NEW YORK (AP) — The former publisher of the National Enquirer testified Thursday at Donald Trump’s hush money trial about going to nice lengths to lend a hand protect his previous buddy from probably harmful tales the use of a catch-and-kill scheme prosecutors allege amounted to interference within the 2016 presidential marketing campaign.
At the similar time, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a special prison topic involving Trump, who has claimed that he will have to be immune from prosecution over his efforts to opposite his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden.
What to find out about Trump’s hush money trial:
Trump requested to skip his New York prison lawsuits for the day so he may sit down in at the top courtroom’s particular consultation, the place the justices seemed more likely to reject his declare. But it appeared conceivable Trump may nonetheless take pleasure in a long trial lengthen, most likely past November’s election.
His request to visit Washington was once denied through Judge Juan M. Merchan, who’s overseeing Trump’s trial on 34 prison counts of falsifying trade data in reference to hush money bills.
Former President Donald Trump sits on the protection desk whilst David Pecker, proven at the video display screen, testifies about Karen McDougal in Manhattan prison courtroom, Tuesday, April 23, 2024, in New York. (Elizabeth Williams by means of AP)
“I think the Supreme Court has a very important argument before it today,” Trump stated out of doors the court. “I should be there.”
Adding to the previous president’s felony woes, his former attorneys and colleagues had been indicted Wednesday in a 2020 election-related scheme in Arizona. And a New York judge rejected a request for a new trial in a defamation case that found Trump liable for $83.3 million in damages. The hush money case also includes a looming decision on whether he violated a gag order.
Trump has maintained he is not guilty of any of the charges. In New York, he says the stories that were bought and squelched were false.
“There is no case here. This is just a political witch hunt,” he said before court in brief comments to reporters.
Jurors heard from David Pecker, the longtime head of the tabloid, who described shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy up rights to potentially damaging stories for Trump, some in secret moves meant to avoid scrutiny from colleagues.
Trump watched intently as his friend spoke from the witness stand.
Pecker explained how he and his publication parlayed rumor-mongering into splashy stories that smeared Trump’s opponents and, just as crucially, leveraged his connections to suppress seamy stories about Trump, including a porn actor’s claim of an extramarital sexual encounter years earlier.
His testimony was a critical building block for the prosecution’s theory that the partnership was a way to illegally influence the election. Prosecutors are seeking to elevate the gravity of the history-making first trial of a former American president and the first of four criminal cases against Trump to reach a jury.
As Pecker testified in a calm, cooperative tone about risque tales and secret dealings, the atmosphere in the utilitarian 1940s courtroom was one of quiet attentiveness. Court officers warned audience members not to talk or make any noise.
He also testified that he put his foot down on additional payments after the magazine was $180,000 in the hole for Trump-related transactions. The publication bought up a sordid tale from a New York City doorman and purchased accusations of an extramarital affair with a former Playboy model in order to prevent the claims from getting out elsewhere.
The breaking point for Pecker came with Stormy Daniels, the porn actor who was eventually paid by Cohen to keep quiet over her claim of a 2006 sexual encounter with Trump. The ex-president denies it happened.
Pecker recalled to the jury that he was dining with his wife, the night after the public learned of the infamous 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump discussed grabbing women sexually without asking permission, when then-editor Dylan Howard called with an urgent matter.
Howard said he heard from Daniels’ representatives that she was trying to sell her story and that the tabloid could acquire it for $120,000 if it decided right away, Pecker told jurors.
Pecker was tapped out and later told Cohen so.
“I am not paying for this story. I didn’t want to be involved in this from the beginning,” he said he told Cohen.
At the same time, Pecker advised that someone — just not him — should do something to prevent the story from going public. “I said to Michael, ‘My suggestion to you is that you should buy the story and you should take it off the market because if you don’t and it gets out, I believe the boss will be very angry with you.’”
The 12-person panel watched attentively, with some appearing to take notes. Pecker also recalled receiving a telephone call from Trump during the tabloid’s pursuit of former Playboy model Karen McDougal’s claims of an extramarital affair with Trump.
In other developments, prosecutors also argued Thursday that Trump had again violated a gag order. Merchan was already considering whether to hold Trump in contempt and fine him for what prosecutors say were 10 different violations of the order that barred the GOP leader from making public statements about witnesses, jurors and others connected to the case. Then the prosecution ticked off fresh instances of suspected breaches.
Assistant District Attorney Christopher Conroy pointed to additional remarks that Trump made about Cohen, a key prosecution witness when talking to reporters outside the courtroom and in other interviews. He also noted a comment Trump made about the jury being composed of “95 percent Democrats,” among other things.
Trump was dismissive about the looming decision. When asked by reporters if he would pay the $1,000 fine for each of 10 posts if he so ordered, he replied, “Oh, I have no idea.” He then said, “They’ve taken my constitutional right away with a gag order.”
A conviction by the jury in the hush money probe would not preclude Trump from becoming president again, but because it is a state case, he would not be able to pardon himself if found guilty. The charge is punishable by up to four years in prison — though it’s not clear if the judge would seek to put him behind bars.
In Washington, the Supreme Court is moving faster than usual in taking up the Trump case, though not as quickly as special counsel Jack Smith sought after. The courtroom’s tempo has raised questions on whether or not there will probably be time to carry an ordeal earlier than the November election, if the justices trust decrease courts that Trump will also be prosecuted.
Though fully separate circumstances, the lawsuits had been jumbled in in a single large felony and political puzzle that had implications no longer only for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee however for the American presidency writ huge.
In each circumstances, Trump is making an attempt to get himself out of felony jeopardy as he makes every other bid for the White House. But the end result of the Supreme Court case can have lasting implications for long term presidents, since the justices will probably be answering the never-before-asked query of whether or not and to what extent does a former president experience immunity from prosecution for habits speculated to contain respectable acts throughout his time in place of business.
___
Long reported from Washington. Associated Press author Michelle L. Price contributed to this file.