David Pecker, the publisher of National Enquirer, is still testifying in the Trump hush money trial. I'm not sure how they've managed to fill up three days with Pecker—and that's before any cross examination—but they have. The New York Times tells us about a snippet of his testimony this morning:
Pecker has just given us a very detailed description of Jared Kushner walking him into Trump Tower, and then into Trump’s office, shortly before Trump's inauguration as president. In the office were four noteworthy people: James Comey, Sean Spicer, Reince Priebus and Mike Pompeo.
....Pecker says that in front of Comey, the head of the F.B.I., Trump thanked him for purchasing the stories — and likely committing at least one crime in the process, as Pecker well knew. It's of course not clear what Comey heard. But this is a wild, wild scene we are hearing about.
This is classic Trump: bragging about breaking the law in front of the head of the FBI because, hey, the guy works for me now and has to protect me. Also this:
Prosecutors ask David Pecker whether Trump was concerned about his wife or family finding out about his alleged affairs when he was campaigning for office. Pecker responds no. This suggests that Trump’s worries were electoral, not personal.
Pecker has already testified that the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels was "to help the campaign," but here the prosecution asks him again in more detail. Pecker is very clear: Trump didn't care about his family knowing about it. The concern was all about Trump's campaign.
This is crucial because it (potentially) makes the hush money effectively an unreported and covered-up campaign contribution. That's the underlying felony the prosecution is trying to prove.
Unless Hilary Clinton is involved Comey will say nothing.
That's because he only has two doors he can walk through: hide the truth, or tell the truth. (Why the third door of "follow DoJ standard procedure" doesn't exist, we leave for another discussion ...)
Finally, they can start calling it what it was all along, "the electoral interference case."
…just not Drum.
He’s complaining about 3 days of testimony, and we only got to this bombshell today. Lawyers need to reiterate the evidence like a good politician needs to hammer a message like “It’s the economy stupid” a million times for that one person not paying attention, the other one that forgot, and the last one that is only hearing about it for the first time. Drum doesn’t understand that fundamental fact and gets bored easily, because he pays more attention than the average voter or juror.
Unfortunately the campaign finance violation is a federal law. Bragg can't use that. What in the heck is Bragg even thinking with this prosecution. He can't even say clearly what crime he's prosecuting.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Trump convicted. But this case is a disaster from the get-go. There's a reason Bragg's predecessor and even the Feds chose not go here...
That calls for explanation. The New York business records law makes it a felony to make false business records for the purpose of concealing another crime. The New York law does not specify that the other crime must be an offence under New York law. My take is that the other crime may be a crime under New York law, federal law, the law of another state, or even the law of another country.
Given New York's status as, effectively, the financial center of the world, I would expect that the legislative intention was to give the law the most sweeping reach possible.
Sure. But: "for the purpose of concealing another crime" requires demonstrating that other crime? And Bragg can't prosecute hence demonstrate that other crime. So..."
Bragg's felony charge is based on a NYS state law, not federal law.
Confession: I read about this yesterday on a reputable site, but cannot find the article. Try Googling "Trump election interference New York State law" and stand back.
Also, I believe the SDNY's decision not to press charges was due to the Trump-appointed DA and being leaned on by Bill Burr.
Obviously we don't know exactly why the SDNY chose never to prosecute Donald Trump but that decision apparently preceded Trump's presidency by decades. There's a long list of possible crimes that Trump committed in the SDNY starting with many examples of serious tax fraud, Trump University, fraud against investors and bond holders of his casinos, and more.
Yet the SDNY has consistently given Trump a free ride for all of his many crimes even as they've taken actions to essentially protect him. For example, it was the SDNY that immunized Allen Weisselberg (Trump's underboss) and Pecker in an effort to punish Michael Cohen (but only after he'd turned on Trump). It seems to me that there's something rotten in that office and it definitely pre-dates Trump becoming president.
It’s Trumpland.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/fbi-leaks-hillary-clinton-james-comey-donald-trump
It would be nice if Garland steps down and Biden is the one to replace him, if the next AG can clean it up now that triage from the Trump Presidency should be over.
My understanding of the law in NY is that the predicate crime actually can be a federal offense in much the same way that, for example, murder can be a predicate crime for a RICO charge. I think any crime will do even if it can’t be prosecuted by NY.
Interestingly, this is the same crime for which Michael Cohen was convicted by the SDNY but for which Trump’s been given a series of passes. The first was when the SDNY didn’t try to prosecute him while he was president and the second was not prosecuting him after he left office. My guess is that Trump’s had lots of friends in that office who’ve been looking after him for decades. Rudy seems to have a guardian angel in that office, too.
But doesn't Bragg then have to prove that the predicate crime occurred?
I think you're misreading. According to the statute he is charged with:
There is nothing plainly written in it to distinguish between a federal or state crime. In fact, it doesn't state that the crime has to be identified. The central factor is mens rea and mens rea alone.
If Trump thought what he was doing was a crime (doesn't matter what crime but that he thought he might be doing something illegal, he would have tried to conceal it at least during the period prior to the election -- and that's exactly what he did.
The fact that outside of the courtroom, trump actually bragged that "he didn't even deduct this 'valid legal expense' on his taxes" strongly suggests that he was aware it was, at the very least, hinky. Considering he had a pattern of deducting any questionable expense, it looks even more likely he was trying to cover up the records falsification of the payoff as a "legal expense."
Others have noted that Bragg can in fact use a violation of Federal law. Also, New York state has its own election laws. Bragg has pointed to New York Election Law § 17-152, which states:
I’m not sure how Bragg plans to satisfy the “unlawful means” requirement of this statute.
Trump so clearly illegally interfered.
"Evil" does whatever it wants to do. "Good" feels obliged to give evil every benefit of the doubt. This also appears to be happening in Supreme Court arguments about presidential immunity today.
It is what it is, and I don't like what it is.
If you’re referring to the Republicans on the court, I don’t think they’re giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. I think they’re 100% in the tank for him and are looking for some way to save his bacon without dooming their party in November.
A very reasonable conclusion. In fact, the simplest conclusion that fully accounts for the facts.
They will release their decision at the last possible moment. I believe that Kevin had previously opined that SCOTUS would reject immunity by about 8-1 or 7-2. We will be lucky for a 5-4 decision.
They will probably send it back for lower courts to decide some irrelevant minutia so that can be appealed as well. Rinse and repeat!
Two thoughts on current news:
This week's David Pecker testimony is mind-blowing. The journalistic standards at the National Enquirer seem to be nonexistent. I'll find it hard to trust the Enquirer as a source of news ever again.
This news today on A.G. Sulzberger is mind-blowing. The journalistic standards at the New York Times seem to be nonexistent. I'll find it hard to trust the Times as a source of news ever again.
"I'll find it hard to trust the Enquirer as a source of news ever again."
I don't know if you wanted that to be funny, but it is.
At least he can still trust the Weekly World News.
Me, I think the Murdoch press is the only compass that reliably points South.
I think the comment by Joseph Harbin was meant to be ironic based on this:
“One Times staffer claimed that the paper’s publisher A.G. Sulzberger is to blame for hash coverage. From Politico: “‘All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,’ one Times journalist said. ‘It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.’””
https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/new-york-times-reporter-anonymously-linked-papers-publisher-its-coverage-bidens-age
I'm queasy about this case. It's in court as an illegal campaign contribution but on the front pages because of legal sex. I'd have much preferred to see Trump nailed on Russia, Ukraine or Jan. 6th. Something neat and clear, not something where lots of people will say okay he screwed around and okay he tried to cover it up, like Bill Clinton, so why didn't those Move On people move on already.
I haven’t noticed any coverage that dwells on the sex angle. There’s nothing new to say about that, so it’s not news.
I would have preferred to see either of Jack Smith’s cases going to trial now, because the documents case is a slam dunk, and the January 6 case is about a really serious crime.
Any thing that shows Trump to be a total piece of shit , I'm OK with. Frankly, I believe that the document case is likely to be the strongest one, though David Pecker appears to to be devastating witness. Lets see if he holds up under cross examination.
Seems that he couldn't give a shit if Melanoma found out out his affairs, since he only cared about his campaign. He must have a real iron clad pre nupe
Any thing that shows Trump to be a total piece of shit , I'm OK with.
I'm with you. This trial will do as good as any. In any case, it's the only one we're going to get.
Might have had an open marriage, at least as for him, and she might have either actively or tacitly agreed. Bill Cosby’s marriage come s to mind.
Will Trump's defense refer to Comey's nonchalance as evidence of innocence? Place your wagers.
And just when you thought Comey’s reputation could not get any lower. Obama owes an explanation (and apology) on now he picked this incompetent crook. As to the case itself, I have had my doubts on the felony charge (the misdemeanor is a slam dunk), but slowly but surely the DA is making what appears to be a solid case. Nevertheless, let’s see what the defense comes up with.
The misdemeanor isn't a slam dunk because the statute of limitations has run out.
I thought he meant falsifying business records misdemeanor. Has that past its "best before" date?
Hmm. I read Comey's book, and don't recall him describing this incident in the Defendant's golden tower. His book describes him as trying to avoid contact with the new president, as Justice Department regs required.
Either he didn't cover himself in glory there and was ashamed to admit to it -- or something darker.
I undertand the pleasure so many people take at the sight of Trump in court, but at the end of the day I doubt many voters care about this trial. If he's acquitted he'll be able to bellow about TOTAL VINDICATION and witch hunts and so on but it will all be so familiar nobody outside the cult will take much notice. And if he's convicted he'll appeal, and further proceedings will be stayed pending the hearing, which will be after the election. In the mean time most people will be thoroughly confused about how paying off an escort could constitute election interference, and tune out.
It doesn't seem confusing at all. He didn't ant the story to get out, so he bought her off and covered it up. Done and done.
In the mean time most people will be thoroughly confused about how paying off an escort could constitute election interference
Maybe. But it seems to me that it isn't even a bank shot. It can be explained in one rather simple sentence:
Trump paid off women because he did not want them to tell their stories of his sexual exploitation before the election.