Two of the four criminal cases against former US President Donald Trump were advanced on Thursday.
In New York, Trump was back in court in a case related to hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election, in which he defeated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
He is charged with 35 felony counts of falsifying business documents, with prosecutors arguing the misdeeds were part of a larger criminal plan to influence the vote.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., heard arguments related to Trump’s claim that he was immune from federal prosecution in a separate case involving allegations that he sought to overturn the 2020 election results to tilt. Trump has argued that he should be immune from prosecution because the allegations relate to actions he took while in office.
Here are the takeaways from Thursday’s negotiations:
The tabloid publisher knew that “catch and kill” payments violated campaign laws
National Enquirer publisher David Pecker said in the New York trial that he knew efforts to buy and suppress negative stories about Trump violated federal election laws.
In the US, companies must report payments made in coordination with an election campaign. Pecker had previously testified that he agreed to use his position as the campaign’s “eyes and ears,” buying unflattering stories and then killing them before publication. In a meeting with Trump and Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, he said the trio hatched a plan to suppress politically damaging stories.
Pecker specifically referenced paying model Karen McDougal $150,000 for her story about an alleged affair with Trump. Asked if the intent of buying the story was to influence the election results, he replied: “Yes, it was.”
While the 34 counts of forgery against Trump specifically relate to payments to Daniels, prosecutors have sought to establish a broader pattern of Trump’s involvement in election abuses in the first days of testimony.
Pecker says Trump wasn’t worried about the family finding out about the alleged affair
The publisher said he never saw Trump indicate that he was concerned about harm to his family from allegations of extramarital affairs made by McDougal and Daniels.
Instead, when questioned by the public prosecutor, he said that he considered the attempts to limit the damage to be purely political. “I think it was for the election campaign.”
In fact, Pecker told prosecutors that Trump never referred to his family when discussing the affair allegations.
The claim undermines one of the central tenets of the defense’s argument that the payments to Daniels were intended to avert personal, not political, harm to Trump.
Prosecutors say Trump committed additional violations of the gag order
Prosecutors are waiting for Judge Juan Merchan to issue a ruling on allegations that Trump violated a partial gag order at least 10 times; The judge had previously banned Trump from speaking publicly about people involved in the case.
Prosecutors said Trump had violated the order four times since they sought sanctions against him on Tuesday.
This included two new attacks that Trump made against Cohen while speaking to the press. Trump also referred to the jurors as “95 percent Democrats” in another alleged violation.
Prosecutors also argued that calling Pecker “a nice guy” during a campaign stop Thursday was a form of intimidation. They said the statement was intended as a signal to Pecker and other witnesses to be kind to Trump or face consequences.
The defense begins with cross-examination
Thursday’s proceedings ended with Pecker being cross-examined by Trump’s defense attorney Emil Bove.
In the first part of his questioning, he tried to present “catch and kill” measures as “standard procedure.”
Pecker noted that he had previously suppressed stories on behalf of Rahm Emanuel — the former mayor of Chicago and former White House chief of staff to Barack Obama — and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Pecker’s cross-examination was scheduled to continue Friday.
The Supreme Court appears poised to reject Trump’s lawsuit
During a day of questioning, U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism about Trump’s claims that all of his White House official actions should be protected by absolute immunity.
Otherwise, Trump lawyer John Sauer argued, it could become common for former presidents to be prosecuted for unpopular policy decisions.
In response, Justice Elena Kagan asked whether a former president could avoid prosecution even if he ordered a coup or sold nuclear secrets. Sauer said prosecutions of ex-presidents may not be permissible if they are classified as official acts.
“That sounds really bad, doesn’t it?” Kagan replied.
The federal trial against Trump will likely be delayed
Thursday’s proceedings suggested that a quick Supreme Court decision was unlikely.
Prosecutors have called for a quick decision so the federal case can be heard before the November election.
The Supreme Court typically issues its final opinions in late June, about four months before the election. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who would preside over the trial, said preliminary hearings could take up to three months. It could also send the case back to a lower court.
Justice Samuel Alito underscored the gravity of the case on Thursday, saying that “whatever we decide will apply to all future presidents.”