|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Donald
J. Trump
is
expected
to be in
the
courtroom
during
opening
statements
in his
criminal
trial on
Monday.
Credit...Jefferson
Siegel
for T he
New York
Times |
| |
The
Trump
Trials:
Day Six
gets the
tabloid
treatment
By Perry
Stein,
and
Devlin
Barrett
washingtonpost.com
NEW YORK
- Today
in
Manhattan
criminal
court,
the
public
and
media
got an
oral
history
of
Donald
Trump’s
recent
social
media
posts,
with
prosecutors
reading
aloud
the
former
president’s
disparaging
comments
about
potential
witnesses
and the
jury
selection
process.
We also
saw the
judge
rebuke
Trump’s
lawyer.
And we
got a
window
into the
messy,
quid-pro-quo
world of
celebrity
gossip
tabloids.
The
Trump
Trials
newsletter
team was
in the
courthouse
Tuesday
to
report
on Day 6
of the
first
criminal
trial of
a former
American
president.
We’ll be
back
again on
Thursday
when
Trump’s
lawyers
are
expected
to
cross-examine
the
government’s
first
witness:
David
Pecker,
formerly
the head
of the
company
that
publishes
the
National
Enquirer.
Reminder:
New York
Supreme
Court
Justice
Juan
Merchan
will not
hold the
trial on
Wednesdays,
reserving
that day
each
week to
tend to
matters
in other
cases.
Here are
the
highlights
from the
day in
court:
(And
here’s a
primer
laying
out the
basics
of the
case.)
The
first 90
minutes
in the
courtroom
on
Tuesday
morning
were
spent
arguing
over
whether
Trump
had
violated
the
court-issued
gag
order,
which
bars him
from
attacking
witnesses,
prosecutors
or
family
members
of the
judge
and the
Manhattan
district
attorney.
The jury
was not
present
for the
hearing.
Prosecutors
said he
violated
it 10
times in
about a
week.
Trump’s
lawyer,
Todd
Blanche,
said the
former
president
is aware
of what
the gag
order
prohibits
him from
saying
and that
his
posts do
not
violate
the
order.
The
defense
lawyer
continued
that
Trump’s
postings
about
the
potential
witnesses
are in
response
to
political
attacks
against
him — an
assertion
that
didn’t
go over
well
with the
judge.
Merchan
did not
immediately
rule on
the
issue,
but it
appears
prosecutors
will win
this
point
(see
more on
this
below).
Prosecutors
said
they
want the
judge to
hold
Trump in
contempt
of court
and fine
him
$1,000
per
violation
— and to
remind
the
former
president
that
“incarceration
is an
option”
if he
continues
to
violate
the gag
order.
Merchan
was
frustrated
with
Blanche’s
tactics
and
arguments
before
the
trial
started.
On
Tuesday,
he grew
even
more
annoyed,
as
Blanche
argued
that
Trump’s
social
media
posts
about
potential
witnesses
and jury
selection
were
protected
political
speech
unrelated
to the
case.
Merchan
appeared
flabbergasted.
“You’re
losing
all
credibility
with the
court,”
he told
Blanche.
Throughout
the
gag-order
hearing,
Blanche
seemed
to avoid
giving
direct
answers
to the
judge’s
questions
and did
not
provide
legal
precedent
to
support
his
claims.
When the
judge
warned
Blanche
they
needed
to
conclude
the
hearing
soon,
the
lawyer
pushed
back and
said
prosecutors
got all
the time
they
needed.
“The
people,”
Merchan
replied,
“were
answering
my
questions.”
Prosecutors
revealed
more
about
their
unusual
strategy
Prosecutors
are
employing
an
unusual
legal
strategy
in this
case:
They are
attempting
to tie
the
alleged
doctoring
of
financial
records
to the
more
salacious
election-related
conspiracy
for
which
Trump is
not
facing
charges.
Under
state
law,
charging
Trump
with
simply
falsifying
business
records
would be
a
misdemeanor,
but
alleging
that the
falsification
was done
to
conceal
or
further
another
crime
makes it
a
felony.
(Trump
faces 34
felony
charges
in the
case.)
In the
Trump
case,
prosecutors
have
often
been
vague
about
what,
exactly,
is the
underlying
crime
that was
allegedly
being
concealed
or
furthered
in the
hush
money
case.
But on
Tuesday,
prosecutor
Joshua
Steinglass
said the
statute
in
question
is New
York
State
Election
Law
17-152 —
conspiracy
to
promote
or
prevent
an
election.
That law
makes it
a
misdemeanor
when two
or more
people
“conspire
to
promote
or
prevent
the
election
of any
person
to a
public
office
by
unlawful
means.”
Steinglass
said the
entire
prosecution
theory
“is
predicated
on the
idea
that
there
was a
conspiracy
to
influence
the
election
in
2016.”
The
National
Enquirer
went to
great
lengths
to help
get
Trump
elected
Pecker
spent
hours
testifying
Tuesday
about
his long
friendship
with the
former
president
and how
his
company
acted as
the
“eyes
and
ears”
for the
2016
Trump
campaign,
sniffing
out
potentially
scandalous
stories
about
the
presidential
election.
In turn,
Trump
stories
translated
to big
sales
figures
for the
tabloid.
The
government
alleges
Pecker
and the
National
Enquirer
repeatedly
paid
subjects
who
claimed
they had
scandalous
information
about
Trump
for the
rights
to their
stories
and then
never
published
anything
— a
tactic
known as
“catch
and
kill.”
That
tactic
was
apparently
employed
to
prevent
Stormy
Daniels’s
alleged
tryst
with
Trump
from
getting
out. The
government
hopes
Pecker’s
testimony
helps
illustrate
that
Trump
was
concerned
about
how
articles
about
his
alleged
relationship
with
Daniels
would
land
with
female
voters.
The
government
had not
finished
its
questioning
of
Pecker
when the
court
concluded
Tuesday
afternoon.
But
Pecker
did
testify
about
how
Trump
personally
got on
the
phone
with him
to
discuss
whether
to pay
off a
Playboy
model
who in
2016 was
shopping
around a
story of
having a
year-long
affair
with the
presidential
candidate.
“It’s my
understanding
she
doesn’t
want the
story to
be
published,”
Pecker
told
Trump.
“I think
the
story
should
be
purchased
[and] I
believe
you
should
buy it.”
Pecker
testified
that
Trump
said he
didn’t
like
that
idea and
that his
then-attorney,
Michael
Cohen,
would
get back
to him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I
HI TECH NEWS
I
SPORTS
I
