First Witness: Publisher of the National Enquirer. 3 Questions for all:

[Dante]

Again, Pecker is a known Trump supporter
The jury will have to ask if he is covering for Trump

Huh? This will not be a cold testimony. His story has already been investigated and vetted.

 

[Dante]

David Pecker to be first witness in Trump’s hush money trial: New York Times

Magazine publisher David Pecker is slated to be the first witness in former President Trump’s criminal hush money trial, The New York Times reported Sunday, setting the stage as the first criminal …

thehill.com

The prosecution is apparently leaking again.

Citing a person familiar with prosecutors’ planned arguments, the Times reported that Pecker’s testimony is expected to center on his conversations with Trump about the hush money payments.

The questions:

How do you rate the likely truthfulness of David Pecker on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being as honest as George Washington and 1 being as honest Michael Cohen?

How do you rate the honesty of the National Enquirer on the same scale?

If you rate the honesty of the magazine differently than the honesty of its publisher, what is the reason for the difference?

3 irrelevant questions. They do not matter.

Pecker: "On at least two occasions, in January and March of 2023, Pecker testified before the Manhattan grand jury that investigated Trump." - If he lied then, we would most likely know about it.

the end

 

[Seymour Flops]

No it didn't it said: "Citing a person familiar with prosecutors’ planned arguments,..."

That could be anyone claiming to be familiar. It could be a guess by someone on the defense side, it could be someone in the court, etc."

Occam’s Razor.

(DISCLAIMER: I don't doubt Pecker will be the first witness, makes sense in terms of laying a foundation.]

WW

Yes, this will be the start of a lengthy narrative.

 

[Dante]

Occam’s Razor.

Yes, this will be the start of a lengthy narrative.

Today is Opening Arguments Day

You're so far ahead of yourself, the fantasy you're narrating isn't worth one line of copy in the Enquirer.

 

[surada]

Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) Explained, With Pros and Cons

An NDA or non-disclosure agreement is a binding contract between two or more parties that prevents sensitive information from being shared with others.

www.investopedia.com

 

[rampart]

That was a National Enqirer headline.

i think we can stipulate that the national enquirer is a supermarket tabloid.

anyone who believes that hillary clinton has given birth to an alien baby probably does not belong outside a padded cell.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Juror 9 told Judge Merchan they aren’t sure they can continue.

The judge will stop the trial after a half day because juror 6 had a dentist appointment moved to an earlier time.

My prediction of a mistrial due to loss of jurors looks more and more likely.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Juror 9 told Judge Merchan they aren’t sure they can continue.

The judge will stop the trial after a half day because juror 6 had a dentist appointment moved to an earlier time.

My prediction of a mistrial due to loss of jurors looks more and more likely.

Source?

Both Fox and CNN are still reporting based on live updates of opening statements that are on going.

WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

It is.

There are two aspects to the case:

• Falsification of business records
• Intent to use that falsification to commit or hide/aid in another crime

The NDA is important because it (a) shows intent and (b) is the crime Cohen committed that FPOTUS#45 was attempting to hide and aid in.

WW

I don’t think the existence of the NDA will be disputed since it is perfectly legal.

That was my point to CC.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Source?

A person familiar with the proceedings.

Just kidding!

It’s on both CNN and Fox, but I’m on my phone and links are a pain. Business insider also.

Both Fox and CNN are still reporting based on live updates of opening statements that are on going.

WW

Correct.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I’m on my phone and links are a pain.

I hate posting from my phone so I can understand. Much rather have a keyboard in front of me.

WW

 

[AZrailwhale]

The audio tape of their conspiring on how to pay off a porn star will be in evidence. Gonna be hard to look the other way on that one.

Paying off a porn star isn't illegal. They aren't even trying to charge Trump for that. I could give you ten bucks to go away and stop annoying us in front of a room full of law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges and nothing would be said because it's completely legal. Now if you demanded the ten bucks from me, it would be a crime called extortion.

 

[candycorn]

Paying off a porn star isn't illegal. They aren't even trying to charge Trump for that. I could give you ten bucks to go away and stop annoying us in front of a room full of law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges and nothing would be said because it's completely legal. Now if you demanded the ten bucks from me, it would be a crime called extortion.

Can’t use campaign funds for it though.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Can’t use campaign funds for it though.

Neither Cohen or FPOTUS#45 drew money from campaign accounts to pay for the NDAs.

WW

 

[JusticeHammer]

I would say it depends on what his motivation is to lie?

Will he lie to protect his friend Trump?
Is he under threat of criminal prosecution if he does not turn on Trump

Beyond what Pecker says, is what actions did he take to benefit Trump? There is no question that he bought stories damaging to Trump and then killed them.

Demscum squash stories that brings their stupidity to light all the time.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Can’t use campaign funds for it though.

Demscum do it all the time.

 

[SavannahMann]

David Pecker to be first witness in Trump’s hush money trial: New York Times

Magazine publisher David Pecker is slated to be the first witness in former President Trump’s criminal hush money trial, The New York Times reported Sunday, setting the stage as the first criminal …

thehill.com

The prosecution is apparently leaking again.

Citing a person familiar with prosecutors’ planned arguments, the Times reported that Pecker’s testimony is expected to center on his conversations with Trump about the hush money payments.

The questions:

How do you rate the likely truthfulness of David Pecker on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being as honest as George Washington and 1 being as honest Michael Cohen?

How do you rate the honesty of the National Enquirer on the same scale?

If you rate the honesty of the magazine differently than the honesty of its publisher, what is the reason for the difference?

I honestly wish the case was televised. I know the RW hates this comparison, but I’d know if Trump would walk depending how the first witness is cross examined. If the Defense Team acts like the OJ Lawyers, Trump will probably walk. If they sound like Trump wrote the questions, he will be found guilty.

The OJ team challenged every piece of evidence. Every witness was rigorously questioned and discredited. The most famous is of course Mark Furman. He was asked if he viewed Blacks poorly. He was asked several questions about that. Then he was asked if he ever used the N word. Furman maintained he never did any such a thing. He was positive on follow up questions.

The Defense played a tape of Furman saying the word. They had just caught him in a lie. And now the rest of his testimony was tainted. The question for the Jury was now how we can know he told the truth? Just because he said so?

The Rittenhouse team did that sort of thing too. Hard cross examination. The Chauvin team did not. Chauvin didn’t have as much to work with. But his defense team was weak by comparison. I don’t think it would have made much difference, but I like a strong defense in court.

So today or tomorrow we will have a good idea of what will happen in this case.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I honestly wish the case was televised. I know the RW hates this comparison, but I’d know if Trump would walk depending how the first witness is cross examined. If the Defense Team acts like the OJ Lawyers, Trump will probably walk. If they sound like Trump wrote the questions, he will be found guilty.

The OJ team challenged every piece of evidence. Every witness was rigorously questioned and discredited. The most famous is of course Mark Furman. He was asked if he viewed Blacks poorly. He was asked several questions about that. Then he was asked if he ever used the N word. Furman maintained he never did any such a thing. He was positive on follow up questions.

The Defense played a tape of Furman saying the word. They had just caught him in a lie. And now the rest of his testimony was tainted. The question for the Jury was now how we can know he told the truth? Just because he said so?

The Rittenhouse team did that sort of thing too. Hard cross examination. The Chauvin team did not. Chauvin didn’t have as much to work with. But his defense team was weak by comparison. I don’t think it would have made much difference, but I like a strong defense in court.

So today or tomorrow we will have a good idea of what will happen in this case.

Good points, and a good comparison.

It is crazy that this is not televised. We need sunshine on this case, not the Plato’s Cav version we get from the media.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Can’t use campaign funds for it though.

No evidence whatsoever that Trump used campaign funds to pay the NDA.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Can’t use campaign funds for it though.

Yes you can. The FEC looked at the payments and found no legal problem with that.