Trump Indicted by Manhattan District Attorney

[N.E. Brigand]

I forgot that in the 2016 recording that Michael Cohen made of himself and Donald Trump discussing payments to be made to "our friend David," i.e., David Pecker, the owner of the National Enquirer, that Trump said of Pecker, "Maybe he gets hit by a truck." (This was reported in 2018.) Mind you, Trump's point seems to have been that they needed something in place that was firmer than just Pecker's word so that any stories Pecker had caught-and-killed about Trump's affairs would be locked away even in the event of Pecker's demise. I don't think this is Trump wishing Pecker an early death. Although Trump may feel that way now, because:

David Pecker reportedly will be the first prosecution witness called tomorrow.

(Edited to correct typo.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I had not seen that but I now see that Maggie Hagerman tweeted that earlier today.



Will we be seeing at Truth Social posts about Pecket overnight?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm not seeing the word "conspiracy" in either of those documents.

And yet, the very first statement in the prosecutor Matthew Colangelo's opening statement was ""This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover up."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here is Trump's defense in a nutshell:



The problem with this is that there is abundant evidence (not just the word of convicted felon Michael Cohen) that this is not true. By making this argument, the defense risks it backfiring in the following way: if Trump is a penny-pinching businessman and yet still undeniably did make this reimbursement in this way it must have been for an important reason, e.g., to cover up the agreement made between Trump, Cohen and the amazingly well-named David Pecker to cover up damaging information before the election and conceal those illegal campaign contributions (and at the same time present false information to tax authorities, even if led to Cohen paying more in taxes, not less).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As Hugo Lowell says, here is the second prong of Trump's defense:



But it is not the non-disclosure agreement that was illegal, it was the false documents that covered up the non-disclosure agreement that were illegal, and the failure to report properly to election and tax authorities.

[N.E. Brigand]

Has there been any indication as to whether Donald Trump will testify in his own defense? If he does, here's what the judge ruled today that prosecutors may and may not ask him about his past interactions with the courts. They may ask him about (1) the recent civil fraud determination, (2) two contempt of court findings in that case, (3) both findings that Trump defamed E. Jean Carroll (by a judge and by a jury) and the first jury's award for defamation, and (4) the dissolution of the Trump Org. in response to the state's fraud claims. They may not ask him about (A) the jury finding Trump liable for sexual assault of Carroll, (B) the second jury's (very large) award for defaming Carroll, (C) sanctions against Trump for filing a frivolous lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, (D) the judge's determination in the Trump Foundation case that funds were indeed misused, and (E) the 2022 criminal conviction of the Trump Organization.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Trump insists that he is going to testify. In related news, there is a bridge for sale in Brooklyn (or oceanfront property in Kansas, if you prefer).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This Lawfare dispatch is worth watching, if only for Ben Wittes description of David Pecker, and his laugh.

[N.E. Brigand]

I had no idea that it costs reporters in the range of $1,300 per day to obtain New York court transcripts.

But the court today announced that in this case, the transcripts will be made available free to the public by the end of each next business day.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A reminder that the "star witness" is almost as awful as the defendant.



Two peas in a pod.

[N.E. Brigand]

A reminder that the "star witness" is almost as awful as the defendant. ... Two peas in a pod.

Agreed, but what's not quite clear from that post, nor previously mentioned in this thread, is that earlier this afternoon, Donald Trump made derogatory public statements about Cohen, almost certainly in violation of the gag order. But if Trump was hoping to goad Cohen into an intemperate response, he succeeded.

(In that post, Cohen references "attacks" but not that Trump did so today.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I meant to mention Trump's potential further violation of the gag order earlier, but didn't. I'm sure that the prosecutors will mention that at the hearing tomorrow, but I doubt that the judge will specifically address it (though maybe I am wrong).

[N.E. Brigand]

I assume the reason "this is not helpful for the DA" is that Donald Trump's attorneys can now try to enter this tweet into evidence, presumably during Michael Cohen's cross-examination, as evidence that Cohen is biased against Trump.

But doesn't that open the door for Cohen to explain why he tweeted that, and for him to specifically mention that Trump publicly attacked his character today? Doesn't it open the door for Cohen to mention the gag order and how Trump violated it?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No. Cohen doesn't just get to decide what he can and cannot say, that is up the judge and Trump's violation of the gag order would more likely be relevant to impeaching Trump's own testimony (if he did testify) rather than justifying Cohen's name-calling. Anyway, saying "I'm sleazeball because he was a sleazeball first" wouldn't make Cohen look any better. In any event, I'm not sure that Kreis thinks that Trump's team will enter that tweet into evidence. I think that he is probably just disgusted with the petty, infantile levels that the players in this sordid affair stoop to, just as I am.

[N.E. Brigand]

I hear you. That said, Anthony Kreis later said of his concern with Michael Cohen's post: "It’s not about decorum. It’s about giving unnecessary new impeachment material." So it would seem that Kreis was considering the possibility of Donald Trump's lawyers asking Cohen about this tweet. I assume they would keep it simple: "Mr. Cohen, did you tweet [insert text] on April 22, 2024?" And, while I understand that that the District Attorney's office would surely be happier if Cohen had not tweeted that, if Trump's team does ask Cohen about it, I'm wondering whether it would or would not be advisable for prosecutors to ask Cohen on redirect, "Mr. Cohen, why did you tweet that?"

[Voronwë the Faithful]

He also said

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This pretty much sums up the gag order hearing so far.

[Sunsilver]

Well, apparently there's a good reason Cohen picked that particular name for Trump (ShitzInPantz)!
Others who've worked closely with Trump in the past confirm this is a problem, too:

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Personally I would prefer not to have that kind of reporting here.

[Sunsilver]

I did think twice about posting it, but finally did so because I think it's karma for Trump followers who have long been saying (without a shred of evidence) that Biden has incontinence problems due to his supposed dementia.