Third witness puts Trump's financial web in spotlight
With Madeline Halpert, Kayla Epstein and Nada Tawfik reporting from court in New York
Related Video and Audio
RTL
With Madeline Halpert, Kayla Epstein and Nada Tawfik reporting from court in New York
Live Reporting
Edited by Tiffany Wertheimer and Phil McCausland
All times stated are UK
Trump's lawyer is back in the action
Madeline Halpert
Reporting from court
Suddenly, Trump's attorney Emil Bove is now back and is once again questioning David Pecker.
He's trying to poke holes in the prosecution's arguments, claiming there was "real value" to having Playboy Karen McDougal in American Media's magazines.
Bove is using this line of questioning to support a broader argument that the hush-money payment was a business decision for Pecker.
"I wouldn't say there was value to [McDougal's] brand for a media company," Pecker says.
Prosecution tries to dismantle any juror doubt caused by defence
Madeline Halpert
Reporting from court
During his questioning, the prosecution's Josh Steinglass continues to try to address concerns raised during cross-examination.
He's going over several points that Trump's lawyer Emil Bove brought up, trying to prove that David Pecker has always been a consistent witness.
The topics they have gone over include Pecker’s refusal to buy a story from Stormy Daniels about her alleged affair with Trump, as well as Trump’s gratitude to Pecker for purchasing stories from Playboy model Karen McDougal and doorman Dino Sajudin.
Pecker is back on the witness stand
Madeline Halpert
Reporting from court
David Pecker is back on the stand and the prosecution's Joshua Steinglass is questioning him again.
Before the lunch break, Steinglass said he had about 30 more minutes of questions.
Court resumes after lunch
Madeline Halpert
Reporting from court
Donald Trump has just walked back into the courtroom and we're about to start back up again.
Stick with us.
What's this case all about?
We're a week into testimony now for Donald Trump's hush-money trial - one of four criminal trials he's currently facing.
So let's take a moment to zoom out, and look at what this case is all about.
The former president has been charged with business fraud over hush-money payments to ex-porn actress Stormy Daniels.
Daniels claims she and Trump had sex, and that she accepted $130,000 (£104,500) from his then-lawyer. Michael Cohen, before the 2016 election in exchange for her silence about the encounter.
Prosecutors allege that Trump had Cohen make the payments, and then they claim Trump fraudulently recorded the transaction in his company’s books as legal expenses when in fact he was paying Cohen back for the hush-money payments.
Paying hush-money is not illegal, but the prosecution says how the payment was recorded amounts to election fraud. In short - they say he wrongly classified the payments as legal fees, to conceal what they really were for, thus concealing the pay-off, and therefore interfering with an election.
Since the allegations surfaced in 2018, Trump has denied any sexual involvement with Stormy Daniels.
He's facing 34 counts of fraud under campaign finance laws, and has pleaded not guilty to all of them.
Pecker a reliable witness, as prosecution's argument holds strong
Nada Tawfik
Reporting from court
David Pecker has come off as a truthful, reliable witness.
This is someone who said he considered Donald Trump a mentor, had a decades long relationship with him, and even now doesn’t harbour any ill will towards the ex-president.
That is presumably why the defence didn’t come out swinging, but chose instead to try to lead him where they wanted. Bove tried to frame the “catch-and-kill” scheme - and even his cooperation with prosecutors - as a business decision.
The phrase “standard operating procedure” featured often, as Bove went slowly through agreements, invoices and ledger entries related to Karen McDougal.
The defence lawyer also got Pecker to recount that McDougal’s agreement did include real obligations, and that he had told Cohen that it was “bullet proof” after consulting with a campaign attorney.
But since prosecutors have taken up questioning for a second time, they have tried to leave no room for doubt.
Pecker reiterated that the true purpose of McDougal’s contract was to acquire the life rights to her story, and that the “catch-and-kill” scheme was to benefit Donald Trump’s campaign.
The defence, therefore, didn’t succeed in making a significant dent in the prosecution’s narrative.
What were the prosecutors doing in their re-direct of Pecker?
Madeline Halpert
Reporting from court
Just before the break, Steinglass was asking David Pecker a second round of questions after the defence cross-examined the former tabloid publisher.
The lead prosecutor was trying to erase any doubts that Trump's lawyer Emil Bove may have put in jurors' heads about the "catch-and-kill" scheme.
“You were asked a lot about this by Mr Bove,” Steinglass says.
“What was your understanding of what you agreed to?”
“It was my understanding that I would use the company’s sources for any information coming out on Mr Trump or the campaign related specifically to women who would be selling their stories,” Pecker says.
How Pecker's testimony has surprised one expert
Kayla Epstein
Reporting from court
We've been asking legal experts to talk about how the trial is proceeding so far.
There has been one surprise, according to John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School.
"The new and unexpected development this week has been the enthusiastic and highly cooperative testimony that Mr Pecker has given," he told me via email.
"Because he was a friend of Trump, I had expected more grudging testimony."
But instead, Coffee tells me, Pecker has "strongly endorsed" the prosecution's theory that Trump and his fixer, Michael Cohen, enlisted Pecker to help Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.
Let's not forget, however, that Pecker is testifying under a deferred prosecution agreement, since AMI - the owner of the National Enquirer - has admitted that it committed related felonies.
Pecker's "catch-and-kill" schemes at the National Enquirer tabloid magazine - to boost Trump as the presidential candidate and block negative stories about him - have been the main focus of the first week of testimony.
Court breaks for lunch
Madeline Halpert
Reporting from court
The court has just stopped for lunch.
Jurors are instructed not to discuss the case during the break.
Court may be breaking, but stick with us. We have more updates and analysis on the way.
'Did you suppress stories to help a presidential candidate?'
Madeline Halpert
Reporting from court
Prosecutor Josh Steinglass continues to press Pecker on the "catch-and-kill" scheme, as he did yesterday.
He’s asking if it’s typical for a presidential candidate’s fixer - Michael Cohen - to be so involved in agreements to buy stories from sources.
Pecker says no.
“Did you suppress stories to help a presidential candidate?” Steinglass asks more directly.
"Yes," Pecker says.
Prosecution goes over key points of Pecker's testimony
Madeline Halpert
Reporting from court
With the cross-examination over for David Pecker, it's back to the prosecution.
Josh Steinglass with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office starts by trying to re-establish that Pecker, Michael Cohen and Donald Trump worked to suppress negative stories about Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign.
In his testimony over the past week, Pecker has agreed with this reasoning.
"It was for the campaign," he told the court yesterday.
Two different approaches for two key characters in the trial
Nada Tawfik
Reporting from court
It was interesting to watch how the defence handled David Pecker.
Remember, Donald Trump has not attacked his credibility, unlike his previous behaviour towards the prosecution’s key witness Michael Cohen.
As recently as yesterday, Trump called Pecker a very nice man.
Trump's lawyer Emil Bove is even courteous to Pecker when he's targeted his credibility, often saying “I appreciate it,” “thanks for the clarification,” or “I’m sorry about that”.
And while Bove's voice boomed when he wanted to emphasise a point to the jury, his tone was gentle when prodding Pecker.
'I've been truthful', Pecker says
Madeline Halpert
Reporting from court
We’ve just finished cross-examination.
Trump's lawyer Emil Bove ended by talking about David Pecker’s cooperation with prosecutors.
He explains that Pecker entered into a deal with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office in 2019.
Bove asks what the deal was.
“Be truthful,” Pecker says.
“I’ve been truthful to the best of my recollection,” Pecker tells the court.
Prosecutors are now re-directing.
New sketch shows scene inside courtroom
We have our first court sketch of the day from artist Jane Rosenberg.
It shows Donald Trump sitting and watching as his lawyer, Emil Bove, gestures.
David Pecker is pictured on the witness stand, alongside Justice Juan Merchan.
Court slowed down by mini legal battles
Madeline Halpert
Reporting from court
The slow pace of court this morning continues. We’re having a lot of legal sidebars after many objections from the prosecution to Emil Bove's questions.
So far Justice Merchan has overruled some while sustaining others.
We're expecting to break for lunch at 13:00 local time (18:00 BST).
Pecker becomes cautious over probing line of questions
Madeline Halpert
Reporting from court
We’re still going over AMI’s non-prosecution agreement with the federal government, so here is a bit more on the subject.
Pecker was the CEO of the company at the time of the deal.
In the agreement, Pecker was granted immunity in exchange for cooperating with prosecutors in their Trump investigation.
The agreement came about after Pecker and his company admitted to violating a campaign finance law with the hush-money payment made to Playboy model Karen McDougal.
Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations over the same hush-money payment.
Pecker is much more hesitant in answering questions about the deal, taking pains not to be tripped up by the defence’s questions.
Defence targets Pecker's credibility as a witness
Nada Tawfik
Reporting from court
David Pecker is clearly uncomfortable and thinking about his answers carefully, as the defence asks him about his non-prosecution agreement.
Emil Bove’s questioning tries to insinuate that there was pressure for Pecker to cooperate with the Manhattan District Attorney’s office because he was in the middle of a $100 million deal for the Hudson News Group to acquire AMI's National Enquirer and two other tabloids.
Pecker says they could’ve closed the deal subject to the investigation being completed.
But he does concede under further cross examination that if AMI was indicted, it would’ve affected the value of its assets.
Team Trump's strategy for the first witness
Madeline Halpert
Reporting from court
Since we're just getting back from break, let's take a look at how the defence has approached its cross-examination of David Pecker.
Trump’s attorneys have adopted a much slower pace during their questioning today, using the same regular tactic in their approach to Pecker.
They seem to be trying to establish that Pecker’s number one motivation was to benefit himself - and not Trump - when he bought and killed stories related to Trump's alleged affairs, says former Brooklyn prosecutor Julie Rendelman.
“The problem with that strategy is that, in a sense, both can be true,” Rendelman tells me.
“Pecker wanted to benefit Pecker, and Trump wanted to benefit Trump.”
Court resumes
Madeline Halpert
Reporting from court
We're back after a short break with Donald Trump strolling into the room before the rest of his legal team.
Pecker distances himself from Stormy Daniels
Nada Tawfik
Reporting from court
Before the break, we saw Bove again try to prove to the jury that David Pecker was acting out of his own business interests, and was not primarily focused on helping Donald Trump’s campaign.
Bove had Pecker agree on the stand that he did not authorise one of his editors to speak with Stormy Daniel’s lawyer.
And, indeed, that he didn’t want to have anything to do with the Stormy story.
He testified that his editor Dylan Howard used Daniels lawyer often as a source.
Pecker said that it was his editor who told him it would look bad if Michael Cohen didn’t pay Daniels - because in the industry, you can’t promise to pay a source and not follow through.