Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From what I have read, the testimony of Mr. Pecker has been rather devastating for Mr. Trump. Mr. Pecker (I wish he were a doctor), has described the process of buying the rights to a story, like for Karen McDougal (whom claimed to have had an eight month affair with Mr. Trump), and then not publishing the story.
As Mr. Pecker testified this catch/kill process is common among celebrities and the wealthy. He testified the Enquirer/Star had a 10k limit for stories. The negative for Trump is Pecker testified it was the first time Trump paid him to catch/kill a story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea
I have not seen yet where the defense is 'attacking' Mr. Pecker. Indeed, oddly, this morning before entering the courtroom Mr. Trump spoke highly of his long-time friend, Mr. Pecker.
Why?
No reason to. Pecker/Trump were not involved in any illegal activity. Buying stories, wrapping them up in an NDA and not publishing them is not illegal.
I read the opening statements and Pecker's direct testimony.
The prosecution's opening statement was clear and logical, the prosecution uses the word "conspiracy" frequently during the statement, but ultimately is unconvincing that a federal felony crime was committed.
The defense made it clear to the jury that the word "conspiracy" is nowhere in the charging documents and only appears in a subsection of the NY statute that the prosecution has charged Trump, and that statute is clear that the crime is a misdemeanor.
Lot's of good stuff.
Here's the problem with that. There has been no federal court verdict on the commission of a federal crime, and the State of NY lacks the jurisdiction to prosecute a federal crime. So... this entire NY State kangaroo court circus is completely meaningless.
No crime.
What is the crime.
NDAs are not illegal. Unconstitutional for Bragg to usurp federal jurisdiction and claim election interference.
DOJ wouldn’t touch this.
Bragg is embarrassing the NY judicial system.
This is crumbling daily.
Carry on.
Bingo! The State of NY lacks jurisdiction on this.
Yes, they are. Without the federal crime, all of the other (state) charges are invalid because the statute of limitations has expired on all of them.
Exactly.
Bragg is a twisted mess of madness.
State prosecutors may not prosecute federal crimes because under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, only the president, through his DOJ, has that power.
SDNY prosecutors had investigated Trump's "alleged campaign finance violations," as did the Federal Election Commission. Both declined to pursue the case because Trump used his own money, not campaign finance money. Also, they did pursue the case because reimbursing someone for a hush-money payment does not fit the definition of an "in-kind campaign contribution."
Even if no campaign existed, Trump would have made the hush-money payment to protect his privacy, his family and his brand.
Big mistake by NY prosecutors.
Bragg and Merchan are both guilty of Dereliction of Duty
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
24,429 posts, read 12,982,054 times
Reputation: 10771
Quote:
Originally Posted by eeyore1974
I agree but for a different reason. I believe none of these criminal trial would be occurring if anyone else had allegedly committed these “crimes “.
Pecker had done the same for many, including politicians and everyone just shrugged it off...with a 'boys will be boys' attitude it seems.
David Pecker described his “catch and kill” operations for Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tiger Woods and Mark Wahlberg at Donald Trump’s hush money trial Thursday.
“The agreement I had with Arnold was, I would call him and advise him of any stories that were out there. And I ended up acquiring and buying them for a period of time,” he said.
The former National Enquirer honcho said shortly after Schwarzenegger announced his run for California governor in 2003, more than 30 women came forward to the magazine claiming affairs or sexual harassment against the actor, who at the time was married to Maria Shriver.
Silver-haired Pecker, 72, testified he spent “hundreds of thousands of dollars” buying up the negative stories for the bodybuilder-turned-movie star, with whom he was working on a magazine deal for his company, American Media Inc. (AMI), at the time.
After Schwarzenegger took office, one of the women from whom Pecker had purchased a story ended up approaching the Los Angeles Times, which published it. When Schwarzenegger was questioned by reporters about the story, he told them to “ask my friend David Pecker.”
He also recalled catching and killing negative stories about well-known Democrat Rahm Emanuel, the ex-Chicago mayor who was President Barack Obama’s chief of staff and is current US ambassador to Japan.
From what I have read, the testimony of Mr. Pecker has been rather devastating for Mr. Trump. Mr. Pecker (I wish he were a doctor), has described the process of buying the rights to a story, like for Karen McDougal (whom claimed to have had an eight month affair with Mr. Trump), and then not publishing the story.
However, as Mr. Pecker explained, when it came to paying off Stormy Daniels, he said that he decided to not get involved, apparently concerned that accepting campaign money from Mr. Trump's campaign would run afoul of campaign laws. Hence, I believe, Mr. Trump turned to his attorney, Mr. Cohen, for 'fixing' the matter.
Now, some have pointed out that when Mr. Cohen takes the stand (he has not done so yet, as one poster seemed to think) the defense will be able to attack his credibility, with justice.
I have not seen yet where the defense is 'attacking' Mr. Pecker. Indeed, oddly, this morning before entering the courtroom Mr. Trump spoke highly of his long-time friend, Mr. Pecker.
Why?
One possible reason: Mr. Trump (as per Mr. Pecker's testimony) once introduced Mr. Pecker to members of Mr. Trump's forthcoming cabinet (he was President-Elect at the time), and Mr. Trump, in introducing Mr. Pecker to those present (including Mr. James Comey), aid that Mr. Pecker knew lots of secrets: many, many secrets about many people.
So, perhaps Mr. Trump is being a realist, and is willing to tolerate Mr. Pecker's testimony about the 'buy and kill' process, so that Mr. Pecker (whom knows lots of secrets) does not start to spill unwanted beans about Mr. Trump. It is but a theory.
I will finish by saying that the jury will assess the credibility of each witness. Mr. Cohen is, as said many times herein, a 'convicted liar'. Yet, the jury may believe Mr. Cohen's upcoming testimony.
Note that Mr. Pecker is NOT a 'convicted liar'. However, I believe that he is testifying in this matter because he does not want to go to prison in order to shield Mr. Trump. He did mention having an agreement with the State.
Nonsense.
Bragg indicted Trump with a bookkeeping issue. Mr Pecker’s testimony is absolutely irrelevant.
What legal errors have you noticed that could be raised on Appeal?
Probably for the same reason the Weinstein case was overturned - that the judge is allowing testimony about actions that the defendant isn’t charged with simply to disparage his character.
Once again, not illegal. You are confusing what the prosecution needs to prove to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony and what testimony the prosecution presents to get the jury to dislike Trump.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
