5 takeaways from Trump’s first full week on trial in New York

The first criminal trial against a former president has reached the end of its first week, and there was plenty of drama along the way.

The jurors who will decide former President Trump’s fate include former magazine executive David Pecker, longtime Trump aide Lorna Graf, and a previously little-known banking figure, Gary. I heard from Mr. Faro.

President Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The charges stem from a $130,000 payment made by Trump’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen to adult actress Stormy Daniels in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign. ing.

The money, which was later refunded to Mr. Cohen in the amount of $420,000, was intended to silence Ms. Daniels’ claims that she had had a sexual relationship with Mr. Trump a decade ago.

Prosecutors argue that the way the reimbursements to Mr. Cohen were accounted for were intended to hide the true nature of the payments.

President Trump has denied any wrongdoing and has denied having sex with Daniels. According to his interpretation, the $420,000 paid in installments to Mr. Cohen was the rightful legal recipient.

Here are the main takeaways from the first week of the full court proceedings:

Former tabloid king goes to court

This week’s proceedings were led by David Pecker, formerly the publisher of the National Enquirer and CEO of American Media.

Mr. Pecker testified on each of the four days the court was in session. When Pecker, now 72, finally finished his testimony on Friday, court reporters said he looked tired.

At the heart of Pecker’s testimony was the concept of “catch and kill.” This phrase refers to the act of paying for an article for the purpose of canceling it rather than publishing it.

Mr. Pecker detailed how the Enquirer did this for two people other than Daniels.

One was former Trump Tower doorman Dino Sajudin, who claimed to know that Trump had fathered a child with a woman who was not his wife. Pecker and Enquirer reporters came to believe that Sajudin’s story was not true.

The second is former Playboy model Karen McDougall, who claims to have had an affair with Trump. The former president denies this.

Mr. Pecker testified that the deal was made because he believed that if the allegations became public, it would hurt his friend Mr. Trump’s presidential hopes.

He said tabloids published negative articles about Trump’s rivals in the 2016 Republican nomination race, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Ben Carson. He testified that the purpose was to support Trump.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that many of these decisions could have been made by Mr. Pecker or the tabloid publishers. Mr. Trump was an excellent newsstand salesman at the time.

Team Trump also hinted that Pecker’s testimony may have been tainted because American Media reached a non-prosecution agreement with the Justice Department in 2018.

The big question: election interference?

At the heart of the case against Trump are two intertwined issues.

One is whether the records regarding the payments to Mr. Cohen were false.

Even if a jury reaches such a conclusion, this is usually a misdemeanor rather than a felony.

Felony convictions typically rely on suspicion of falsifying business records as part of another crime.

Prosecutors allege that the new charges, although not indicted, are related to election interference.

The summary of the argument is that the payments were hidden as part of Trump’s presidential campaign, but not simply to avoid personal embarrassment. Therefore, prosecutors allege, the payments to silence Daniels had the effect of hiding information from voters that they would otherwise have known.

Trump’s team is pushing back against the whole story.

The picture of the battle was laid out clearly at the beginning of the week.

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said Monday that President Trump’s actions were “election fraud, pure and simple.”

Todd Blanche, President Trump’s chief lawyer, countered by saying, “There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence elections. That’s what we call democracy.”

Trump seems depressed about his trial

The dynamics of the trial itself tend to make the former president appear as a diminished figure.

The court itself was unable to respond, listening in silence, sometimes shaking its head, as the allegations of crimes and sordid personal conduct were made.

He spoke to the media outside court, but his appearances were brief and without any of the pomp and drama the former president enjoys at his rallies.

President Trump has complained several times that the courts are too cold. During the trial, he appeared to close his eyes several times.

At 77 years old, this is not a very good look for a candidate who is trying to portray himself as a more energetic alternative to President Biden, who is 81 years old.

Trump has an advantage on the Supreme Court.

Legal split-screen was introduced to President Trump on Thursday.

He had to appear in a New York courtroom at the same time his Washington lawyer was arguing before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court case will decide Trump’s claim that he cannot be prosecuted for his actions as president. These proceedings stem from January 6-related charges brought against Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Oral arguments went well for the Trump team. The court’s six conservative justices, three of whom were nominated by Trump himself, appeared to accept the idea that there could be a distinction between a president’s “official” and “private” conduct. . They also appeared open to being provided with some immunity for official actions.

If the Supreme Court rules that certain immunity is granted, it will likely lead to further debate over how it should be defined in Trump’s Jan. 6 lawsuit.

Presumably, this case and two others (the sensitive documents at Mar-a-Lago and the attempt to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia) will kick off past Election Day this year. There is a high possibility that it will be done.

The battle over New York’s gag order is still unresolved.

A sideshow in the New York trial is whether President Trump violated a gag order imposed by Judge Juan Marchan.

Prosecutors allege the suspect committed similar acts in 10 social media posts and want to fine him $1,000 for each post. They allege he violated the order four more times in interviews and public statements.

While President Trump continues to denounce the executive order itself, his lawyers argue that his comments were a legitimate response to what his opponents have said about him.

The next hearing on the gag order is scheduled for next Thursday. It was originally scheduled for the day before President Trump was scheduled to hold campaign rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Machan agreed to change the date during Friday’s hearing.