jrdaustin said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you identify a specific law, federal or otherwise, that's inconsistent with the specific law in question in this case?

---

Depends. What is the definition of "election interference"? Intimidation at the polls under Voting Rights Act? Literacy tests or poll taxes under Civil Rights laws?

Gary Hart was having an affair with Donna Rice and keeping that secret during the 1988 Dem primares. Was that election interference?

John Edwards was having an affair and hiding his baby mama, was that election interference?

---

Was Hillary Clinton paying for the development of the Trump dossier election interference?

Was Anthony Blinken's recruitment of multiple former intelligence officials to sign off on a false claim that Hunter's laptop was Russian misinformation election interference?

We can go on ad nauseum of what can consitute election interference if AngelFlight and other wannabe takers down of Trump are successful in twisting this flimsy legal position into a conviction.

My gosh, even keeping a candidate from the campaign trail by hamstringing him with frivolous prosecution might even be election interference.

---

I hope Trump's 2nd term DOJ burns these idiots to the ground with their own lawfare. Clinton and Biden and many in the FBI and mainstream media are more guilty of this than is Trump.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you even constitutionally be indicted/convicted of covering up a crime you've yet to be even charged with?

---

The answer is "yes" because the crime he is charged with requires the following finding by the jury:

That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof

Being successful in the commission of the "another crime" is not an element.

---

So, in 2017, he illegally coded the payoff to be legal expenses in order to commit the crime of interfering with an election that occurred in 2016.

Makes sense if he owns a Tardis...

nortex97 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So, that's a "no."

---

So tha means you have zero idea what "election interference" means? Pretty generic term. Very ambiguous and vague. That violates due process notice of the specifics of the acts being criminalized. Makes its application unconstitutional.

---

The FBI itself (and many others) obviously conspired to hide the contents of Hunter's laptop from the public to influence the last presidential election.

Previously, Hillary famously conspired to hide her payments to Steele via a law firm (Perkins Coie) for Russian lies about Trump to impact the election. She hid it and then paid a small fine when caught.

---

I wonder if she did that while in NY...

Ag with kids said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you even constitutionally be indicted/convicted of covering up a crime you've yet to be even charged with?

---

The answer is "yes" because the crime he is charged with requires the following finding by the jury:

That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof

Being successful in the commission of the "another crime" is not an element.

---

So, in 2017, he illegally coded the payoff to be legal expenses in order to commit the crime of interfering with an election that occurred in 2016.

Makes sense if he owns a Tardis...

---

There was no concealment. Cohen's invoices were booked as legal expenses and costs. Where is the fraud? Where is the concealment? if they had been booked as building maintenance or some other budget category then there would be concealment. But they weren't.

Mornin' all.

CNN live blog is HERE

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is on the bench. Court is in session.

---

Quote:

---

Court is beginning today with discussion of a debate from Tuesday over objections about evidence.
Trump attorney says they discussed their objections with prosecutors, and they made progress, though they still have some issues to work out.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is asking whether they can begin with testimony anyway.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says he thinks so, because there's only one document in the next hour or two of testimony.
They'll deal with an issue over one exhibit during a break later this morning.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

The prosecutor is arguing Trump also violated the gag order Monday night during a news interview.
He says Trump spoke about how fast the jury was picked and claimed the jury pool was 95% Democrats.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Chris Conroy also cites Donald Trump's comments at his event this morning where he spoke about tabloid publisher David Pecker, in which he said that Pecker was "nice."

"This is a message to Pecker. Be nice. It's a message to others," Conroy says, adding the message to other witnesses is that Trump has a platform and will comment on their testimony.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan does not react to prosecutor Chris Conroy's presentation. He's not issuing his gag order ruling.

---

Quote:

---

Joshua Steinglass begins by resuming questioning of David Pecker about Karen McDougal.
He's asking about his conversation with former National Enquirer editor in chief Dylan Howard after Howard had interviewed McDougal.
Pecker says that Howard told him "he believed the story could be true, or was true, but she had no corroborating evidence."
Howard described McDougal to Pecker after the interview. She claimed she had a yearlong sexual relationship with Donald Trump but didn't have any corroborating evidence. But Howard said he believed the story was true.

---

Quote:

---

Pecker says National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard offered Karen McDougal $10,000 to buy her story, but she refused.

---

Quote:

---

Pecker is testifying that Karen McDougal didn't want the story to be published.
"She said that she didn't want to be the next Monica Lewinsky. She wanted to restart her career," Pecker says.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The prosecutor is arguing Trump also violated the gag order Monday night during a news interview.
He says Trump spoke about how fast the jury was picked and claimed the jury pool was 95% Democrats.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Chris Conroy also cites Donald Trump's comments at his event this morning where he spoke about tabloid publisher David Pecker, in which he said that Pecker was "nice."

"This is a message to Pecker. Be nice. It's a message to others," Conroy says, adding the message to other witnesses is that Trump has a platform and will comment on their testimony.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan does not react to prosecutor Chris Conroy's presentation. He's not issuing his gag order ruling.

---

---

Is this typical or a sign he's just over trying to enforce the gag on Trump. I've thought before 0% chance they put him in jail over him speaking.

Jurors and witnesses aren't supposed to be watching the news to avoid hearing about the going's on of the trial so how would they be affected by Trump talking to the media?

Quote:

---

David Pecker says Karen McDougal's attorney Keith Davidson was one of Dylan Howard's key sources, and that went into the thinking of why they needed to buy the story.

Remember: Davidson also repped Stormy Daniels in her NDA negotiation with Cohen.

---

IDK why Merchan has not issued a ruling on the contempt charge for violating the gag order.

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.

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Jurors and witnesses aren't supposed to be watching the news to avoid hearing about the going's on of the trial so how would they be affected by Trump talking to the media?

---

The jury is not sequestered and they live in the largest media market in the country. Do you really think they aren't being exposed to the news?

If they aren't actively avoiding it, they are violating their oaths and are legally compromised already.

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.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

If they aren't actively avoiding it, they are violating their oaths and are legally compromised already.

---

LOL there's about a .00001% chance they are actively avoiding news or social media coverage

Quote:

---

Pecker said the contract with Karen McDougal was signed the first week of August 2016.
Remember: American Media Inc agreed to pay McDougal $150,000 five months before the 2016 election for her silence about allegations of an affair with Trump, according to prosecutors. Trump has denied the affair.
This payment is not part of the charges against Trump, but prosecutors have said in court filings that the testimony would help establish a pattern of payments.

---

Quote:

---

After testifying that he had concerns about the legality of paying to kill a story concerning a political candidate, David Pecker elaborated that his concerns stemmed from a 2003 incident involving Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Pecker said that at the time, he was buying several fitness magazines, and added that he had a meeting with Schwarzenegger, who had been on the cover of the magazines between 70 and 80 times.
Pecker said Schwarzenegger wanted to be an editor-at-large, and also told him that he was going to run for California governor soon.
"I would like you not to publish any negative stories about me now or in the future," Pecker recalled Schwarzenegger telling him.
Pecker agreed, and shortly afterward, Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy on Jay Leno's show. Pecker testified that after the announcement, "a number of women" called in with stories about Schwarzenegger, including stories about alleged relationships and alleged sexual harassment.
"The deal that I had the agreement I should say that I had with Arnold was that I would call and advise him of any stories that were out there. I ended up buying them for a period of time," he said.
He explained that one of the women whose story was purchased ended up taking it to the Los Angeles Times after Pecker did not run it.
"It was very embarrassing for me and the company, and at the time, there was an investigation" by the state, Pecker said. Schwarzenegger had to resign as editor-at-large for the fitness magazines, he said.
Pecker added that the situation gave him pause to buy stories in the future.

---

Hmm. So Pecker had done that before.

Quote:

---

Steinglass is now showing an AMI invoice for $150,000 from Keith Davidson, McDougal's attorney.

---

An invoice?

Unfortunately likely to be true. Very difficult to have an uncompromised jury in a big case these days.

Quote:

---

This payment is not part of the charges against Trump, but prosecutors have said in court filings that the testimony would help establish a pattern of payments.

---

A pattern of payments, none of which, are illegal.

Quote:

---

Steinglass is asking whether Pecker had any intention of printing McDougal's story about Donald Trump.
"No, we did not," Pecker says.
Steinglass followed up, asking whether Pecker's intention was so that her story did not influence the 2016 election.
"Yes, it was," Pecker says.

---

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?

My biggest take away is that this is probably standard practice in media and the Democrats probably benefit even more from it.

AggieUSMC said:

---

Quote:

---

This payment is not part of the charges against Trump, but prosecutors have said in court filings that the testimony would help establish a pattern of payments.

---

A pattern of payments, none of which, are illegal.

---

Not only not illegal. A pattern of payments, as well as the testimony of previous stories involving others being squashed shows it's common practice and candidates trying to keep negative stories to a minimum about them is an action of every campaign that ever existed. The prosecution's point seems to be that any move by a candidate to improve their image would be "election interference". Probably Trump holding a rally in their view would be election interference.

Gyles Marrett said:

---

captkirk said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Still unclear, if confidently stated. pic.twitter.com/J1vmQgTlFB

— Byron York (@ByronYork) April 24, 2024

---

Not all conspiracies are illegal

---

By the definition of the word true, if referred to under conspiracy law it is. So in essence in legal proceedings if a "conspiracy" is referred to the meaning is an illegal one. Weird dynamic.

---

A conspiracy in the furtherance of an illegal act is, but where is the illegal act?

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

My biggest take away is that this is probably standard practice in media and the Democrats probably benefit even more from it.

---

Of course it is. How many times has the WH asked a news outlet to sit on a story? All of the time

Gyles Marrett said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Quote:

---

This payment is not part of the charges against Trump, but prosecutors have said in court filings that the testimony would help establish a pattern of payments.

---

A pattern of payments, none of which, are illegal.

---

Not only not illegal. A pattern of payments, as well as the testimony of previous stories involving others being squashed shows it's common practice and candidates trying to keep negative stories to a minimum about them is an action of every campaign that ever existed. The prosecution's point seems to be that any move by a candidate to improve their image would be "election interference". Probably Trump holding a rally in their view would be election interference.

---

Exactly. This is so ****ing dumb. Isn't running campaign adds the act of trying to influence elections?

captkirk said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

captkirk said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Still unclear, if confidently stated. pic.twitter.com/J1vmQgTlFB

— Byron York (@ByronYork) April 24, 2024

---

Not all conspiracies are illegal

---

By the definition of the word true, if referred to under conspiracy law it is. So in essence in legal proceedings if a "conspiracy" is referred to the meaning is an illegal one. Weird dynamic.

---

A conspiracy in the furtherance of an illegal act is, but where is the illegal act?

---

Agree that there isn't an illegal act....only point was that when the word conspiracy is mentioned in any legal statute it's referring to as you said, one in the furtherance of an illegal act.

Ofcourse, outside of the law world we could use the word in many realms. The pitcher and infielders conspired to pick the runner off with the hidden ball trick...toss them in prison!

Good Lord.

Quote:

---

Attorneys signaled that they will not be done with Pecker's testimony today.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said he had about two to three hours left. Trump attorney Emil Bove noted that there's "a lot more to come."
"We're not going to finish today," Bove said.
Judge Juan Merchan noted that he wasn't trying to rush Trump's side and they could have as much time as they wanted to cross.
Steinglass is resuming questioning of Pecker.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

My biggest take away is that this is probably standard practice in media and the Democrats probably benefit even more from it.

---

Of course it is. How many times has the WH asked a news outlet to sit on a story? All of the time

---

Interesting. I would imagine it would be likely to find a story regarding the current White House where someone has been paid for a story that never ran.

That is, if someone were inclined to dig for it....

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So, that's a "no."

---

So tha means you have zero idea what "election interference" means? Pretty generic term. Very ambiguous and vague. That violates due process notice of the specifics of the acts being criminalized. Makes its application unconstitutional.

---

By the way, Hawg, well done on dismantling whatever point AngelFlight was trying to make yesterday.

I see he went and crawled back under his rock today.

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.

jrdaustin said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

My biggest take away is that this is probably standard practice in media and the Democrats probably benefit even more from it.

---

Of course it is. How many times has the WH asked a news outlet to sit on a story? All of the time

---

Interesting. I would imagine it would be likely to find a story regarding the current White House where someone has been paid for a story that never ran.

That is, if someone were inclined to dig for it....

---

There are other types of consideration than just money. When one is atlking about the WH, that is access to the chosen leaks, for instance. A reporter's sources.

Go back to the Pentago Papers case. It was the Nixon WH asking WaPo not to publish asserting Executive Privilege and that the materials were stolen. WaPo was concerned not because of the potential for prosecution as much as having their sources dry up