Jury System

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Los votantes del sur de Florida reflexionan sobre el caso de Trump

      by

      Los sentimientos encontrados entre algunos residentes sobre el expresidente y el caso en su contra reflejan la complicada política del estado.Como votante registrada en el condado de Palm Beach, Florida, Bette Anne Starkey sabe que existe la posibilidad de que la elijan para formar parte de un jurado en el caso penal federal contra el expresidente Donald Trump. Pero a pesar de que ha votado dos veces por Trump, en realidad no sabe cómo actuaría si fuese miembro del jurado que podría analizar el caso.Haciéndose eco del propio Trump, Starkey, una contadora de 81 años, usó la frase “cacería de brujas” en una entrevista para describir la acusación federal contra el expresidente, la cual lo acusa de sustraer de forma deliberada documentos clasificados de la Casa Blanca. Pero también le cuesta entender por qué Trump no devolvió los documentos cuando se los pidieron, y eso es parte de su indignación latente con el presidente número 45.“Estoy harta de escuchar sobre todas sus artimañas”, dijo.Sus comentarios reflejan los sentimientos complejos que Trump puede suscitar en estos días incluso entre los republicanos que votaron por él. Pero Starkey también es un reflejo de la política complicada y volátil del sur de Florida, el terreno de Trump, y el grupo de jurados que ofrece.El diverso y densamente poblado sur de Florida será el lugar donde se convocará a un jurado para juzgar la inocencia o culpabilidad de Trump si el caso llega a juicio, aunque no se ha determinado ni el lugar exacto del juicio ni el grupo de jurados.Partidarios del expresidente se reunieron el domingo cerca de Mar-a-Lago en Palm Beach, Florida.Saul Martinez para The New York TimesEl caso se presentó en la división judicial de West Palm Beach del Distrito Sur de Florida, lo que significa que el jurado podría ser seleccionado entre los votantes registrados en el condado de Palm Beach, hogar del resort Mar-a-Lago de Trump, donde ha vivido desde que dejó la Casa Blanca. En 2020, Trump perdió en el condado de Palm Beach ante el presidente Biden por casi 13 puntos porcentuales.Pero un grupo de jurados compuesto por votantes del condado de Miami-Dade, al sur de Palm Beach, también es una posibilidad, en particular si se determina que el juzgado federal en Miami, donde se espera que Trump haga una comparecencia inicial el martes, está mejor equipado para organizar el que probablemente será uno de los juicios penales más importantes en la historia de Estados Unidos.Trump perdió en Miami-Dade por solo siete puntos en las últimas elecciones y obtuvo un fuerte apoyo de los votantes hispanos en particular; más de dos tercios de los residentes del condado se identifican como hispanos, según datos del censo.Sin embargo, ambos condados se han vuelto más republicanos en los últimos años, y los candidatos de ese partido han tenido un éxito notable en las contiendas estatales. Trump ganó en Florida tanto en 2016 como en 2020, y el estado eligió dos veces al gobernador Ron DeSantis, quien es el principal rival de Trump para la candidatura presidencial republicana.Todo esto debería ofrecer cierto consuelo a los miembros del equipo de defensa de Trump, quienes saben que solo se necesita un voto para que el resultado sea un jurado dividido. Además, muchos habitantes del sur de Florida, al igual que estadounidenses en otras partes del país, creen que Trump es víctima de un trato injusto por parte de fuerzas poderosas en la izquierda política.George Cadman, un agente de bienes raíces de 54 años y padre de dos hijos, dijo que no ha seguido de cerca las noticias en los últimos meses. Afirmó que no había oído nada sobre los cargos federales contra Trump, lo que lo convierte, en cierto sentido, en un buen candidato para servir como jurado.El caso se presentó en la división de West Palm Beach del Distrito Sur de Florida, lo que significa que el jurado podría ser seleccionado entre los votantes registrados en el condado de Palm Beach, donde está el resort Mar-a-Lago de Trump. Saul Martinez para The New York TimesPero Cadman, que vive en el condado de Miami-Dade, en el sur, también dijo que apoya a Trump “100 por ciento” y que cree que las investigaciones previas sobre el expresidente tuvieron motivaciones políticas. Tras agregar que cree que la interferencia electoral de Rusia en 2016 y el escándalo sobre Trump y Ucrania fueron engaños, dijo que “sería muy cauteloso al tomar una decisión sobre lo que pienso al respecto”, refiriéndose al nuevo caso contra Trump.(En una llamada telefónica posterior, Cadman dijo que por mucho que le gustaba Trump, planeaba votar por el presidente Biden en 2024, porque el aumento del valor de las propiedades había beneficiado su trabajo como agente de bienes raíces).Muchos de los cubanoestadounidenses del sur de Florida aprendieron por las malas, durante y después de la Revolución Cubana, sobre el impacto de la política incluso en las vidas apolíticas. Y para algunos de los conservadores entre ellos, como Modesto Estrada, un empresario jubilado que llegó a Miami hace 18 años, vale la pena apoyar a Trump como un poderoso freno para los demócratas y las políticas liberales que, según Estrada, están “arruinando el país” pues disuaden a la gente de trabajar.Estrada, de 71 años, señaló que también se había descubierto que Biden y el ex vicepresidente Mike Pence tenían documentos gubernamentales confidenciales en su poder. (Sin embargo, Biden hasta ahora, a todas luces, ya devolvió los documentos a las autoridades tras descubrirlos, al igual que Pence). Al igual que muchas personas entrevistadas, Estrada confesó que le resultaría difícil ser un jurado imparcial en el caso.“Desde mi perspectiva personal, hasta el momento, no tienen nada contra él”, dijo sobre Trump. “Y no le va a pasar nada. No va a ir a la cárcel. El caso se va a desmoronar y eso es lo que espero que suceda”.Así como Estrada afirmó que su experiencia con una dictadura de izquierda había influido en su esperanza de que Trump sea declarado inocente, Viviana Domínguez, de 63 años, se refirió a su propia experiencia en su Argentina natal, la cual estuvo gobernada por una dictadura militar de derecha de 1976 a 1983, cuando expresó su aversión a Trump.Modesto Estrada apoya a Trump. “El caso se va a desmoronar y eso es lo que espero que suceda”, afirmó, sobre los cargos.Saul Martinez para The New York TimesDomínguez, una restauradora de arte que ha vivido en Miami durante 13 años, calificó a Trump como una “vergüenza” y agregó: “Creo que irá a la cárcel, pero no sé si eso sea una ilusión”.Domínguez describió el caso de los documentos y la todavía considerable base de apoyo de Trump, en términos de una inquietante flexibilización de los estándares cívicos. “Vimos todo eso en mi propio país, cuando las mentiras se hicieron cada vez más grandes”, afirmó. “El margen de tolerancia se hizo cada vez más amplio, de modo que nunca veías el límite. Hablaban de moralidad y de la familia, pero eran las personas más corruptas y obscenas del mundo. Es como un estado de locura”.Roderick Clelland, un veterano de la guerra de Vietnam de 78 años, de West Palm Beach, la ciudad más poblada del condado de Palm Beach, dijo que le preocupaban las implicaciones internacionales de lo que sentía que había sido una actitud laxa de Trump hacia los secretos nacionales.“El mundo entero nos está mirando”, afirmó Clelland. “Y algunos de esos documentos sobre otros países… ¿van a confiar en nosotros? La gente ha sido encarcelada por menos que eso. Así que no puedes simplemente violar la ley y salirte con la tuya. Por eso espero que haya un castigo”.Clelland tuvo cuidado de señalar que no odiaba a Trump. “Pero no me gusta su comportamiento y su actitud”, dijo.A pesar de haber votado dos veces por Trump, Starkey, quien es secretaria del Club Republicano de Palm Beaches, dijo que nunca ha sido una gran admiradora. Pero tanto en 2016 como en 2020, no pudo decidirse a apoyar al candidato más liberal. Por estos días está pensando en votar por Nikki Haley, exembajadora de las Naciones Unidas y exgobernadora republicana de Carolina del Sur. Aclaró que solo hablaba a título personal y no en nombre de su club.Sin embargo, Starkey dijo que la acusación formal contra Trump parecía una estrategia partidista en un momento en que la política estadounidense carece de gran parte de la cortesía entre los dos partidos que recuerda con cariño del pasado. Afirmó que esa era una de las razones por las que tendría dificultades si la eligieran para ser un eventual jurado en el caso. “¿Estás segura de que tienes todos los hechos a favor y en contra?”, se preguntó.Starkey dijo que estaba harta del drama que rodeaba la acusación y que sabía que muchas otras personas pensaban igual que ella.“Solo quiero que todo esto desaparezca”, dijo.Richard Fausset es un corresponsal radicado en Atlanta. Escribe sobre política, cultura, raza, pobreza y el sistema penal del sur de Estados Unidos. Antes trabajó para Los Angeles Times, donde fue corresponsal en Ciudad de México. @RichardFausset More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      n South Florida, Voters Ponder Trump

      by

      The complicated feelings among some residents about Mr. Trump and the case against him reflect the complicated politics of the state. As a registered voter in Palm Beach County, Fla., Bette Anne Starkey knows there is a possibility she could be chosen to serve on a jury in the federal criminal case against former President Donald J. Trump. But even though she is a two-time Trump voter, she cannot really say how she would lean as a juror weighing the case.Echoing Mr. Trump himself, Ms. Starkey, an 81-year-old bookkeeper, used the phrase “witch hunt” in an interview to describe the federal indictment against the former president, which accuses him of knowingly removing classified documents from the White House. But she also struggles to understand why Mr. Trump did not simply return the documents when asked for them, part of her simmering irritation with the 45th president.“I’m sick of hearing about all of his shenanigans,” she said.Her comments reflect the complicated feelings that Mr. Trump can elicit these days even among Republicans who voted for him. But Ms. Starkey is also a reflection of the equally complicated, volatile politics of South Florida, Mr. Trump’s home turf, and the jury pool it offers.It is in diverse, densely populated South Florida that a jury of Mr. Trump’s peers will be called upon to judge his innocence or guilt if the case ever goes to trial, although the exact trial location and jury pool have not been determined.Supporters of the former president gathered near Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., on Sunday.Saul Martinez for The New York TimesThe case was filed in the West Palm Beach court division of the Southern District of Florida, meaning the jury may be selected from registered voters in Palm Beach County, home to Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, where he has lived since leaving the White House. Mr. Trump lost Palm Beach County to President Biden by nearly 13 percentage points in 2020.But a jury pool made up of Miami-Dade County voters, to the south of Palm Beach, is also a possibility, particularly if it is determined that the federal courthouse in Miami, where Mr. Trump is expected to make an initial appearance on Tuesday, is best equipped to accommodate what will likely be one of the highest-profile criminal trials in American history.Mr. Trump lost Miami-Dade by only about seven points in the last election, getting strong support from Hispanic voters in particular; more than two-thirds of the county’s residents identify as Hispanic, according to census data.Both counties, however, have grown more Republican in recent years, and Republican candidates have had significant success in statewide races. Mr. Trump won Florida in both 2016 and 2020, and the state has twice elected Gov. Ron DeSantis, currently Mr. Trump’s main rival for the Republican presidential nomination.All of this should offer some comfort to members of Mr. Trump’s defense team, who know it takes only one vote to result in a hung jury. And many South Floridians, like Americans elsewhere in the country, believe that Mr. Trump is a victim of unfair treatment by powerful forces on the political left.George Cadman, 54, is a real estate agent and father of two who said he has not been following the news closely over the last few months. He said he had not heard about the federal charges against Mr. Trump — making him, in some sense, a good candidate for jury service.The case was filed in the West Palm Beach division of the Southern District of Florida, meaning the jury may be selected from registered voters in Palm Beach County, home to Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.Saul Martinez for The New York TimesBut Mr. Cadman, who lives in southern Miami-Dade County, also said he supports Trump “100 percent” and that he believes previous investigations of Mr. Trump were politically motivated. Adding that he believes Russia’s 2016 election interference and the scandal about Mr. Trump and Ukraine were hoaxes, he said, “I would be very leery on making a decision on what I think about it,” he said, referring to the new case against Mr. Trump.(In a subsequent phone call, Mr. Cadman said that as much as he loved Mr. Trump, he planned to vote for President Biden in 2024, because rising property values had been good for his job as a real estate agent.)Many of South Florida’s Cuban Americans learned the hard way, during and after the Cuban Revolution, about the impact of politics on even apolitical lives. And for some of the conservatives among them, like Modesto Estrada, a retired businessman who arrived in Miami 18 years ago, Mr. Trump is worth supporting as a powerful brake on Democrats and liberal policies that Mr. Estrada said were “ruining the country” by discouraging people from working.Mr. Estrada, 71, noted that Mr. Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence had also been found to have sensitive government documents in their possession. Like many people interviewed, he said he would have a hard time being an impartial juror in the case.“From my personal perspective, up till now, they don’t have anything on him,” he said of Mr. Trump. “And nothing’s going to happen to him. He’s not going to jail. The case is going to fall apart and that’s what I’m hoping.”Just as Mr. Estrada said his experience with a left-wing dictatorship has colored his hope that Mr. Trump is found not guilty, Viviana Dominguez, 63, referred to her own experience in her native Argentina, which was ruled by a right-wing military dictatorship from 1976 to 1983, as she expressed her dislike of Mr. Trump.Modesto Estrada supports Mr. Trump. “The case is going to fall apart and that’s what I’m hoping,” he said about the charges.Saul Martinez for The New York TimesMs. Dominguez, an art conservator who has lived in Miami for 13 years, called Mr. Trump an “embarrassment,” adding, “I think he’s going to go to jail, but I don’t know if that’s wishful thinking.”She described the documents case, and Mr. Trump’s still-considerable base of support, in terms of an unsettling loosening of civic standards. “We saw all that in my own country, when the lies kept getting bigger and bigger,” she said. “The margin of tolerance kept getting wider and wider, so that you never saw the limit. They would talk of morality and of the family, but they would be the most corrupt, the most obscene people anywhere. It’s like a state of madness.”Roderick Clelland, a 78-year-old Vietnam veteran from West Palm Beach, the most populous city in Palm Beach County, said he was worried about the international implications of what he saw as Mr. Trump’s lax attitude toward sensitive national secrets.“The whole world is watching us.” Mr. Clelland said. “And some of those documents about other countries — are they going to trust us? People have been locked up for less than that. So you can’t just violate the law and get away with it. So I hope there is a penalty.”Mr. Clelland was careful to note that he did not hate Mr. Trump. “But I don’t like his behavior and his attitude,” he said.Despite voting for Mr. Trump twice, Ms. Starkey, the bookkeeper, said she has never been a big fan. But in both 2016 and 2020, she could not bring herself to support the more liberal candidate. These days, she is thinking about voting for Nikki Haley, the former United Nations ambassador and Republican governor of South Carolina.Still, Ms. Starkey said the indictment of Mr. Trump seemed like a partisan move at a time when American politics is lacking much of the comity between the two parties that she remembers fondly from the past. It was one reason, she said, that she would have a hard time if she were picked for an eventual jury in the case: “Do you trust that you’re getting all the facts for and against?” she wondered.She said she was exasperated with the drama surrounding the indictment — and knew there were many others like her.“I just want it to go away,” she said.@Verónica Soledad Zaragovia contributed reporting from Palm Beach County, Fla. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Limits Fox’s Options for Defense in Dominion Trial

      by

      A Delaware judge said Fox News could not argue newsworthiness to defend airing false claims, and limited how Dominion Voting Systems could refer to the Jan. 6 attack.WILMINGTON, Del. — A judge ruled on Tuesday that Fox News could not argue that it broadcast false information about Dominion Voting Systems on the basis that the allegations were newsworthy, limiting a key line of defense for the network as it faces the beginning of a potentially costly defamation trial next week.The judge, Eric M. Davis of Delaware Superior Court, also ruled that Dominion could not refer to the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol except in very narrow circumstances, saying he did not want jurors to be prejudiced by events that weren’t relevant to the central question in the case: Did Fox air wild claims about Dominion’s purported involvement in a conspiracy to steal the 2020 presidential election from Donald J. Trump knowing that they were lies?In the first of two days of pretrial hearings, Judge Davis set many of the parameters that will govern how the trial is run, including what kinds of arguments the 12-person jury can hear and what questions lawyers may ask during jury selection to weed out those they believe would not be impartial.The hearing covered matters large and seemingly small, from the application of the First Amendment to how jurors may take notes.Judge Davis said he would allow lawyers to ask potential jurors about their cable news viewing habits and whether they watched Fox News programs — or intentionally avoided them. He will not, however, permit questions about how someone voted.In another ruling, the judge denied a motion from Dominion that sought to limit how Fox lawyers could invoke the First Amendment, leaving the network with some space to argue that the Constitution shields it from liability.The lawsuit, in which Dominion is seeking $1.6 billion in damages, is teeing up a major test of the First Amendment and, depending on the outcome, could renew questions about whether defamation law adequately protects victims of misinformation campaigns.While legal experts have said Dominion’s case is unusually strong, defamation suits are extremely difficult to win because the law essentially requires proof of the defendants’ state of mind. Dominion’s burden will be to convince a jury that people inside Fox acted with actual malice, meaning either that they knew the allegations they broadcast were false but did so anyway, or that they acted so recklessly they overlooked facts that would have proved them wrong.Fox has argued that while it understood many of the claims made by its guests about Dominion were false, they were still worth covering as inherently newsworthy. Fox’s lawyers have taken the position that there is nothing more newsworthy than claims by a former president of the United States that an election wasn’t credible.Judge Eric M. Davis said he would allow lawyers to ask potential jurors about their cable news viewing habits and whether they watched Fox News programs.John Taggart for The New York TimesBut Judge Davis disagreed.“Just because someone is newsworthy doesn’t mean you can defame someone,” he said, referring to pro-Trump lawyers like Sidney Powell and Rudolph W. Giuliani, who appeared repeatedly on Fox News and Fox Business in the weeks after the 2020 election and linked Dominion to various conspiracy theories.The judge admonished Fox’s lawyers, saying they cannot make the argument that the false statements about Dominion came from guests like Ms. Powell and not from Fox hosts. That argument is irrelevant, he said, because the fact remains that Fox is responsible as the broadcaster.Sidney Powell and Rudolph W. Giuliani. The pro-Trump lawyers appeared repeatedly on Fox News and Fox Business in the weeks after the 2020 election and linked Dominion to various conspiracy theories.Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press“It’s a publication issue, not a who-said-it issue,” he said.Dan K. Webb, a lawyer representing Fox, explained that hosts would testify that they weren’t certain about the truth of the allegations but covered them because the former president and his lawyers said they could prove them.“The hosts will say during that time period, 15, 20 days, they were careful not to repeat the allegation,” Mr. Webb said.Judge Davis responded, “Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it’s true.”It was not the only tense exchange between the judge and Fox lawyers on Tuesday. At one point, a lawyer for Dominion, Justin Nelson, informed Judge Davis that Fox had disclosed only within the last 48 hours that Rupert Murdoch, whose family controls the Fox media empire, had a larger role in Fox News than the company had initially let on.By not acknowledging the extent of Mr. Murdoch’s responsibility for Fox News, the personal communications of his that Dominion could review were “significantly more limited,” Mr. Nelson said.Judge Davis was not pleased. “This is a problem,” he said. “I need to feel comfortable that when you represent something to me that it’s true,” he added.Fox has also made the argument that its actions were not defamatory because many hosts and guests said on the air that there was a lack of convincing evidence that suggested widespread voter fraud.Judge Davis rejected this position, too.“You can’t absolve yourself of defamation by merely putting somebody on at another time to say something different,” he said.In asking for such a large settlement against Fox, Dominion has cited the death threats its employees have received. People have shown up outside its Denver headquarters armed and left voice mail messages threatening to blow up its offices.Judge Davis on Tuesday limited how Dominion can refer to those threats in front of jurors, ruling that it may not mention specific content. He said he did not want to leave jurors with the impression that Fox was responsible for the actions of third parties.The trial begins on Monday, with jury selection expected to wrap up by the end of this week.Before Tuesday, the judge had already ruled that Dominion could compel several high-profile Fox executives and hosts to testify in person, including Mr. Murdoch; Suzanne Scott, the chief executive of Fox News Media; and the Fox News personalities Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Former National Enquirer Publisher Testifies Before Grand Jury in Trump Case

      by

      The grand jury investigating a hush-money case against the former president met again on Monday, but the timing of any potential indictment remained unclear.The Manhattan grand jury weighing evidence about Donald J. Trump’s role in a hush-money payment to a porn star heard testimony on Monday from a crucial witness, but there was no sign an indictment had been filed, according to people with knowledge of the matter.The witness, David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer, also testified in January. Since the grand jury was impaneled early this year by the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, it has heard from at least nine witnesses — including Mr. Pecker, who has now appeared twice — and is expected to vote on an indictment soon.It is unclear whether the grand jury took any action on Monday, but one of the people with knowledge of the matter said it had not voted on an indictment. Grand juries operate in secret, leaving the timing of indictments something of a mystery.Mr. Pecker was a key player in the hush-money episode. He and the tabloid’s top editor helped broker the deal between the porn star, Stormy Daniels, and Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s fixer at the time.Ever since Mr. Trump predicted his arrest a little more than a week ago, all eyes have turned to the grand jury.And while the grand jurors could vote to indict the former president as soon as this week — in what would be the culmination of a nearly five-year investigation — the exact timing is subject to the quirks of the grand jury process in Manhattan, which include scheduling conflicts and other potential interruptions.This particular grand jury meets on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, though it typically has not heard evidence related to the Trump investigation on Thursdays. The panel does not have to meet on each of those days, but only convenes when Mr. Bragg’s office summons the jurors.The timing of an indictment might also depend on the jurors’ availability. Sixteen of the 23 grand jurors must be present to conduct any business (and a majority must vote to indict for the case to go forward). For the prosecutors to seek a vote to indict, the jurors in attendance that day must previously have heard all key witness testimony.Members of the media gathered outside the court building in Lower Manhattan on Monday afternoon.Anna Watts for The New York TimesThe prospect of an indictment has raised a number of questions about the contours of the potential case facing Mr. Trump, who would become the first former American president to be indicted.Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors are focused on the $130,000 payment to Ms. Daniels, who agreed to keep quiet about her story of an affair with Mr. Trump in exchange for the payoff. Mr. Cohen made the payment during the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign.In recent weeks, Mr. Bragg’s office signaled to Mr. Trump’s lawyers that the former president could face criminal charges by offering him the chance to testify before the grand jury, people with knowledge of the matter have said. Such offers almost always indicate an indictment is near; it would be unusual for prosecutors to notify a potential defendant without ultimately seeking charges against him.In New York, potential defendants have the right to answer questions in front of the grand jury before they are indicted, but they rarely testify, and Mr. Trump declined the offer.Prosecutors have now questioned almost every major player in the hush-money episode, again suggesting that the district attorney’s presentation is nearing an end.Mr. Trump has denied all wrongdoing — as well as any sexual encounter with Ms. Daniels — and unleased a series of escalating attacks on Mr. Bragg. Mr. Trump has referred to the investigation as a “witch hunt” and called Mr. Bragg, who is Black and a Democrat, a “racist” and an “animal.”In a post this month on his social network Truth Social, Mr. Trump declared, without any direct knowledge, that his arrest was imminent, calling on his supporters to “PROTEST, TAKE OUR NATION BACK!” — rhetoric reminiscent of his posts in the lead-up to the assault on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.The focus of Mr. Pecker’s testimony was unclear, but it is not unusual for a witness to be called before a grand jury a second time, and he could have provided valuable information for prosecutors. A longtime ally of Mr. Trump, he agreed to keep an eye out for potentially damaging stories about Mr. Trump during the 2016 campaign.For a brief time in October 2016, Ms. Daniels appeared to have just that kind of story. Her agent and lawyer discussed the possibility of selling exclusive rights to her story of a sexual encounter with Mr. Trump to The National Enquirer, which would then promise to never publish it, a practice known as “catch and kill.”Mr. Pecker didn’t bite. Instead, he and the tabloid’s editor, Dylan Howard, decided that Mr. Cohen would have to deal with Ms. Daniels’s team directly.And when Mr. Cohen was slow to pay, Mr. Howard pressed him to get the deal done, to prevent Ms. Daniels from revealing their discussions about suppressing her story. “We have to coordinate something,” Mr. Howard texted Mr. Cohen in late October 2016, “or it could look awfully bad for everyone.”Two days later, Mr. Cohen transferred the $130,000 to an account held by Ms. Daniels’s attorney.Sean Piccoli More