Relevant:

This part of the arrangement was NOT mutually beneficial, per Pecker.

— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) April 23, 2024

On cross, a question will be: Did Pecker bought stories for others in order to not run them"

HTownAg98 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Opalka said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TBH....$1k per offense is worth it to Trump to keep speaking. Dare thiem to jail him, that won't go over well with the majority of the country. Jailing the leading candidate for president to keep him from talking.

---

Here's a thought....why doesn't Trump just keep his trap shut and let his lawyers do the talking! Trump should just keep sleep/farting during the trial if he really has to be there. He's better at that.

---

Because he's in a campaign. When you are in a campaign, you are supposed to talk about the issues of the day.

Some things are just not that hard.

---

The issues of the day seem to be the border, Gaza, the economy, inflation, Ukraine, I could go on. But instead, he wants to talk about how Cohen is a liar. It's free airtime to go after Biden, and he's using it to go after that dumbass Cohen.

---

Polls show that if he's convicted many that would vote for him won't. It's a huge issue.

Also lawfare should be a major issue for republicans in general and this trial is a showcase for that.

Quote:

---

Polls show that if he's convicted many that would vote for him won't. It's a huge issue.

---

Do you have a link to that poll? Very interesting! Most polls I have seen show most think this is a political witch hunt.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Polls show that if he's convicted many that would vote for him won't. It's a huge issue.

---

Do you have a link to that poll? Very interesting! Most polls I have seen show most think this is a political witch hunt.

---

A very quick search shows this one. There are many more

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4441241-trump-poll-convictions-deep-trouble/amp/

Quote:

---

To underscore the point to the jury, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked David Pecker a series of questions about what he offered to do.
He asked Pecker to confirm that he offered to publish positive stories about Trump, publish negative stories about his opponents and alert him about damaging information involving women.
To each question, Pecker answered "yes."
Pecker testified, "I think it was a mutual benefit. It would help his campaign, and it would also help me."

---

Enquirer had free lancers and stringers all over looking for stories. American paparazzi chasing after stories to make a buck. No surprise that Pecker was is a somewhat unique position, one that he too would make a crap ton of money off for mutual benefit.

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked David Pecker how Trump reacted to Pecker's suggestion he would continue running negative stories about Bill and Hillary Clinton.
"He was pleased," Pecker said.
Pecker said stories about Bill and Hillary Clinton were great sellers for the magazine.

---

Gee, who knew? Besides everyone in the publishing business.

Quote:

---

David Pecker said his agreements with Trump were not put into writing because "it was just an agreement among friends."

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass also had Pecker confirm that the positive stories about Trump were of mutual benefit, but stopping stories from being printed about Trump only benefited the campaign.

---

That is pretty twisted logic. Again, if this is about some conspiracy about the 2016 election, where are the conspiracy charges?

Lol.. apparently there was a headline that said " Trump is the healthiest President ever elected"?

Science Denier said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Polls show that if he's convicted many that would vote for him won't. It's a huge issue.

---

Do you have a link to that poll? Very interesting! Most polls I have seen show most think this is a political witch hunt.

---

A very quick search shows this one. There are many more

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4441241-trump-poll-convictions-deep-trouble/amp/

---

Here's why I don't believe that....explain how his support in the polls went up with indictments, yet somehow we are supposed to believe those that increased supporting him for being indicted would then take that support back if convicted of those indictments. Doesn't pass the logic test.

Thanks for that link, but not quite what you said. That poll does not differentiate between those that will never vote for him and those that won't if he's convicted. That is the relevant number I'd like to see.

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Polls show that if he's convicted many that would vote for him won't. It's a huge issue.

---

Do you have a link to that poll? Very interesting! Most polls I have seen show most think this is a political witch hunt.

---

A very quick search shows this one. There are many more

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4441241-trump-poll-convictions-deep-trouble/amp/

---

Here's why I don't believe that....explain how his support in the polls went up with indictments, yet somehow we are supposed to believe those that increased supporting him for being indicted would then take that support back if convicted of those indictments. Doesn't pass the logic test.

---

Convictions are different than indictments. There are people that that believe in the courts to judge BS indictments that are later overturned and those that lead in convictions.

Doesn't matter to me, but it does to others.

How is that "twisted" logic? I don't see any benefit to Pecker and his magazines to not publish a story.

Quote:

---

The jury is now seeing a series of National Enquirer articles praising Donald Trump.

Per a defense request, Judge Juan Merchan instructed the jury that the exhibit is being entered for the limited purpose of showing that the articles were published and when but they are not in evidence for any other purpose.

---

As a limiting insruction, that sucks. Juries get easily confused as to the significance of exhibits and what they are supposed to gleen and not use from exhibits.

Like in the Alex Murdaugh trial, when all of his financial crimes were allowed into evidence but the judge said to the jury they could only consider them for motive to commit the murders. But that link was not established by the state.

Pecker on negative stories about Trump's opponents: Michael Cohen would call me and say we would like you to run an article on a certain person...and then Cohen would send me a piece on Ted Cruz, for example, and the Enquirer would embellish it from there.”

B/c Cohen wasn't a…

— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) April 23, 2024

One headline: "Ted Cruz Sex Scandal - 5 Secret Mistresses! The romps that are rocking his presidential campaign!"

— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) April 23, 2024

Garbage people gonna garbage.

Maybe. I think it would be the opposite.

Science Denier said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Polls show that if he's convicted many that would vote for him won't. It's a huge issue.

---

Do you have a link to that poll? Very interesting! Most polls I have seen show most think this is a political witch hunt.

---

A very quick search shows this one. There are many more

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4441241-trump-poll-convictions-deep-trouble/amp/

---

Here's why I don't believe that....explain how his support in the polls went up with indictments, yet somehow we are supposed to believe those that increased supporting him for being indicted would then take that support back if convicted of those indictments. Doesn't pass the logic test.

---

Convictions are different than indictments. There are people that that believe in the courts to judge BS indictments that are later overturned and those that lead in convictions.

Doesn't matter to me, but it does to others.

---

I understand, but again, not logical. Someone that believed the indictments were politcal suddenly thinks they are valid and not political once convicted?

Take a different case for comparison, you really think anyone who thought the Chauven indictment was politcally charged changed their mind just because he was convicted under political pressure? Don't think so.

Now do the MSM and Biden

Im Gipper said:

---

How is that "twisted" logic? I don't see any benefit to Pecker and his magazines to not publish a story.

---

You don't? Tabloids work in a different milieu than MSM (although I grant you the lines are getting pretty damn blurry these past years.)

Take Taylor Swift, for instance. People love her. They love reading about her. But the good things, not the bad. Tabloids have a niche market for niche readers mostly at the check out stands in supermarkets. Turn those off with negative stories about a celebrity they love, they are disinclined to continue buying future editions.

Enquirer has been around for a lot of years. For much of their early years was filled with alien abductions, alien babies, that sort of thing. Their shift to being more popular news content coincided with the rise in popularity with publications like People magazine and USA Today.

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Polls show that if he's convicted many that would vote for him won't. It's a huge issue.

---

Do you have a link to that poll? Very interesting! Most polls I have seen show most think this is a political witch hunt.

---

A very quick search shows this one. There are many more

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4441241-trump-poll-convictions-deep-trouble/amp/

---

Here's why I don't believe that....explain how his support in the polls went up with indictments, yet somehow we are supposed to believe those that increased supporting him for being indicted would then take that support back if convicted of those indictments. Doesn't pass the logic test.

---

Convictions are different than indictments. There are people that that believe in the courts to judge BS indictments that are later overturned and those that lead in convictions.

Doesn't matter to me, but it does to others.

---

I understand, but again, not logical. Someone that believed the indictments were politcal suddenly thinks they are valid and not political once convicted?

Take a different case for comparison, you really think anyone who thought the Chauven indictment was politcally charged changed their mind just because he was convicted under political pressure? Don't think so.

---

LOL. Logic? We are talking about voters here.

So you are saying the Enquirer would not be able to sell stories that were negative about Trump? C'mon now.

Pecker admitted not running the story only benefited Trump, not him or his business.

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is now showing David Pecker some of the negative stories about Donald Trump's opponents that the National Enquirer ran.
Among them are:

• From October 7, 2015: "Bungling surgeon Ben Carson left sponge in patient's brain!"
• From February 12, 2016: "Ted Cruz shamed by porn star"

Pecker said that while they were preparing an article like the one on Cruz, they would communicate with Michael Cohen.

---

Quote:

---

David Pecker said he wanted to clarify how the system between the National Enquirer and Michael Cohen worked.

"When we were preparing an article, we'd communicate what we were doing at the direction of the article from Michael Cohen, and we would also send him the PDFs of the story before it was published," he testified.

---

Quote:

---

David Pecker said that while his team was preparing to run a negative article on one of Donald Trump's rivals, they would be in communication with Michael Cohen.
"He would comment on them, so we would add content based on the information" Cohen provided them," Pecker said.
Pecker said he couldn't recall if Cohen ever said he shared the headlines with "The Boss" which Pecker testified is how Cohen referred to Trump.

---

Asking for comment? Oh, the horror.

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked David Pecker if an article from 2016 with the headline "Ted Cruz sex scandal 5 secret mistresses" was discussed with Michael Cohen.
"We would have discussed that, yes," Pecker says.
Steinglass asks Pecker whether the articles were published in the spring of 2016 and if Cruz was gaining popularity around that time.
"I believe so," Pecker says.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass also showed National Enquirer headlines about Marco Rubio, another one of Donald Trump's 2016 rivals.
He asked David Pecker if they ran those headlines when Rubio was gaining popularity the same question he asked about negative stories on Ted Cruz.
Pecker said again, he believes that was the case, though he doesn't remember when Rubio dropped out.

---

Quote:

---

Former tabloid executive David Pecker continues to outline how the "catch and kill" operations worked at the National Enquirer, and the influence Donald Trump had.

Pecker said Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney, would direct him and Dylan Howard, then-editor in chief of the National Enquirer, on which candidate and which direction the magazine should go.

---

So Pecker did not vet his own reporters' stories? And that was Trump's fault?

When Maggie Haberman would send articles to the Biden camapign asking for comment and changes if any they wanted, was that also a conspiracy? LOL.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Opalka said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TBH....$1k per offense is worth it to Trump to keep speaking. Dare thiem to jail him, that won't go over well with the majority of the country. Jailing the leading candidate for president to keep him from talking.

---

Here's a thought....why doesn't Trump just keep his trap shut and let his lawyers do the talking! Trump should just keep sleep/farting during the trial if he really has to be there. He's better at that.

---

Because he's in a campaign. When you are in a campaign, you are supposed to talk about the issues of the day.

Some things are just not that hard.

---

The issues of the day seem to be the border, Gaza, the economy, inflation, Ukraine, I could go on. But instead, he wants to talk about how Cohen is a liar. It's free airtime to go after Biden, and he's using it to go after that dumbass Cohen.

---

To be fair, one of the BIG issues of the day is that the Republican candidate for POTUS is in a criminal trial as well as several other trials Do you suppose he should just ignore the herd of elephants in the room???

Im Gipper said:

---

So you are saying the Enquirer would not be able to sell stories that were negative about Trump? C'mon now.

Pecker admitted not running the story only benefited Trump, not him or his business.

---

For years we have been told Trump supporters are the great unwashed no college educated rubes, a/k/a deplorables. Who buys tabloids at the supermarkets? who watched Jerry Springer for entertainment?

Trump's affairs had long been baked into the cake by the time of the 2016 GOP primaries. He was getting over a billion in free press.

Would Hillary supporters cite a National Enquirer story that was critical of Trump as an authority? Of course they would not. Look at the reporters Fusion, Steele and Perkins, Coie used to circular source the Steele Dossier. David Corn, Michael Isikoff, etc. Not a tabloid in the bunch. Tell a lie in the NYT or WaPo people will still take it as gospel. Print a lie in a tabloid? Not so much.

Know your audience. That is how it works.

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Opalka said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TBH....$1k per offense is worth it to Trump to keep speaking. Dare thiem to jail him, that won't go over well with the majority of the country. Jailing the leading candidate for president to keep him from talking.

---

Here's a thought....why doesn't Trump just keep his trap shut and let his lawyers do the talking! Trump should just keep sleep/farting during the trial if he really has to be there. He's better at that.

---

Because he's in a campaign. When you are in a campaign, you are supposed to talk about the issues of the day.

Some things are just not that hard.

---

The issues of the day seem to be the border, Gaza, the economy, inflation, Ukraine, I could go on. But instead, he wants to talk about how Cohen is a liar. It's free airtime to go after Biden, and he's using it to go after that dumbass Cohen.

---

To be fair, one of the BIG issues of the day is that the Republican candidate for POTUS is in a criminal trial as well as several other trials Do you suppose he should just ignore the herd of elephants in the room???

---

2 min search reveals

Huff Post - Front page headline - Trump Trial
WaPo - Front page headline - Trump Trial
CNN - Front page headline - Trump Trial
Fox News - Front page headline - Trump Trial
Newsmax - YEA!! No front page headline on Trump Trial

Yea, it's certainly a huge issue today.

Quote:

---

Would Hillary supporters cite a National Enquirer story that was critical of Trump as an authority? Of course they would not.

---

Of course they would! Scandal sells! Especially sex! That is why Pecker rans stories about other Republicans being caught up in sex scandals!

Pecker acknowledged these catch and kills didn't benefit his publications. Maybe he is confused.

Pecker and his rag went after Cruz and Rubio hard. Cruz the hardest.

Aaannd, there it is.

Quote:

---

Defense attorneys and prosecutors are having a sidebar after Donald Trump's attorney objected to prosecutor Joshua Steinglass' line of questioning.

Steinglass says he's making the larger argument about the case including a conspiracy because this is an issue he expects the defense will raise again with future testimony.

"The entire case is predicated on the idea that there was a conspiracy to influence the election in 2016," Steinglass tells the judge.

Steinglass argued that this is fair game because intent is an underlying element of falsifying business records in the first degree so prosecutors can use evidence like this to prove their allegations that Trump conspired or took steps to conceal the acts he's charged with.

Pushing back on that, Trump's attorney Emil Bove said anything involving Steve Bannon "was very normal, standard campaign work."

---

Not a campaign finance issue. Not a state tax law issue. Not a state election law issue.

But a conspiracy to "influence the 2016 election." This despite zero conspiracy charges being mentioned in the indictment.

Interesting:

During the arguments, the DA's Office signposts that New York Election Law 17-152, which prohibits conspiracies to promote the election of a specific candidate through unlawful means, is the crime that Trump was intending to commit or conceal.

— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) April 23, 2024

Sounds super duper serious!

Quote:

---

17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more
persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

---

We definitely need to lock up the presumptive GOP nominee for President for this terrible act. /s

these people are pathetic.

aggiehawg said:

---

Aaannd, there it is.

Quote:

---

Defense attorneys and prosecutors are having a sidebar after Donald Trump's attorney objected to prosecutor Joshua Steinglass' line of questioning.

Steinglass says he's making the larger argument about the case including a conspiracy because this is an issue he expects the defense will raise again with future testimony.

"The entire case is predicated on the idea that there was a conspiracy to influence the election in 2016," Steinglass tells the judge.

Steinglass argued that this is fair game because intent is an underlying element of falsifying business records in the first degree so prosecutors can use evidence like this to prove their allegations that Trump conspired or took steps to conceal the acts he's charged with.

Pushing back on that, Trump's attorney Emil Bove said anything involving Steve Bannon "was very normal, standard campaign work."

---

Not a campaign finance issue. Not a state tax law issue. Not a state election law issue.

But a conspiracy to "influence the 2016 election." This despite zero conspiracy charges being mentioned in the indictment.

---

Is influencing a FEDERAL election a state crime?

You want circular logic? Here you go!

Trump falsified business records to commit the crime of conspiracy to promote or prevent election by unlawful means of falsifying business records.


You can't start and stop at the same place if you are going to make "Falsifying business record" under 17.10 a felony.

If they don't have something else, this case is sunk!

Im Gipper said:

---

Interesting:

During the arguments, the DA's Office signposts that New York Election Law 17-152, which prohibits conspiracies to promote the election of a specific candidate through unlawful means, is the crime that Trump was intending to commit or conceal.

— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) April 23, 2024

Sounds super duper serious!

Quote:

---

17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more
persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

---

We definitely need to lock up the presumptive GOP nominee for President for this terrible act. /s

---

Too little, too late. State cannot pivot and add charges not in the indictment once trial has started and jeopardy has attached. And not even a felony! Oy vey! What a mess!

Piling misdemeanor upon misdemeanor usually does not make a felony case. I see no reason why it would here.

Im Gipper said:

---

You want circular logic? Here you go!

Trump falsified business records to commit the crime of conspiracy to promote or prevent election by unlawful means of falsifying business records.


You can't start and stop at the same place on this charge! If they don't have something else, this case is sunk!

---

Agree. This isn't even bootstrapping, it is made out of whole cloth. Insane.

aggiehawg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Interesting:

During the arguments, the DA's Office signposts that New York Election Law 17-152, which prohibits conspiracies to promote the election of a specific candidate through unlawful means, is the crime that Trump was intending to commit or conceal.

— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) April 23, 2024

Sounds super duper serious!

Quote:

---

17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more
persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

---

We definitely need to lock up the presumptive GOP nominee for President for this terrible act. /s

---

Too little, too late. State cannot pivot and add charges not in the indictment once trial has started and jeopardy has attached. And not even a felony! Oy vey! What a mess!

Piling misdemeanor upon misdemeanor usually does not make a felony case. I see no reason why it would here.

---

Can the judge just rule however he wants? Sure it gets overturned, but getting the conviction is why this BS is even being tried.

Wait, what?

Quote:

---

Trump attorney Emil Bove objected after prosecutor Joshua Steinglass started to walk witness David Pecker through how AMI kept records and information, like text messages.
The judge asked the lawyers to come to the bench.
Judge Juan Merchan said he doesn't want the parties to speak about objections in front of the jury.

---

So what does that mean? Counsel cannot say, "Objection! Hearsay," either? Just request a sidebar?

That will piss the jury off.

I'd say it likely means just state the objection and not start argument. Fairly standard instruction.