General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPolitico's Latest Trial Update(s): Pecker said he believed the Enquirer's deal with McDougal was 'bulletproof'
Every day during the trial, Politico gives up-to-the-minute updates.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/04/25/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/bulletproof-deal-with-mcdougal-00154323
... Pecker said he and his publishing company, American Media Inc., consulted a campaign attorney before they finalized the deal on Aug. 5, 2016.
The contract paid McDougal $150,000 for the lifetime rights for her story about any romantic personal and/or physical relationship McDougal has ever had with any then-married man. Pecker testified that language referred to Trump.
Pecker said after they drew up the contract, he called Michael Cohen and told him the deal was bulletproof and that hed consulted a lawyer about the terms.
In addition to the rights of the story, the contract offered McDougal a two-year agreement to provide content to various magazines owned by AMI.
Pecker said the editorial side of the contract provided cover for the catch-and-kill payment.
I wanted to substantiate the $150,000 payment, Pecker said. With respect to campaign laws, I wanted to have the contract be a record that the services she was going to perform for AMI has a basis for it.
SeanHG
(14 posts)"In Manhattan, facing nearly three dozen felonies, Donald Trumps thin veneer of competence is being stripped away by a guy named Pecker..." has got to be one of the best lines I've ever read...
Johnny2X2X
(19,114 posts)This is explosive and damaging stuff moment by moment.
snowybirdie
(5,239 posts)simultaneously. So hard to choose.
ancianita
(36,137 posts)Was catching and killing McDougal's story an effort to influence the 2016 election? Pecker says yes.
Prosecutors just struck at the heart of their argument that the purchase of Karen McDougals story was an improper effort to influence the 2016 election.
Asked if Pecker ever had an intention of printing her story, he said no.
Asked if his purpose was to bury her story to prevent it from influencing the election, Pecker said it was.
And asked if he knew it violated campaign finance laws to coordinate with a presidential candidate to make a payment in service of the campaign, Pecker replied that he did.
Why did AMI make this purchase of Karen McDougals story?" prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked.
We purchased the story so it wouldnt be published by any other organization, Pecker said.
Asked if Pecker ever reported the McDougal payment to the FEC, Pecker said he didnt.
And why did you want that? Steinglass asked.
Pecker replied:
We didnt want the story to embarrass Mr. Trump or embarrass or hurt the campaign.
Johnny2X2X
(19,114 posts)ancianita
(36,137 posts)When I checked, that's what it looked like.
Johnny2X2X
(19,114 posts)Pecker to continue his testimony. Prosecution has a few more hours, then the defense will cross examine him tomorrow.
This was the first full day of testimony. Trump will have been there for 8 hours by the end of the day.
ancianita
(36,137 posts)I've been in the kitchen for the last few hours, so appreciate the update.
Johnny2X2X
(19,114 posts)This is going to be a lot of testimony.
malaise
(269,177 posts)Was on the road
ancianita
(36,137 posts)the coolest part of the prosecution's questioning was "Was there ever, ever at any point, any
mention of Melania?" Pecker: "No."
Right there in front of his friend. The whole court was like WOW.