on recross?

---

IMO, it does not matter, at least in a criminal case. The doubt is already there.

Maybe it different in preponderance of the evidence civil case, but in my experience a witness that goes along with both sides is much better for the defense.

In reply to jrdaustin

jrdaustin said:

---

Is it just me, or is all of this focus on McDougal, who is not listed in the indictment, very similar to the tactic used in Weinstein's trial that has just been overturned by the appellate court?

The prosecution seems to be trying to establish a pattern, or a behavior, or something that it wants to infer is part of an illegal action and/or conspiracy, but Trump isn't charged with conspiracy.

Why wouldn't the defense object to the entire line of questioning using the appellate decision on the Weinstein conviction as the basis?

---

They likely did during pretrial motions and lost. Merchan yelled at them this week to stop filing motions when he has already ruled against them.

In reply to Im Gipper

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

My observation is that Pecker is highly suggestible as a witness and tailors his answers to whomever is questioning him

---

As a prosecutor, this is the kind of witness you DON'T want. Very easy to reasonable doubt start to seep in.

If that is how he's coming across, thats good for Trump

---

Lord. He works for the Inquirer. Heck I knew as a kid the whole rag was a sham and wondered who would believe any of that sheet..... well except my Aunt Ruth up in Arkansas.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Is it just me, or is all of this focus on McDougal, who is not listed in the indictment, very similar to the tactic used in Weinstein's trial that has just been overturned by the appellate court?

The prosecution seems to be trying to establish a pattern, or a behavior, or something that it wants to infer is part of an illegal action and/or conspiracy, but Trump isn't charged with conspiracy.

Why wouldn't the defense object to the entire line of questioning using the appellate decision on the Weinstein conviction as the basis?

---

They likely did during pretrial motions and lost. merchan yelle at them this week to stop filing motions when he has already ruled against them.

---

So is Merchan literally signalling that he has no intention of following the law, understands that this whole charade will be overturned on appeal, and he just doesn't care because the intention is to keep Trump tied up in his courtroom for the next few months and off the campaign trail?

And I'm sure he's also wanting to secure those future invitations to dinner parties by the New York liberal elite....

In reply to jrdaustin

Quote:

---

So is Merchan literally signalling that he has no intention of following the law, understands that this whole charade will be overturned on appeal, and he just doesn't care because the intention is to keep Trump tied up in his courtroom for the next few months and off the campaign trail?

And I'm sure he's also wanting to secure those future invitations to dinner parties by the New York liberal elite....

---

Merchan is not as openly hostile as Engeron but he does have his moments when he yells at Trump counsel to sit down, interrupting the point they are trying to make. Engeron did that to Trump's counsel a lot, especially Habba.

Quote:

---

Before entering the courtroom, Trump waved to cameras.
You could see Trump's valet Walt Nauta in the background behind the double doors.
He and Stephen Miller and Boris Epshteyn have been around today with Trump.
The former president did not answer questions.

---

Quote:

---

Testimony is resuming in Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial, with prosecutor Joshua Steinglass picking back up with his questions for ex-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker.
"Good afternoon, jurors," the judge says, as the panel files back into the room.

Quote:

---

"I'm going to try not to keep you here too much longer," Steinglass tells Pecker as he begins.

---

---

According to Clay and Buck, Trump responded to Biden offering to debate today via @ Truth post.

I don't have an account, so I can't bring it up. Found it:

Truth Details | Truth Social

Quote:

---

Crooked Joe Biden just announced that he's willing to debate! Everyone knows he doesn't really mean it, but in case he does, I say, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYPLACE, an old expression used by Fighters. I suggest Monday Evening, Tuesday Evening, or Wednesday Evening at my Rally in Michigan, a State that he is in the process of destroying with his E.V. Mandate. In the alternative, he's in New York City today, although probably doesn't know it, and so am I, stuck in one of the many Court cases that he instigated as ELECTION INTERFERENCE AGAINST A POLITICAL OPPONENT - A CONTINUING WITCH HUNT! It's the only way he thinks he can win. In fact, let's do the Debate at the Courthouse tonight - on National Television, I'll wait around!

---

Quote:

---

Steinglass has gone back to the Wall Street Journal article published on November 4, 2016.
The purpose was to have Pecker explain that he likely learned the term "catch and kill" in the press.
Yesterday during cross-examination, Pecker said he learned of it from federal prosecutors.
Trump's eyes are closed and he's leaning back in his chair as Steinglass continues his redirect.

---

In reply to Im Gipper

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

If he flips again on recross?

---

IMO, it does not matter, at least in a criminal case. The doubt is already there.

Maybe it different in preponderance of the evidence civil case, but in my experience a witness that goes along with both sides is much better for the defense.

---

How do you think the two attorneys on the jury are taking all this?

Quote:

---

Prosecutors are pressing former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker on whether he likely learned the term "catch and kill" in the press after he said yesterday during cross examination that he first learned of it from federal prosecutors.

What is "catch and kill"? It is the practice of buying exclusive rights to a story for the express purpose of never publishing the information. The tactic gained widespread notoriety during the 2016 presidential election.

---

Quote:

---

Pecker testified again that he called Michael Cohen with then-editor-in-chief Dylan Howard encouraging him to buy Stormy Daniels' story.
On the call, Pecker says he told Cohen that if the story gets out through another media outlet:
"The boss is going to be very, very, very angry with you."

---

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Is it just me, or is all of this focus on McDougal, who is not listed in the indictment, very similar to the tactic used in Weinstein's trial that has just been overturned by the appellate court?

The prosecution seems to be trying to establish a pattern, or a behavior, or something that it wants to infer is part of an illegal action and/or conspiracy, but Trump isn't charged with conspiracy.

Why wouldn't the defense object to the entire line of questioning using the appellate decision on the Weinstein conviction as the basis?

---

They likely did during pretrial motions and lost. Merchan yelled at them this week to stop filing motions when he has already ruled against them.

---

Wouldn't this be new evidence as the ruling was a few days ago?

In reply to Tony Franklins Other Shoe

Quote:

---

How do you think the two attorneys on the jury are taking all this?

---

The litigator likely does. The corporate one, maybe not.

In reply to Tony Franklins Other Shoe

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

If he flips again on recross?

---

IMO, it does not matter, at least in a criminal case. The doubt is already there.

Maybe it different in preponderance of the evidence civil case, but in my experience a witness that goes along with both sides is much better for the defense.

---

How do you think the two attorneys on the jury are taking all this?

---

They are sleeping. They already have their marching orders.

From another article:

Quote:

---

Bove asked Pecker about an interview he gave to the FBI in 2018 during which Pecker discussed a process known as "catch-and-kill," which involved buying rights to stories about high-profile people and then never publishing them.

During a meeting between Pecker and Trump on Jan. 6, 2017, "Trump did not express any gratitude to Pecker and AMI" for killing a story about Trump, according to the FBI's notes from the following year, Bove observed.

The defense attorney then pointed out how Pecker testified from the witness stand one day earlier with an entirely different account. Pecker had said Thursday that Trump did in fact thank him at the meeting because AMI-owned National Enquirer reached a $30,000 deal with a doorman during Trump's presidential run that prevented the doorman from going public with an unproven allegation that Trump fathered a child out of wedlock.

---

LINK

ETA: same article

Quote:

---

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, an elected Democrat, charged Trump with concealing payments made to two women in 2016 to silence them after they wanted to come forward about alleged affairs they had with Trump, and prosecutors have sought to prove Trump's motivation was to influence the 2016 presidential election.

Trump thanking Pecker right after he won the election would bolster prosecutors' argument that the election drove Trump to participate in Pecker's catch-and-kill schemes.

However, Bove emphasized during his cross-examination of Pecker how his accounts of the meeting with Trump in 2017 appeared to change.

"I know what I testified to yesterday, and I know what I remember," Pecker said as Bove became louder and noted that lying under oath is a crime.

---

Quote:

---

Steinglass is now shifting to Pecker's 2018 FBI interview, where Pecker earlier disputed the FBI notes saying that Trump didn't thank him during a January 2017 meeting.
He asked Pecker about a subsequent interview with the FBI one week after the meeting Bove highlighted.
Steinglass is quoting from notes from that meeting that say, "At that time Trump told Pecker in sum and susbstance that he, Trump, wanted to thank him, Pecker, for handling the Karen and doorman stories because they would have been very damaging to him."
The notes from that interview confirm that Pecker told the FBI that when he visited Trump at Trump Tower in January 2017, Trump thanked Pecker for handling the doorman and McDougal stories.
Steinglass asked Pecker if he told the FBI that Trump thanked him.
"Yes I did," Pecker testified.

---

Quote:

---

Steinglass just wrapped up his questioning. Emil Bove is back at the lectern and is starting his line of questioning.

---

Quote:

---

Bove asks Pecker whether McDougal met the definition of a celebrity. "Did she meet the celebrity category at the time? No," Pecker responds.
Bove asks Pecker whether there was a "real value" to her brand, as a former Playboy playmate and the first woman on the cover of a men's fitness magazine.

Quote:

---

"I wouldn't say there was a value to her brand to a media company. To herself there would be," Pecker says.

---

---

Quote:

---

Bove concludes by asking Pecker whether he believes Donald Trump cares about people? "I do," Pecker says.
Pecker testified previously that Trump cares about his family.
Asked by Steinglass if he believes that, Pecker said, "Of course I do."

---

Quote:

---

The first witness for the prosecution, David Pecker, is off the stand.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors have called witness Rhona Graff to the stand.
Graff is Trump's former long-time assistant.
As she entered the courtroom, Trump looked over at her. She did not appear to glance at his table on her walk to the witness stand.

---

Quote:

---

Assistant District Attorney Susan Hoffinger is handling the direct examination of Rhona Graff.

---

Quote:

---

Rhona Graff, Trump's former longtime assistant, is testifying pursuant to a subpoena.
The assistant district attorney started her questions for Graff by asking her about her time with the Trump organization.
Graff said she worked for Trump for 34 years at the Trump Organization, sitting outside his office on the 26th floor of Trump Tower. She was in control of his calendar and in charge of maintaining Trump's contacts at the organization
"For the most part it was me," Graff says, when asked if she was in control of Trump's calendar.

---

Quote:

---

Under direct examination, Graff said that Trump never used email to communicate as far as she can remember.

A court security officer also handed Graff a thumb drive.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors asked Graff to verify several exhibits that are emails she exchanged with Madeleine Westerhout, who worked in the Trump White House.
As we get into the minutiae of emails sent between Trump's White House and Trump Organization assistants, Trump has sat back in his chair and closed his eyes again.
Some background: Graff trained Westerhout for her role. She sat outside the Oval Office and observed almost every coming and going over more than two and a half years.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors have called Rhona Graff, Donald Trump's former longtime assistant, to the witness stand.
Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker in his testimony Tuesday described sitting in Trump's office Graff walked in and gave him invoices and checks to sign.
CNN previously reported in 2022 that Graff was subpoenaed as part of the separate New York attorney general's investigation into the Trump Organization's finances.
CNN analyst Gloria Borger said that Graff was very close to Trump.
"She could be quite a valuable witness in terms of talking about how much attention he paid to detail, whom he was talking with, what his relationship with Michael Cohen was," Borger said.
Graff can also reveal how the Trump organization worked, Borger said, and even provide a glimpse into Trump's life and speak on the relationships between Trump and his children.
Assistants also make powerful witnesses because they can see who is coming in out of the office.

---

Quote:

---

Graff recalls seeing Stormy Daniels in the reception area at Trump Tower before Trump ran for president.

---

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump on Friday continued to falsely claim he cannot "comment on" or "answer questions" about his New York criminal hush money trial as he railed against the gag order from Judge Juan Merchan.

Quote:

---

Trump frequently comments on and answers questions about the trial. The gag order prohibits Trump from publicly discussing witnesses, jurors, prosecutors, court staff or family members of prosecutors and court staff.

---

Speaking in the third person, Trump posted on Truth Social, "45th President Donald J. Trump is again the Republican Nominee for President of the United States, and is currently dominating in the Polls. However, he is being inundated by the Media with questions because of this Rigged Biden Trial, which President Trump is not allowed to comment on, or answer, because of Judge Juan Merchan's UNPRECEDENTED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL Gag Order."

Quote:

---

"His Opponents have unlimited rights to question, but he has no right to respond. There has never been a situation like this in our Country's History, a Candidate that is not allowed to answer questions. Even Crooked Joe Biden is talking about the Sham Case, and others inspired by his Administration. We request that Judge Merchan immediately LIFT THE GAG ORDER, so that President Trump is able to freely state his views, feelings, and policies. He is asking for his Constitutional Right to Free Speech. If it is not granted, this again becomes a Rigged Election!" Trump posted.

---

Merchan has scheduled another hearing on the gag order for next Thursday.

---