2/ Klasfeld:

"All rise."

Justice Juan Merchan enters the courtroom and goes to the bench.

📌He announces that the next hearing on the latest alleged #GagOrder violations has been rescheduled for Thursday.📌

Merchan:

Trial will break today at 1 p.m. ET.

3/ Klasfeld:

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass addresses an issue where cross-ex left off yesterday: improper impeachment.

Trump's lawyer Emil Bove suggested that Pecker shifted his story on seeing Hope Hicks at the Trump Tower meeting in 2015.

Bove handed Pecker a doc that didn't say that.

Bove says he will address it at the start of cross ex today.

4/ Inner City Press (aka Press):

Prosecutor Steinglass: Is the Court going to instruct jurors about what we view as yesterday's improper impeachment by omission?
Trump's lawyer Bove: I intend to begin with Mr Pecker by apologizing
Prosecutor: We want an instruction. The Court has been reasonable

5/ Press:

Steinglass: I'd also like the jurors to be instructed about redactions... Next, whether intentional or unintentional, Mr. Bove improperly conflated the Federal and State prosecutors - when it's unclear, I'll object.
Justice Merchan: That will be fine.

6/ NOTE: If reporters typo, I copy/paste regardless

Press:

[Pecker takes stand; jurors file in]
Merchan: Jurors, yesterday you heard testimony about the prosecution speaking with the witness before testimony. That's permitted by law. Mr. Bove?

Trump's lawyer Bove: Yesterday we spoke about a meeting with prosecutors, about Hope Hicks - but it was the Federal prosecutors. If I'm unclear, I'm sure Mr. Steinglass will raise it. But you may to. Now on Hope Hicks, I asked if she was in the meeting

7/ More from Klasfeld on that:

Justice Merchan instructs the jury that the law "permits" prosecutors to speak to witnesses before trial.

It's a "normal part" of preparing for trial, "as long as it's not suggested that the witness depart" from saying the truth.

Bove begins cross-ex.

As promised before the proceedings began, Bove apologizes to Pecker for the "confusion" in his question about seeing Hope Hicks.

8/ Katie Phang:

Pecker confirms that Hicks was in and out of the August 2015 meeting, but she did not participate or speak during the meeting.

9/ Mini #WompWomp

Klasfeld:

Bove questions Pecker more about Hope Hicks, and his meeting with federal prosecutors on July 2018.

When Bove gets close to the same territory that got him in trouble on Thursday, prosecutors object.

Sustained.

10/ Press:

Trump's lawyer Bove: Before the August 2015 meeting, the National Enquirer was already running negative articles about Bill and Hillary Clinton, right?
Pecker: Yes.
Bove: So it was mutually beneficial?
Prosecutor: Objection!
Justice Merchan: Sustained

11/ Klasfeld:

Pecker agrees w Bove's suggestions that running the stories was beneficial to AMI — & standard op procedure.

Bove: You ran stories against Ben Carson, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, without much new content, right?
Pecker: I'd have to look at them.
Bove: The National Enquirer repackage information already out there - it's efficient, right?
Pecker: Yes.
Klasfeld:

Q: There's already negative public info in public domain about Ben Carson & you ran it in Nat Enquirer.

A: Yes

12/ They’re showing visuals of NatEnq covers.

Press:
Trump's lawyer Bove: Because it was cost efficient, you would have run those articles whether or not you discussed it with President Trump, right?
Pecker: Correct.
Bove: This malpractice allegations against Dr. Carson

Klasfeld:

Bove shows all of the negative headlines about Ben Carson. The defense attorney notes that The Guardian reported on malpractice claims about Carson.

Pecker agrees.

13/ Klasfeld:

Bove shows Pecker an exhibit of The Guardian article where the photo of the child in the above screenshot originally ran.

14/ (exhibits are being shown of other covers)

Press:

Trump's lawyer Bove: That photo on the top, of the child, is actually recycled, right?
Pecker: Correct.
Bove: And the Carson West Point scholarship story, also recycled?
Pecker: Yes.
Bove: Same with these Marco Rubio stories?

15/ Klasfeld:

Bove shows Pecker this passage from a WSJ article:

"Since last year, the Enquirer has supported Mr. Trump's presidential bid, endorsing him and publishing negative articles about some of his opponents.'

He appears to suggest the public knew about the tabloid's support.

Pecker confirms that neither Trump nor Cohen ever paid him any money for either the Sajudin or McDougal stories.

16/ Phang:

Bove asks Pecker about his desire to keep the Aug 2015 meeting confidential. Pecker confirms he wanted to keep it “as quiet as possible" but it actually became public prior to the election that AMI was doing these things for Trump.

17/ Press:

Trump's lawyer Bove: You had a source agreement with Dino Sajudic, right?
Pecker: Yes.
Bove: This is a standard AMI document, correct?
Pecker: It is.
Bove: You compared the doorman's story [of a Trump love-child] to the death of Elvin Presley, you sold 6.5 million

18/ Klasfeld:

Trump's attorney pivots to Sajudin's story.

Q: If this story was true, it was worth a lot of money, right?
A: Yes.

Pecker agrees with Bove's characterization that it would have been the "biggest National Enquirer story ever."

Context:

Pecker also testified during direct examination that, even if it was verified, the Enquirer would have sat on the story until after the election.

19/ Klasfeld:

Pecker agrees that Sajudin threatened to sell the story elsewhere, and that affected the sky-high price tag on the story.

Trump's lawyer suggests that Pecker signed the deal because he believed there was a small possibility that it was true.

Q: You could not walk away from that possibility, however small that might be?

Pecker agrees.

20/ Klasfeld:

Bove tells Pecker that Karen McDougal did not want to publish her story, but rather to restart her career.

Pecker agrees.

21/ Phang: #WompWomp.

JUST NOW: During his cross of Pecker, Trump's defense attorney, Emil Bove, has been repeatedly referring to Trump as "President Trump" when referencing periods of time when Trump was not in office.

The DA's office keeps objecting and Judge Merchan keeps sustaining those objections.

22/ Press:

Bove: What do you remember about the call?
Pecker: I was in Chatham, NJ - Mr. Trump's call was transferred there. Mr. Trump said, I spoke to Michael, I want to talk to you about Karen McDougal. Is it true there's a Mexican group with $8 million?

23/ Klasfeld:

Bove tries to complicate Pecker's story about Trump's phone call about Karen McDougal.

During the case, Pecker said Trump asked whether a Mexican group wanted to buy it for $8 mil. Pecker dispelled the rumor, but told him to buy it

But Bove elicits another detail.

Pecker agrees that he recalls telling Trump: "It is my understanding that [McDougal] doesn't want her story published."

Defense likely will use the concession to suggest there wasn't a motive to catch/kill her acct

24/ Press (re: $8 mil)

Pecker: I told him I doubted that. I told him he should take the story off the market.. He said he'd talk to Michael and they'd get back to me.
Trump's lawyer Bove: Did you tell him that she didn't really want her story published.
Pecker (after a pause) I did.

Bove: Didn't Chatham get sued?
Pecker: Yes.

25/ Press:

Bove: Didn't you discuss Michael Cohen getting a job, you discussed it with Chatham Assets?
Pecker: Yes.
Bove: You were also talking with Michael Cohen about him [Cohen] going to work for Mark Cuban?👀

Bove: You discussed with Michael Cohen getting paparazzi to take photos of Cohen leaving a meeting with Mark Cuban, to put pressure on Mr. Trump-
Pecker: Michael Cohen never said that to me.
Bove: But that would have been the photos' effect?
A: Yes

26/ Klasfeld:

Re-up:

Pecker's testimony on this conversation from Thursday. Trump repeated the rumor about the purported $8M offer from a Mexican group.

Pecker didn't believe it, but he told Trump to pay (much less) for it.👇🏼

Apr 25
Pecker says that Trump told him about McDougal:

"Karen is a nice girl. Is it true that a Mexican group is trying to buy the story for $8 million?"

Pecker says he didn't believe it.

27/ Klasfeld:

Bove flags the portion of McDougal's licensing agreement focusing on her career.

She negotiated:

* a monthly column in Star
* a monthly column in Ok
* four posts a month in Radar online
* posing for covers on Men's Fitness and Muscle & Fitness Hers

... and more.

The subtext is clear:

McDougal was focused on her career, not actually telling her story, the defense suggests.

28/ NOTE: Pausing while I go about my a.m. routine.

I’ll catch you up when I return. Sorry, but I’m in Calif and the time difference always messes with my coverage.

29/ I'm back. I'll use Katie Phang's posts to catch you up. They're concise but thorough:

Pecker confirms that he consulted a campaign/election law attorney and AMI general counsel before entering into the agreement with Karen McDougal and he told Cohen that he believed the agreement was "bulletproof."

30/ Phang:

Bove begins to cross Pecker about his January 2017 meeting with Trump. Reince Priebus, Mike Pompeo, Sean Spicer, and FBI Director James Comey were present. Rhona Graff was also present.
BOVE: You know following that meeting there were issues between President Trump and James Comey"
The prosecution objects and after a sidebar, the objection is 👉🏼sustained by Judge Merchan.

31/ Phang:

Now Bove tries to impeach Pecker's memory and perhaps his credibility by asking him about his testimony yesterday when he said that Trump thanked him for "handling the McDougal situation" and the “doorman story, the doorman situation.”

32/ Phang:

Bove crosses Pecker and says that the FBI's notes of Pecker's meeting in 2018 with prosecutors do not reflect Trump telling Pecker those statements.
Pecker: "I know what I testified to. I know what I remember. This is going back to 2018...I can't reconcile what the FBI's report says."

A brief recess...Bove has about an hour left of cross and then the prosecution will be able to do its Redirect Examination of Pecker.

33/ Phang:

Bove's cross of Pecker resumes. He is now asking about when the FBI seized his phone.
Pecker: They came to my home, it was April 9, 2018, and they gave me a search warrant and they took my phone.

Pecker met with the FBI a few times after that event.
Eventually AMI entered into a Non Prosecution Agreement with the Government in 2018.

34/ Via Politico's reporter:

Bove is grilling Pecker about AMI's non-prosecution deal with the SDNY.

He's showing jurors AMI had proposed deal to selll titles contingent on the fed investigation being settled.

Hence why Bove did not object the non-pros coming in yesterday

35/ All caught up now. Press:

Trump's lawyer Bove: There was a proposed transaction with the Hudson News Group?
Pecker: To acquire the National Enquirer and the two other tabloids.
Bove: To try to finalize it, you had to clear up the investigation, right?
Pecker: Yes.

36/ Press:

Trump's lawyer Bove: Yesterday you said AMI admitted to a campaign finance violation - but there's no violation in this agreement, correct?

37/ Klasfeld:

Jurors typically have not glanced at anyone at the defense and prosecution tables — eyes straight forward — as they processed to the jury box.

Bove turns to Pecker's meetings with prosecutors.

Pecker pushes back at Trump's lawyers suggestion that the meetings were "stressful," but he acknowledges that he wanted it to be over as soon as possible.

38/ Klasfeld:

The defense displays AMI's non-prosecution agreement with SDNY.

Bove suggests that there were problems with the company's assets at the time. There were discussions with the Hudson News Group to acquire the National Enquirer.

39/ Klasfeld:

Q: You knew that to consummate that deal, you had to finalize the investigations, correct?
A: Yes, uh... (pause) yes.

Pecker concedes that put some pressure on the negotiations.

"From the tabloid's standpoint, that would have added on to the stress of the transaction," he says.

40/ Klasfeld:

Pecker, sounding more hesitant than usual, notes the transaction could have closed subject to the investigations being completed.

"There was no drop dead date, that it had to be completed by a certain time," he notes.

Q: If AMI had been indicted, that would have affected the value of its assets?
A: Uh, yes.

41/ Klasfeld:

Prompted by Trump's lawyer, Pecker notes that AMI was never charged or prosecuted.

Yesterday, Pecker testified: "We admitted to a campaign violation."

But Bove notes "there is no violation in this agreement."

"In this agreement, no," Pecker says.

Bove highlights the passage of the non-prosec agreement stating the federal government "will not criminally prosecute" AMI.

Asked whether there's an admission to a campaign financial violation in the agreement, Pecker answers: "No."

42/ LOL, from a few minutes ago, via Norm Eisen:

Trump just pointed at me and scowled as he left the courtroom

I guess he's not a fan

43/ Earlier, via Emptywheel:

This bid to get an argument about advice of counsel in through Pecker (so he doesn't have to put Trump on the stand to make the claim) may not work out how Bove wants, given there are two lawyers on the jury.

Klasfeld:

Bove asks a string of questions about Pecker relying on the advice of his lawyers, sparking two objection from the prosecution table.

Both sustained.

44/ Lisa Rubin:

The cross examination of David Pecker continues--and it is tense. But one moment made me giggle inside.

Pecker was asked whether AMI provided its 2018 non-prosecution agreement with DOJ to its lenders and insurers, reminding Pecker that financial institutions are entitled to information that could impact their assessment of a borrower's or insured's creditworthiness.

The irony of a Trump lawyer lecturing a witness about this, mos after civil fraud trial, is not lost on me.

45/ Klasfeld:

Trump's lawyer pushes Pecker to say that he didn't understand money to be part of the Trump Tower meeting agreement.

But Pecker pushes back:

👉🏼"There was a discussion that I was going to be the eyes and ears of the campaign," including notifying Cohen of women selling stories.

Pecker suggests the latter led to the payoffs to the women.

A long sidebar conference follows.

After it ends, Bove asks Pecker about his meeting with the Manhattan DA's office in October 2019.

46/ Bower:

Are you testifying *now* that there *was* a financial component discussed during the Aug. 15 meeting? Bove asks Pecker.

It's another effort by the defense to portray Pecker as an unreliable narrator.

But the question elicits an objection, which Merchan sustains.

47/ Klasfeld: NOTE: KLASFELD CORRECTED THIS. I POSTED IN NUMBER 52 IN THIS THREAD.

Bove picks apart a hairsplitting detail from notes from the meeting. They record Pecker talking about "women purchasing stories," but Trump's lawyer notes Pecker said "women selling stories."

Pecker notes that "selling" and "purchasing" mean the same thing.

48/ Klasfeld:

Bove indignantly asks about Pecker's testimony that Michael Cohen told him Trump had former AG Jeff Sessions "in his pocket."

The attorney says it shows Cohen is "prone to exaggeration."

49/ Press:

Trump's lawyer Bove: You claim Michael Cohen told you, Trump has Jeff Session in his pocket - but you were still concerned, right?
Pecker: I was.
Bove: Because President Trump did *not* have Jeff Session in his pocket, correct?
Prosecution: Objection!
Sustained.

50/ Klasfeld:

The attorney says it shows Cohen is "prone to exaggeration."

The line from Trump's attorney sparked an objection, which was initially overruled, until prosecutors asked for a sidebar.

After the huddle, Bove moved on to another topi

51/ Press:

Trump's lawyer Bove: AMI entered into a conciliation agreement with the FEC, right?
Pecker: I was no longer with AMI by then.
Bove: Bu you were a consultant to AMI, correct?
Pecker: I was.
Bove What did that entail.
Pecker, Being available to the new CEO

52/ Klasfeld:

Correction:

Bove picks apart a hairsplitting detail from notes from the meeting. The discrepancy is whether Pecker said AMI was "buying" or "purchasing" accounts of "women selling stories."

Pecker notes that "buying" and "purchasing" mean the same thing.

The detail was a bit too fine-tuned for this under-caffeinated reporter during the Friday session.

I deleted and corrected earlier tweets botching the quotation.

53/ Press:

Trump's lawyer Bove: You suggested to the FEC that the Washington Post had suppressed information about Paula Jones in the 1996 election, right?
Prosecutor: Objection!
Justice Merchant: Sustained.

Trump's lawyer Bove: You found that the boxes in Florida were worthless, that there is no secret trove of documents about Donald Trump at the National Enquirer?
Pecker: Right. The boxes were worthless.
Bove: Nothing further.
Justice Merchan: Redirect

54/ Press:

Prosecutor Steinglass: You testified that prior to signing the contract with Ms. McDougal, you spoke with counsel about it, right?
Pecker: I did.
Steinglass: But you never told the outside counsel about your meeting at Trump Tower, yes?
Pecker: I did not

55/ Klasfeld:

The prosecutor asks about McDougal's contract & Pecker's testimony that its "true purpose" was to smother her story.

Pecker agrees w prosecutor's statement that purpose of the provisions about McDougal's career was to estab "plausible deniability."

Steinglass shows Pecker this provision of AMI's non-prosec agreement.

"AMI's principal purpose into entering into the agreemt was to suppress the model's story so as to prevent it from influencing the election."

Pecker agrees: true

56/ Press:

Prosecutor Steinglass: Was it your purpose in entering the contract with Ms. McDougal to kill her story, to influence the election?
Pecker: Yes.
Steinglass: Did you tell counsel that Michael Cohen had said he would reimburse you?
Pecker: I did not

57/ Klasfeld:

Steinglass asks Pecker about his subsequently abandoned plan to assign Karen McDougal's life rights to Michael Cohen.

This exhibit from yesterday memorializes the plan, which was to be executed through Cohen's shell company Resolution Consultants LLC.

58/ Klasfeld:

As the exhibit shows, the deal was signed, but Pecker says he pulled out of the plan after meeting with AMI's general counsel.

Steinglass prompts the witness to agree that assigning McDougal's story to Cohen wasn't in McDougal's contract.

59/ Press:

Steinglass: How much time did outside counsel bill AMI for for reviewing the Karen Douglas contract?
Pecker: Half an hour.
Steinglass: While you initially denied the violation, you did eventually settle with the FEC, right?
Pecker: Yes.

60/ Klasfeld:

ADA Steinglass: Was it your understanding that when AMI entered into this agreement that AMI admitted that the conduct that it admitted 👉🏼violated federal election law?

Pecker: Yes.

Press:

Prosecutor Steinglass: So did you and AMI admit that you 👉🏼violated campaign finance laws?
Trump's lawyer Bove: I object - asked and answered.
Justice Merchan: 👉🏼Overruled. Do you want to approach?
[Whispered sidebar ensues]

61/ Klasfeld:

The prosecutor returns to AMI's agreement with doorman Dino Sajudin, asking Pecker about whether it was the company's "standard" agreement to lock up a source.

Pecker said on cross-ex, and now, that it was standard.

But it was amended, the prosecutor notes.

Q: Is it standard for AMI to be consulting with a presidential candidate's fixer about amendments about a source agreement?

A: No.

62/ Press:

Prosecutor Steinglass: Apologies Mr Pecker, even I don't remember what the question was... You testified you formulated a plan to sell Ms. McDougal's life right to Mr. Cohen - but did you then speak with AMI's general counsel?
Pecker: Yes. Then I said, Deal is off

Prosecutor Steinglass: AMI's agreement with Ms. McDougal was amended, right?
Pecker: Yes.
[Trial exhibit shown]

63/ Phang's take:

PECKER: YES, the actual purpose was to acquire lifetime rights [of Karen McDougal] so it was not published by any other news organization STEINGLASS: Did you tell AMI General Counsel “That the true purpose of the contract that he was asking the outside contract to review, was to influence the election?” PECKER: “No.”

64/ Phang:

👉🏼The prosecution emphasizing for the jury that AMI agreed for purposes of the conciliation agreement that the McDougal payment constituted an unlawful corporate, in-kind contribution in violation of federal election law.

STEINGLASS: And you only entered into the agreement in the first place because Michael Cohen agreed to pay you back?
PECKER: That’s correct

65/ Phang:

STEINGLASS: After that and before money changed hands did you communicate with General Counsel Cam Stratcher, what became of your plan to transfer Karen McDougal's life rights to Donald Trump? PECKER: After that conversation, I called Michael Cohen and told him the deal was off and to rip up the agreement.

66/ Klasfeld:

The amended agreement added a $1 million liquidated damages clause.

Asked if that was "standard," Pecker answers no.

Asked why he added it then, Pecker says it was at Cohen's request.

Pecker testifies that he was aware of Cohen's activities on behalf of the Trump campaign, even though he insisted he wasn't a part of it.

67/ Klasfeld:

The prosecutor turns to Pecker's testimony that AMI had been involved with "hundreds of thousands" of NDAs.

👉🏼Asked how many of those NDAs involved coordinating with the campaign of a presidential candidate, Pecker replies it's the only one.

68/ Klasfeld:

Prosecutor: "Why did AMI spend money to silence [Arnold] Schwartzenegger's accusers?"

Pecker responds that Schwartzenegger was critical to the bodybuilding industry, as well as the supplement industry, and two of their magazines.

69/ Press:

👉🏼Prosecutor Steinglass: Were there any other instances in which a Presidential candidates' fixer coordinated with you on NDA?
Pecker: No.
Steinglass: On Tiger Woods, you suppressed to get an interview. 👉🏼Here, did you support to influence an election?
A: Yes

70/ Klasfeld:

The defense latched onto this testimony to suggest that AMI's conduct was standard operating procedure, but Steinglass has Pecker point out the differences.

Schwartzenegger benefited AMI's bottom line, and the episode familiarized it with the campaign-finance repercussions.

71/ Klasfeld:

Steinglass notes that Pecker did not use the phrase "catch and kill," but the prosecutor prompts the witness to explain what he agreed to do about "women selling stories" at that Trump Tower meeting.

Pecker's answer describes the process for quashing the stories.

72/ Klasfeld (this one precedes the above one, sorry):

Steinglass notes that Pecker was friends with Trump.

Before the Trump Tower meeting in August 2015, AMI did not institutionally attack Trump's political rivals, and Pecker never acted as his "eyes and ears."

73/ Press:

Steinglass: What was your understanding of the part of the agreement that involved $?
Pecker: It was my understanding that, like with Mr. Schwarzenegger years before, I would be on the lookout for stories for sale. Here, I'd tell Michael Cohen
Steinglass: How would you describe the overlap between your tabloid readership and Trump's base?
Pecker: Our research found that the audience of celeb magazines loved to read positive stories about Trump. Also negative stories about opponents

74/ Press:

Steinglass: Would a story about a former Playboy model having a year-long sexual relation with a President candidate who was married, would that have sold magazines?
Pecker: Uh, yes.
Steinglass: It would have been National Enquirer gold, right?

75/ Lisa Rubin:

The Trump trial just broke for lunch, but the last thing elicited was a great moment for the prosecution: that despite the Enquirer's benefiting from positive stories about Trump, it was against its interest to bury McDougal's story, which was "Enquirer gold."