Donald Trump trials

Subterms

    More stories

    • 213 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s hush-money case has proven he’s a low-life. Can it prove he’s a criminal? | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      When you set out to explore Donald Trump’s personal life and business practices, you don’t expect to meet any paragons of virtue.Sleazy media figures who buy and “kill” damaging stories? Yes. An adult film actor ready to tell all to make a buck? Certainly. A parade of spokespeople and staffers who compromised their own integrity during his presidential administration? No doubt.A conman, philanderer and grifter himself, the ex-president always has surrounded himself with dicey characters. That’s how he rolls. So it’s hardly surprising that Michael Cohen, the star prosecution witness in the so-called “hush-money” case unfolding in New York City, fits right in.The former Trump lawyer and fixer pleaded guilty in 2018 to campaign-finance violations, tax fraud and bank fraud. He pleaded guilty to lying to Congress. He went to jail. And he was disbarred.That’s why it would be funny – if it weren’t so cringe-inducing – to hear the way Cohen is being praised by some commentators in the endless talk loop of cable-news trial coverage.“Michael’s one of the good guys,” was the assessment of CNN guest-talker Anthony Scaramucci, who memorably lasted less than two weeks as Trump’s communications director and who is now vehemently opposed to Trump winning a second term.I’m all for redemption, but I wouldn’t go that far. I certainly wouldn’t hold up Michael Cohen as an example of a great American.But, against the odds, Cohen’s testimony does ring true. (Not that one can hear it directly; unfortunately, the trial is not being televised or even recorded for audio only.)His words, and the description of his demeanor from those inside the courtroom, make a kind of consistent and logical sense. What’s more, much of it has been “pre-corroborated” by testimony and evidence earlier in the trial.We’ve heard from people such as David Pecker, who ran the National Enquirer, where he caused damaging stories to be given the “catch-and-kill” treatment to help Trump gain the presidency in 2016. We’ve seen supporting text messages and emails and documents.On the stand on Monday, Cohen didn’t spare himself. He admits he lied and falsified in protecting his boss. He even admitted to secretly recording Trump during a one-on-one meeting and, because the audio has gone public, we can hear the two of them hashing out one of their seedy arrangements; respectable lawyers don’t do that to or with their clients.And he certainly didn’t spare Trump, instead portraying him as the equivalent of a mob boss, as well as someone intimately involved with every decision in keeping his tawdry relationships secret as he sought the presidency in 2016.What the New York district attorney must prove, though, is criminality, not low-life behavior.Will a jury decide that Trump’s behavior amounted to criminal election interference? That will require a lot of connecting the dots – that Stormy Daniels not only was paid off to keep quiet about the time she claims to have had sex with Trump, but that the payment was then recorded falsely in a way that violates campaign finance law.If those dots are going to be connected, it’s Cohen who must connect them.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIt’s not an airtight case. Rather, it is “the least muscular and existentially threatening of the four criminal prosecutions Trump faces”, wrote the Trump biographer Tim O’Brien this week.But it’s likely to be the only case that’s going to come to trial before the election. For those who want a shred of accountability for Trump’s endless misdeeds, this is the one they’ve got. And, given that, Cohen is essential.Can jurors find him credible, given his checkered past? Even if they do, is it possible to make the leap to criminal violations of campaign-finance law? And could every one of them then agree to convict?That’s an Everest-high mountain to climb. Trump’s lawyers are sure to bombard Cohen with his foibles during cross-examination later this week.My take is that Michael Cohen is – finally – telling the truth. He’ll hold up well under the hostile questioning. Jurors will believe him and will buy most of his story, given his consistency and the corroborating evidence and earlier testimony.Finally, Michael Cohen will come off like an honest broker.As for a jury then connecting that credibility to criminal election-law interference? And then, unanimously, deciding to convict the former president?That’s a big stretch.I can believe Michael Cohen’s testimony, but – at least right now – I can’t believe in that outcome.
      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s strategy to delay cases before the election is working

      by

      Despite some dismal days spent in the courtroom, Donald Trump earned two significant legal victories this week with separate decisions that make it all but certain two of the pending criminal trials against him will take place after the 2024 election.As had been expected for months, Judge Aileen Cannon on Tuesday scrapped a 20 May trial date that had been set in south Florida over the former president’s handling of classified documents. The delay was almost entirely the doing of Cannon, a Trump appointee, who allowed far-fetched legal arguments into the case and let preliminary legal matters pile up on her docket to the point where a May trial was not a possibility.On Thursday, the Georgia court of appeals announced it would hear a request from Trump to consider whether Fani Willis, the Fulton county district attorney, should be removed from the election interference case against him because of a relationship with another prosecutor. The decision means both that Trump will continue to undermine Willis’s credibility and draw out the case. “There will be no trial until 2025,” tweeted Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University who has been closely following the case.The third pending case against Trump, a federal election interference case in Washington, also appears unlikely to go to trial before the election. The US supreme court heard oral arguments on whether Trump has immunity from prosecution last month and seemed unlikely to resolve it quickly enough to allow the case to move forward ahead of the election.The decisions mean that voters will not get a chance to see Trump held accountable for possible criminal conduct during his last term in office before they decide whether to give him another term in office. (Trump is currently in the middle of a criminal trial in Manhattan that centers around allegations he falsified business records to cover up hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels, but it happened before his presidency, during the 2016 campaign.)The developments vindicate a pillar of Trump’s legal strategy. Facing four separate criminal cases, his lawyers have sought to use every opportunity they can to delay the cases, hoping that he wins the election in November. Were he to return to the White House, he would make the two federal cases against him go away (he has said he would appoint an attorney general who would fire Jack Smith, the justice department’s special prosecutor). It’s unclear if Fani Willis, the Fulton county DA, could proceed with a criminal case against a sitting president.“In all likelihood, Trump’s election would pause the proceedings against him in Georgia. There is a large consensus among legal academics that a sitting president cannot be tried for crimes. That, however, is an untested constitutional theory, which Fani Willis will probably challenge,” Kreis said. “If I had to hedge a bet, should Trump win in November, his Fulton county co-defendants will be tried mid-2025 and Trump would stand trial alone after his second term ends.”While Trump may have successfully secured delays in three of the cases against him, prosecutors in Manhattan continued to move ahead this week in laying out evidence for why he should be found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Testimony from key accounting employees at the Trump Organization helped connect Trump to the monies that were paid out to Michael Cohen. Stormy Daniels, the adult film star who alleges she had an affair with Trump in 2006, also testified in detail about the incident, irritating Trump, and bringing one of the most embarrassing episodes back to the center of the public discourse.Trump’s lawyers objected to the testimony and requested a mistrial, saying the lurid details Daniels disclosed had prejudiced jurors against defendants. Judge Juan Merchan rejected that request, but still conceded jurors had heard information they should not have.While Trump is likely to use the episode in any potential appeal, experts doubted whether he would succeed.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Skirmishes like this happen all the time, and defense attorneys call for mistrials in many, if not most, criminal trials. I don’t think this was even close to cause for a mistrial and don’t think it would end up being a major issue on appeal,” said Rebecca Roiphe, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office who now teaches at New York Law School.“The details of the sexual encounter are relevant because they go to why Trump would want to suppress her story. The judge tried to limit any prejudicial effect by asking the witness to be less colorful in her description. She didn’t abide by this until warned a few times, but this hardly seems like a cause for concern on appeal.” More

    • 225 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump has yet to decide his VP pick – and it’s turning into a pageant of its own

      by

      Hello there, and welcome to the Guardian’s brand new US election newsletter. I hope you’re having a nice week.It’s less than six months until election day, and Donald Trump, when he’s not in court or looking at racing cars, is spending time weighing his vice-presidential pick. It’s becoming quite the spectacle.But first, some of the happenings in US politics.Here’s what you need to know …1. I don’t feel so goodDonald Trump’s trial over hush-money payments to an adult film star saw Stormy Daniels recall her sexual encounter with the president in front of a presumably nauseous Manhattan courtroom. Will this trial – and the three others he faces – torpedo Trump’s election chances? One poll this week found that it will depend on whether he is convicted. About 80% of Trump’s supporters would definitely stick with him if he becomes a felon, while 16% would “reconsider” their support. Just 4% say they would definitely ditch him.2. Biden gives antisemitism speechIn a speech on Tuesday at a Holocaust remembrance event, Joe Biden condemned what he called the “ferocious surge of antisemitism in America and around the world”, amid widespread student protests over American support for Israel’s war on Gaza. Thousands of students have been arrested around the US, during a frequently militaristic police response. Republicans have tried to use the unrest to paint Biden as weak and sow division among Democratic voters.3. TikTok hits back after US government crackdownTikTok and its parent company are suing the US government after Biden signed bipartisan legislation which could potentially ban the app from the US if it is not sold to another owner. It comes as Russian state-affiliated accounts have used TikTok to draw attention to Biden’s age and immigration policies. Critics have said ByteDance, TikTok’s China-based parent company, could also collect sensitive information about Americans. But others – including TikTok – say the US is unfairly singling out the social media platform, potentially hurting free speech and independent content makers. The debacle is fraught in an election year when many young people get news from TikTok, and Biden himself has a campaign account.Eeny, meeny, miny, moeView image in fullscreenThe election is in November, and Donald Trump has yet to decide on his vice-presidential candidate. That’s not unusual – assuming he’s not in prison by then, he’s got plenty of time – but what is kind of new is the very public auditioning for the role.Trump summoned several of the candidates to Mar-a-Lago over the weekend, where he forced them to parade around on stage, in what sounds like a version of the Miss Universe competition he used to haunt.But the contenders, who range from long-time sycophants to more recent converts, have been doing some parading of their own.Marco Rubio, the Florida senator who ran for president against Trump in 2016 (Trump dubbed him “Little Marco”, Rubio suggested Trump had a small penis, but the two have since made up) has been near-ever present on TV in recent weeks, as has Elise Stefanik, a New York congresswoman who was once seen as a sober legislator, but has since evolved into a Trump disciple.Doug Burgum – recently dubbed “less interesting than a wooden post” – and Tim Scott, who both ran against Trump for the Republican presidential nomination this year, have also been showing up on TV shows to defend Trump’s legal entanglements and threats to undermine the election.There’s also JD Vance, a big-faced beardy man who once believed Trump to be an “idiot” but has since changed his mind, and Byron Donalds, who with Scott is one of the five Black Republicans in Congress.One thing appears to be certain: it will not be Kristi Noem, the South Dakota governor who has dominated headlines after admitting that she shot and killed her dog in a gravel pit.Will the identity of Trump’s running mate really make a difference?In 2016, Trump was viewed with suspicion by some evangelical voters – voters he needed to come out in droves for him to defeat Hillary Clinton. That’s why he chose Mike Pence, a devout Christian who just released a book that is literally called So Help Me God.But religious Republicans have pretty much made their peace with Trump since then – largely because the supreme court he appointed overturned the federal right to abortion.Reports indicate that what Trump is really looking for is an uber-loyal attack dog, someone who can tear into Trump’s critics on air, before coming back to the White House to quietly snuggle at his feet.It would be easy to see a vice-president as inconsequential. But since the US became a thing, nine vice-presidents have stepped into the top job: eight times because the sitting president died, and once because the president – Richard Nixon – resigned. Without wanting to be too macabre, Donald Trump is quite old, and is not known as a healthy eater. (In the name of Journalism I once lived like Trump for a week. I genuinely think it took years off my life.)Anyway: some of these people might fancy their chances of ascending to the throne.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOn the roadView image in fullscreenA dispatch from our Washington bureau chief, David Smith:Is it a bird? Is it a plane? OK, it’s a plane, with “TRUMP” written in giant gold letters on the side. I watched the Boeing 757 dubbed “Trump Force One” fly into Freeland, Michigan, last week, accompanied by the booming soundtrack of Tom Cruise’s Top Gun.It reminded me that the Trump Show has always been about reality versus fantasy. Reality for Trump right now is hour after hour sitting in a cold, dingy New York courtroom. Fantasy is stepping out of his private jet into afternoon sunshine and the warm glow of a campaign rally where the crowd chants his name.The demographics were telling: overwhelmingly white and dominated by retirees. Every Trump supporter I interviewed is convinced that the trial in New York is a witch-hunt designed to hobble his election chances. When I asked about his dictatorial ambitions, they brushed the question aside and preferred the word “leader”.Who had the worst week?View image in fullscreenOn Monday Judge Juan Merchan, handling Trump’s hush-money payments trial, said he “will have to consider a jail sanction” if Trump doesn’t stop publicly criticizing witnesses and the jury. But if Monday was bad for Trump, Tuesday was worse.“I had my clothes and my shoes off, I believe my bra, however, was still on. We were in the missionary position …” so went the testimony of Stormy Daniels, who was allegedly paid $130,000 to remain quiet about the claimed encounter, which she says took place in 2006, a year after Trump married his wife Melania. (Trump denies having sex with Daniels.)Daniels said that Trump told her she reminded him of Ivanka Trump, his daughter, before the two became intimate. Asked by the prosecution whether the encounter with Trump was “brief”, Daniels said: “Yes.”‘It’s my favorite book’View image in fullscreenI spent no short amount of time last week reading the God Bless the USA Bible, a special version of the holy text Trump is hawking online. If you enjoy the Bible, but feel like it is missing images of American flags and bald eagles, then this is the book for you.If, however, you want a Bible without sticky pages, which hasn’t been dubbed “blasphemous”, and which doesn’t cost $60, then maybe give it a pass.Read the full story here.Elsewhere in US politicsView image in fullscreen Milwaukee is replacing its top election official, Sam Levine and Alice Herman write, which means “there will be a new head of elections in one of the most critical cities in a key battleground state”. Biden won Wisconsin by just 20,000 votes in 2020. Bernie Sanders won more than 13m votes in the 2016 presidential primary, as his brand of democratic socialism inspired young people across the country. He didn’t win, of course, but Martin Pengelly reports that Sanders plans to run for re-election to the Senate. More

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Stormy Daniels takes the stand in Trump trial – podcast

      by

      It was the moment Donald Trump was dreading. The former president could only sit and watch as the adult film actor Stormy Daniels told her version of events from an alleged sexual encounter they had in 2006. Prosecutors say that Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen shuttled a $130,000 hush-money payment to Daniels less than two weeks before the 2016 presidential election, to keep her from talking to anyone about her alleged encounter with Trump.
      So how bad was Daniels’ testimony for the presumptive GOP candidate? Jonathan Freedland and the political commentator Molly Jong-Fast discuss an extraordinary day in a Manhattan courtroom

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s scattershot attacks on justice system are causing real damage

      by

      Donald Trump’s verbal assaults on judges, prosecutors, witnesses, jurors and the broader US justice system, are undermining the rule of law and American democracy while fueling threats and potential violence against individuals involved with the legal cases against him and egging on his extremist allies, former federal prosecutors and judges say.In his campaign to win the presidency again, and in the midst of various criminal and civil trials, Trump has launched multiple attacks on the American legal system on his Truth Social platform to counter the 88 federal and state criminal charges he faces.Trump, the all but certain Republican presidential nominee for 2024, has accelerated glorifying the insurgents who attacked the Capitol on 6 January 2021. He has called them “patriots” and “hostages”, while promising that if he wins, he will free those convicted of crimes as one of his “first acts” in office.Meanwhile, Trump has repeatedly cast doubt on the electoral system. He has refused to say he will accept the results of the 2024 elections, a ploy similar to what he did in 2020 before falsely claiming the election was rigged – a claim he still maintains.“If everything’s honest, I’ll gladly accept the results,” Trump told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last week. “If it’s not, you have to fight for the right of the country.”Darkly, Trump has also warned that if he loses the election there will be “bedlam” and a “bloodbath for the country”. These words referred, in part, to the fallout Trump predicted for the auto industry, but have distinct echoes of his false charges that he lost to Joe Biden in 2020 due to fraud.At a campaign rally in Pennsylvania on 13 April, right before his first criminal trial in New York began, Trump repeated his bogus claims about his 2020 defeat: “The election was rigged. Pure and simple, 2020 was rigged. We could never let it happen again.”At the same rally he blasted Juan Merchan, the very judge who oversees his trial in Manhattan. In that case, Trump faces 34 counts for altering company records in 2016 to hide $130,000 in hush-money payments that his fixer Michael Cohen made to the porn star Stormy Daniels, who alleged an affair with him.“I have a crooked judge,” Trump raged at Merchan, adding that he was “fully gagged before a highly conflicted and corrupt judge, who suffers from TDS … Trump Derangement Syndrome”.Trump’s multiple attacks on witnesses and jurors, who he had been told were off limits and could spur a contempt citation, have prompted Merchan twice to fine Trump a total of $10,000 for violating a gag order against such attacks.“The court will not tolerate continued willful violations of its lawful orders,” the judge has said, warning that Trump could face jail time if he made similar attacks.Trump insists without evidence that the more than seven dozen federal and state criminal charges he faces in four jurisdictions are “election interference”, and says he has done nothing illegal.Former prosecutors and judges say Trump’s incendiary rhetoric is catnip to his Maga allies and could spur violence in 2024.“At its core, the promise of pardons by Trump signals to anyone prone to insurrectionist behavior that they can expect a get out of jail card free,” said former federal judge John Jones, who is now president of Dickinson College.View image in fullscreen“My fear is that we will have civil unrest that will impede the election. My concern is that you can have vigilante groups under the guise of ‘stop the steal’, patrolling polling places and intimidating voters.”Jones stressed that “every one of the Jan 6 defendants has had appropriate due process”.“They have either been convicted or pled guilty to substantial federal crimes,” he said. “Promising them pardons in the face of that is against every principle in our system of justice.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionRegarding Trump’s ongoing claims that the 2020 election was rigged and that the country will see a “bloodbath” if he loses again, Jones said: “The word ‘bloodbath’ is not ambiguous. The last time Trump fomented this kind of post-election destructiveness, people lost their lives.”Ex-federal prosecutors raise similar concerns.“To the extent President Trump is dangling pardons of the J6 defendants he is, in effect, trying to eliminate the deterrent effect of criminal prosecutions with the anticipated result of making violence on his own behalf more likely,” former prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig said.“From a legal perspective, deterrence is critical. The threats of violence in 2024 can only be mitigated by strong, consistent prosecution for violent acts in 2020.”Concerns about the potentially dangerous fallout from Trump’s attacks on the electoral and legal systems are underscored by a Brennan Center study in late April, which showed 38% of over 925 local election officials surveyed had experienced “threats, harassment or abuse”.The Brennan survey, conducted in February and March, also found that 54% of those surveyed were worried about the safety of fellow workers, and 62% were concerned about political leaders trying to interfere with how they do their jobs.On a related track, the DC judge Tanya Chutkan, who has handled a number of cases involving January 6 insurrectionists, has warned starkly about the dangers of more violence this year. Chutkan, who is slated to oversee Trump’s trial on charges by the special counsel Jack Smith that he sought to subvert the 2020 election, echoed Rosenzweig’s warning that more violence is less likely to happen if those convicted or who have pleaded guilty for the January 6 attack receive appropriate sentences.Last month, Chutkan issued a stiff sentence of 66 months for one insurgent who attacked the Capitol and has called the Jan 6 violent Capitol attack by Trump allies that led to injuries of 140 police officers “as serious a crisis as this nation has ever faced”.Notably, Chutkan has stressed that “extremism is alive and well in this country. Threats of violence continue unabated.”Ex-prosecutors also say that Trump’s attacks on the legal system are alarming.“Trump’s persistent denigration of the legal system is surely as divisive as everything else he does because he’s lying,” said the former justice department official Ty Cobb, who worked as a White House counsel for part of the Trump administration. “Trump’s lies in this area seem to have been embraced by his followers as truth.”Cobb stressed that “Trump has not been unfairly targeted by the justice department or the Biden administration, but charged only with serious crimes he has committed. The two state cases in which Trump stands criminally indicted have nothing to do with the Biden administration.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      How the Trump trial is playing in Maga world: sublime indifference, collective shrug

      by

      In one America, he cuts a diminished, humbled figure during coverage that runs from morn till night. “He seems considerably older and he seems annoyed, resigned, maybe angry,” said broadcaster Rachel Maddow after seeing Donald Trump up close in court. “He seems like a man who is miserable to be here.”But in the other America – that of Fox News, far-right podcasts and the Make America Great Again (Maga) base – the trial of the former president over a case involving a hush-money payment to an adult film performer is playing out very differently.Here, anger at what is seen as political persecution meets with another emotion: sublime indifference. Barely a handful of Trump supporters bother to protest each day outside the court in New York, a Democratic stronghold. The trial receives less prominence in conservative media, which prefers to devote airtime to other national news including protests on university campuses against the war in Gaza.The divergence ensures that, with TV cameras not permitted in court, two rival narratives are forming around the first criminal trial of an ex-US president. In one telling, Trump is a philander who falsified business records to illegally influence the 2016 presidential election. In the other, he is the victim of a justice department conspiracy designed to rob the Republican nominee of victory in 2024.Michael Steele, a former chair of the Republican National Committee, said: “The minds in those orbits are already made up. If you’re listening to [far-right podcaster] Steve Bannon, you’re not going to be convinced by any other outcome except not guilty. If you are hyperventilating over coverage that speaks to Donald Trump’s guilt, then you’re not going to be happy unless he’s found guilty.”The trial, which began in earnest this week with prosecution and defence arguments, would already be devastating for any conventional politician. The former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker testified about his tabloid’s efforts to protect Trump from stories that could hurt his electoral chances using a “catch-and-kill” scheme. The capricious defendant is also awaiting a ruling on whether he will be held in contempt for violating a gag order, an offence he has been accused of 14 times.View image in fullscreenThe trial has dominated cable news networks such as CNN and MSNBC to the extent that they have faced criticism for obsessing over details such as Trump’s daily commute to court and his demeanour once inside. But in the Maga universe, there is a collective shrug.Matt Gertz, a senior fellow at the watchdog Media Matters for America, said: “The rightwing media very much does not want to be talking about this week. You see both CNN and MSNBC covering the trial pretty much throughout as it plays out, whereas over on Fox it’s one of many stories that they’re covering and not a particularly prominent one at that.”Fox News, America’s most watched cable television network, has similarly played down past Trump dramas such as the impeachment trials and the congressional panel investigating the January 6 attack, Gertz noted. “You see a similar situation where news outlets are providing constant coverage of big breaking news events and Fox News is feeding its audience its typical culture war mix and avoiding talking about what is quite clearly bad news for their candidate of choice.”When Trump-friendly networks do turn to the trial, they give viewers an alternative narrative from the one dominating CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post. After a hearing has wrapped for the day, Fox News regularly carries live coverage of Trump’s diatribes against the judge, Biden and the cold temperature of the courtroom.It has also amplified his narrative of martyrdom. Newt Gingrich, a former House speaker, told Fox News: “This is literally like some of the civil rights workers in Mississippi in the 1960s.” Jesse Watters, a co-host on The Five on the same network, worried that it is unfair to make a man who is almost 80 sit for hour after hour. “It’s not healthy,” he said. “He needs sunlight. He needs activity. He needs to be walking around. He needs action. It is really cruel and unusual punishment to make a man do that, and any time he moves, they threaten to throw him in prison.”They have even defended Trump – who regularly mocks Biden as “Sleepy Joe” – for falling asleep in court. Sean Hannity, a Fox News host, said on his radio show: “By the way, I think I’d fall asleep if I was there.” His colleague Laura Ingraham added: “I’d be falling asleep at that trial, too.”Gertz observed: “They’re basically making the case that actually it’s good to be unable to not nod off in the middle of your own trial. These are people who have spent the last several years attacking Joe Biden for supposedly being too old, too enfeebled to be president. They understand that their viewers, to the extent that they are interested in the trial at all, want to hear full-throated support for Donald Trump, and so they are finding ways to provide that.”The trial has provoked fury on the far right and vows of retribution. Mike Davis, a lawyer and Trump ally, told Bannon’s War Room podcast that Democrats are “running a criminal conspiracy to violate the civil rights of President Trump” and promised to “rain hell on these Biden Democrats”. Davis warned: “I would say to these guys, lawyer up.”View image in fullscreenInterviews with longstanding Trump supporters found the media-coverage split screen translates to one’s view of the trial. There is no sign that the airing of the charges that Trump falsified business records to cover up a hush-money payment is shifting opinions.Steve Robinson, 75, an engineer and contractor from Leesburg, Virginia, is following the trial via the rightwing channels One America News Network and Newsmax and, occasionally, Fox News. “No CNN,” he said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionRobinson commented: “The charges are made up and it’s a travesty of justice. It’s embarrassing for us as a country that’s happening when there is no evidence and there is no damage to anyone and it’s obviously a political witch-hunt. The leftists are enjoying it.”Lynette Kennedy McQuain, 63, an insurance salesperson from Lost Creek, West Virginia, said: “New York should spend their tax dollars on criminal behaviour, things that are going on in the city rather than trying to take down a former president. It’s not illegal to pay money to quiet something if you want to.”The current trial is seen as potentially the least serious of the four criminal cases against Trump but is likely to be the only one completed before the election. McQuain added: “It’s gotten to the place now where there’s so many trials that you wonder where it’s going to end.“How many more trials are we going to put Donald Trump through? He’s a presidential candidate again. Come on, that’s a little crazy to me. The whole country sees it that way except a few left-leaning people who just want to get Trump. Judicially we’ve got a whole bunch of other things we could be fighting.”Michael Sheppard, 42, a home builder from Canton, North Carolina, who has been following the trial “passingly” via the social media platform X, said: “I know the trial exists. I know the basics behind it but I really don’t care what they say.”Sheppard believes that it is common practice to pay someone off out of court if the alternative would be more costly. He intends to vote for Trump in November but added: “I wish we had somebody right of Trump. Trump’s a centrist.”Opinion polls have tightened in recent weeks with Biden closing the gap on Trump. It is uncertain what impact the trial will have on the election. The former president himself is thought unlikely to testify, but the court is likely to hear lurid, sordid details that even Trump’s allies in the media might find hard to resist. He is not out of danger yet.Charlie Sykes, a political columnist and author of How the Right Lost Its Mind, said: “The danger of this trial for Trump and for the rightwing media is that many of the details are going to be quite salacious, quite dramatic and easily understood.“People are going to understand a Playboy model saying ‘I had an affair’ as opposed to some of the more arcane things. It’s going to be interesting to see how the rightwing media covers it. Fox News are going to be torn between ‘this is pretty compelling material’ versus ‘it’s also pretty damaging’.”But the experience of the past eight years suggest that Trump’s base understand who he is and are willing to accept it, sexual peccadilloes and all. Sean Spicer, his first White House press secretary, said: “I would argue that after four years of Trump in office and almost four years of Biden, people have pretty much made up their mind who they’re with and this is largely going to be a get-out-the-vote-operation election.“I don’t think anyone seeing anything right now on television or reading it online is somehow going to learn something new about Donald Trump.” More

    • 263 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Hush-money trial live: Trump appears to repeat call for lifting of gag order after Pecker testimony ends – as it happened

      by

      In a post written, unusually, in the third person on Donald Trump’s Truth Social account, the former president has once again demanded Judge Juan Merchan lift a gag order in his trial on charges of falsifying business documents:
      45th President Donald J. Trump is again the Republican Nominee for President of the United States, and is currently dominating in the Polls. However, he is being inundated by the Media with questions because of this Rigged Biden Trial, which President Trump is not allowed to comment on, or answer, because of Judge Juan Merchan’s UNPRECEDENTED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL Gag Order.
      …
      We request that Judge Merchan immediately LIFT THE GAG ORDER, so that President Trump is able to freely state his views, feelings, and policies. He is asking for his Constitutional Right to Free Speech. If it is not granted, this again becomes a Rigged Election!
      Prosecutors, meanwhile, have alleged that Trump has violated Merchan’s order prohibiting him from speaking publicly about witnesses, prosecutors, jurors, court staff and their relatives 14 times. They’ve asked the judge to hold Trump in contempt, but he has yet to rule on the request.Here is a wrap-up of the day’s key events:
      David Pecker, the former National Enquirer publisher and Trump ally, took to the stand in the Manhattan courtroom for a fourth day of testimony.
      Trump’s lawyers continued their cross-examination of Pecker, presenting a granular look into a hush-money scheme that prosecutors allege was meant to sway the 2016 election in Trump’s favor.
      Trump attorney Emil Bove’s questions prompted Pecker to effectively say that coverage beneficial to Trump had been business as usual, as the defense team tried to chip away at the prosecution’s claim that there had been an illicit conspiracy to sway the 2016 election.
      Pecker testified that the Enquirer had run negative stories about the Clintons as part of the effort to help the Trump campaign, agreed to in a meeting in August 2015, as the defense attempted to show that Pecker helped run positive stories about Trump and negative stories about other politicians even before the alleged catch-and-kill scheme.
      Trump’s legal team also appeared to try driving wedges into the notion that Trump’s 2006 affair with Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, had been any real threat to Trump’s reputation. Pecker admitted Trump had not paid him any money directly related to McDougal.
      Rhona Graff, Trump’s longtime executive assistant, was called to the stand on Friday afternoon as the prosecution’s second witness.
      Pecker testified earlier in the week that Graff had often been the conduit for his communications with Trump, routing his calls and summoning him to a January 2017 meeting at Trump Tower in which he and Trump discussed some of the hush-money arrangements at issue in the case.
      Graff testified that contact information for Daniels and McDougal had been in Trump’s contacts. She said Daniels had once been at Trump’s offices in Trump Tower, and that she had assumed Daniels was there to discuss potentially being a contestant on The Apprentice.
      Gary Farro was called as the prosecution’s third witness. Farro works at Flagstar Bank as a private client adviser and was previously at First Republic, which was used by Cohen.
      Prosecutors accused Trump of violating a court-imposed gag order – which bars him from speaking publicly about witnesses, prosecutors, jurors, court staff and their relatives – four more times over the course of the week, bringing the total violations to 14, prosecutors allege.
      Prosecutors said judge Juan Merchan should hold Trump in contempt of court and fine him $1,000 for each violation. Merchan has yet to rule on the alleged violations.
      Nevertheless, in a post written, unusually, in the third person on his Truth Social account, the former president has once again demanded Judge Juan Merchan lift a gag order in his trial on charges of falsifying business documents. “We request that Judge Merchan immediately LIFT THE GAG ORDER, so that President Trump is able to freely state his views, feelings, and policies,” the post said.
      That’s it as we wrap up the blog for today. Thank you for following along.With court ending for today, here’s a look at how David Pecker says he ran negative stories on Hillary Clinton to boost Donald Trump.The Guardian’s Lauren Aratani and Victoria Bekiempis report:The testimony of former tabloid publisher David Pecker in Donald Trump’s criminal trial on Friday presented a granular look into a hush-money scheme that prosecutors allege was meant to sway the 2016 election in the real estate mogul’s favor.On cross-examination, defense attorney Emil Bove’s questions prompted Pecker to in effect say that coverage beneficial to Trump had been business as usual, as the ex-president’s legal team tries to chip away at the prosecution’s claim that there had been an illicit conspiracy to sway the 2016 race.Pecker was instrumental in coordinating three hush-money payments that were made during the 2016 election campaign to quash negative stories about Trump.In cross-examination on his fourth day of testimony, Pecker was grilled by Bove about whether he benefited from running positive stories about Trump and negative stories about other politicians even before the alleged catch-and-kill scheme.Pecker testified that the Enquirer had run negative stories about the Clintons as part of the effort to help the Trump campaign, agreed to in a meeting on August 2015.For the full story, click here:Farro’s testimony is done for the day, and the jurors have left.As Trump left the courtroom for the weekend, he seemed to flatten his lips, as if in recognition of an observer.Farro just discussed Cohen’s interest in opening up an account for Essential Consultants LLC, which he claimed was for a real estate consulting business.While testimony about bank records is most often very dry, observers have had a brief reprieve due to Farro’s sense of humor. “When Mr Cohen called me, I was on the golf course,” Farro said, offering a wry smile. “Very cliche for a banker, I know.”Farro is now talking about Michael Cohen’s establishment of a business bank account for Resolution Consultants LLC.Farro explained that it hadn’t officially been opened because Cohen hadn’t deposited money in the account.In a post written, unusually, in the third person on Donald Trump’s Truth Social account, the former president has once again demanded Judge Juan Merchan lift a gag order in his trial on charges of falsifying business documents:
      45th President Donald J. Trump is again the Republican Nominee for President of the United States, and is currently dominating in the Polls. However, he is being inundated by the Media with questions because of this Rigged Biden Trial, which President Trump is not allowed to comment on, or answer, because of Judge Juan Merchan’s UNPRECEDENTED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL Gag Order.
      …
      We request that Judge Merchan immediately LIFT THE GAG ORDER, so that President Trump is able to freely state his views, feelings, and policies. He is asking for his Constitutional Right to Free Speech. If it is not granted, this again becomes a Rigged Election!
      Prosecutors, meanwhile, have alleged that Trump has violated Merchan’s order prohibiting him from speaking publicly about witnesses, prosecutors, jurors, court staff and their relatives 14 times. They’ve asked the judge to hold Trump in contempt, but he has yet to rule on the request.The next witness called to the stand is Gary Farro, who works at Flagstar Bank.Let’s hear what he has to say.After Rhona Graff’s testimony, Donald Trump left the courtroom without speaking to reporters gathered in the hallway outside.Someone from the press shouted a question about why Stormy Daniels had been at Trump Tower, but Trump did not respond.In her cross-examination of Graff, Susan Necheles appeared to try to set the stage for the defense that Trump might have been distracted while he was signing checks.Was he multi-tasking when signing checks? Was he on the phone? she asked. “I believe it happened. It wasn’t unusual,” Graff said.Donald Trump’s former executive assistant Rhona Graff has departed the witness stand after testimony in which she elaborated on how her former boss may have come to know adult film actor Stormy Daniels.As Graff was walking out of the courtroom, she passed Trump, who stood to greet her. It was unclear what he said to her, but one had the impression that he thanked her. This all happened in front of the jury.Necheles worked hard to downplay Daniels’ presence at Trump Tower.She asked about the evolution of The Apprentice. “He wanted people who were sort of controversial sometimes, right?” Necheles asked. Did Graff ever get the sense that Daniels was trying out for a slot?“I vaguely recall hearing … that she was one of the people that may be an interesting contestant on the show,” Graff said.“And the prosecutor just referred to her as an adult film actress, correct?” Necheles asked.“Uh, yes,” Graff replied.Necheles then asked: ”You understood that to mean, colloquially speaking, a porn star?”“I’d say that’s a good synonym,” Graff replied.Asked if she’d heard Trump say that Daniels was potentially being considered, Graff replied: “I can’t recall a specific instance where I heard it, it was part of the office chatter.”“You understood that she was there to discuss being cast for The Apprentice, correct?” Necheles inquired.“I assumed that,” Graff said.Susan Necheles, an attorney for Trump, is handling the cross-examination of Graff.“Was he a good boss?” Necheles asked early on.“I think that he was fair,” said Graff, who worked for Trump for 34 years. “He was fair and a respectful boss to me … all that time.”Hoffinger also asked Graff about Trump’s email contacts.Graff said that Karen McDougal’s information was in Trump’s contacts; there was also someone named “Stormy”.Hoffinger asked whether, on one occasion, she saw Stormy Daniels at Trump Tower.“I have a vague recollection of seeing her in the reception area on the 26th floor,” she said, adding that to the best of her recollection, this was before the 2016 election.“When you saw her at Trump Tower, did you know she was an adult film actress?” Hoffinger asked.”Yes, I did,” Graff replied.An attorney for Trump then rose to cross-examine Graff.Graff, who was Trump’s longtime executive assistant, said that she is testifying pursuant to a subpoena.Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked whether she had lawyers with her today. Graff said yes. Who was paying for the attorneys, Hoffinger pressed” “The Trump Organization,” Graff said.And who did she understand to be the current owner of the Trump Organization? “Mr Trump,” Graff replied.David Pecker is now off the witness stand after Donald Trump’s attorneys briefly cross-examined him a second time.The prosecution has now called its second witness: Rhona Graff, Trump’s longtime executive assistant.She isn’t in the spotlight much, but New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, did subpoena Graff for testimony two years ago as part of her civil investigation into his business dealings. That case ultimately resulted in a judge issuing a $454m judgment against the former president earlier this year. Here’s more on Graff’s testimony:We’re again discussing David Pecker’s unwillingness to deal with the Stormy Daniel story – and why he nonetheless urged Michael Cohen to snap up her account.On the stand, Pecker recalled discussing money for payoffs with Cohen. “I said to Michael Cohen, after paying for the doorman and the Karen McDougal story, I wasn’t going to pay anything further and I wasn’t a bank,” Pecker told jurors. He also described, again, his discussions with Dylan Howard when the Stormy Daniels story came to light.“When he first reach out to you about the story, what did you tell Dylan Howard?” Steinglass asked.“I told Dylan Howard that there is no possible way would I buy this story for $120,000 and I didn’t want to have anything to do with a porn star.”Why did he contact Cohen about Daniels?“Based on our original agreement,” Pecker recalled, “any stories … that would be very embarrassing, I want to communicate that to Michael Cohen right away. If he heard it from somebody else, [Cohen] would go ballistic.”“But you were still going to fulfil your obligation … so that the campaign could squash it?” Steinglass pressed.Pecker said yes. More

    • 225 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      How much did #MeToo change for women? Let’s ask Harvey Weinstein today – or Donald Trump | Marina Hyde

      by

      According to his representatives, former Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein is still digesting the overturning of his rape conviction by a New York court, but they did come out to say he was “cautiously excited”. Cautiously excited? I’m not sure these are the words I’d alight on to paint a word-picture of a rapist. You might as well say “tentatively aroused”. Then again, as we’re about to discuss, quite a lot of guys don’t particularly have to worry about what they say or do, or how they say or do it. It’s only natural that Harvey should very much want to be one of them again.Speaking of word-pictures, though, how’s this for a vignette of our times? When they heard the news that Weinstein’s conviction had been overturned on Thursday, a whole host of reporters happened to be looking at the exact spot in the exact New York courtroom that he’d sat in when that original judgment had been handed down. This was because they were waiting for Donald Trump to sit in it for Thursday’s proceedings in his hush money trial. Mr Trump, you might recall, is in such a lot of trouble that he is the presumptive Republican nominee and current bookies’ favourite to win the US presidency again, though admittedly he lags behind Weinstein on the sexual assault and misconduct front, given that only 26 women have accused him of it. Ultimately, though, I guess the question is: if #MeToo “went too far”, what would “going just far enough” have looked like?In seeking to answer that question, I’m somehow picturing the Best Picture climax of this year’s Oscars, with lifetime dictator Donald J Trump opening the envelope and calling it for Oppenheimer, before cackling: “I’m kidding with you, Nolan – the award goes to The Passion of the Harvey. Come on up here, all the guys from the Weinstein Company. And, Louis, you did a beautiful job with the role. You can add this one to your latest Grammy.”Or hang on – maybe #MeToo going just far enough would just look like a supreme court justice who is credibly accused of sexual assault deliberating with his colleagues/fellow placemen on whether the president can commit crimes absolutely without consequences, and then them deciding that it’s honestly too hard to decide on for now, thus delaying the guy’s trial for trying to overturn the results of a democratic election. Because that one really happened, also on Thursday.View image in fullscreenNot to flit too giddily between courtrooms, but we should note that despite Thursday’s news, Weinstein’s rape conviction in a Californian court still stands. As for what went wrong with his New York trial, it includes the legal error of the trial judge’s decision to allow testimony from four women who were not directly part of the case in hand. Long story short: unfortunately, simply too many women told the court that Weinstein had sexually assaulted them, which has now rendered his sexual assault trial null and void. The whole thing will have to be run anew, forcing an approved selection of those women to have to testify all over again. And yes – we might all have a number of strong views about those who benefit from the vagaries of the US legal system, but quite often you can’t print those views over this side of the Atlantic because of the vagaries of the UK legal system. Maybe we all get the legal systems we deserve. Except lawyers. You can’t help feeling those guys are the one set of people reaping unjust deserts from the legal system.Anyhow, back to even more of Thursday’s court news coming out of New York, where another judge was also ruling against Trump’s appeal of the $83m defamation verdict in the case brought against him by the writer E Jean Carroll, who alleged he raped her in a department store changing room. Given Trump was in the aforementioned courtroom across town, it’s quite something to be able to say that the day nevertheless still turned out to be a net good one for him, what with the supreme court’s decision not to yet make a decision on whether he can stand trial on charges of conspiring to overthrow the election. Certainly it was news about which he could be cautiously excited.But perhaps not about which he could be completely surprised, given his supreme efforts to bend the court to his will. Only the day before, the court had been hearing the state of Idaho argue for a ban on abortion even in cases where it is required for health-saving care. Trump’s campaign trail rallies see him frequently and repeatedly boast of being the puppet master of the judgment that overthrew Roe v Wade, the 1973 supreme court judgment that protected federal abortion rights. And he’s arguably right about that, what with having appointed three justices to the court and upset a balance the rest of the world is supposed to regard as fabled. Obviously, Trump’s pride in the achievement means so much more coming from a man who I’d love to joke has probably paid for more abortions than there are compromised supreme court justices, even if legal discussions over retaining that statement in this column are likely to run to more time than it took to write the column.On balance, you couldn’t accuse Thursday of being a great day for Lady Justice – or indeed for lady justice. As it turns out, all the so-called reckonings of the past few years can be unreckoned with far more easily than they were won. The only thing that’s gone “too far” is the pretence that anything went far enough.
      Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist
      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More