Tabloid Publisher Testifies Trump Asked Him to ‘Help the Campaign’
www.nytimes.com
The jury heard testimony about what prosecutors say was a conspiracy to bury negative news, including a porn star’s claim of a sexual encounter with Donald Trump. The longtime publisher of The National Enquirer will resume his testimony on Thursday.
  • yogi_pogi@lemmy.world
    1·
    7 months ago

    During jury duty, we got all sorts of shit for even whispering which court room we are going to. We were all numbers and even addressed ourselves as a number. And we were threatened repeatedly with fines and prison sentences.

    This motherfucker gets to say whatever the fuck he wants and gets a bunch of verbal warnings and finger wagging.

    This is why we lose trust in various govt systems

  • kescusay@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    7 months ago

    Looking at the way this is going, I’m genuinely starting to wonder if Donald Trump ends up jailed for contempt sooner rather than later. It seems Merchan’s patience has been exhausted.

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      7 months ago

      "Prosecutor Christopher Conroy has just said that prosecutors are not seeking jail time for Trump’s violations of the gag order.

      We are not yet seeking incarceratory penalty. Defendant seems to be angling for that … We are asking the court to impose the maximum $1,000 fine for each violation."

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/apr/23/trump-hush-money-trial-new-york-updates

      “Defendant seems to be angling for that” … so? Why are they taking into consideration what Trump wants? Just treat him like you would a black guy in Texas caught with a little weed.

      • Jax@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        7 months ago

        Because if Trump can get them to act emotionally his lawyers can argue that this is a witch hunt.

        They have to go through this painstaking process. If the don’t they embolden his base and suddenly those definitely-not-calls-to-action are much more threatening.

          • Jax@sh.itjust.works
            0·
            7 months ago

            No, what I’m saying is that when they finally throw Trump in jail the logic needs to be so ironclad that idiots can’t refute it.

            Keep in mind, these are idiots with guns that will absolutely use them on you because of what you believe/how you live. Hell, they’re just looking for a reason to use them on people period!

            I’m not advocating for Trump being given special treatment, I’m saying you have to think about the immediate backlash surrounding the “throw Trump in jail for contempt” move. It’s not going to be you that suffers, at least not immediately, it will be the people that his base perceives as responsible. Do you think it makes sense for them to rush judgements when they have actual guns pointed at them?

            Keep in mind, I am absolutely unaware of whether or not this is their reasoning. I cannot tell you what the prosecution, or anyone that finds themselves opposite Trump for that matter, is thinking. I’m only taking events as I see them and coming to, what I think is, a logical conclusion.

            Feel free to prove me wrong. I’m all ears, or eyes. Whatever, you don’t know me. I could be blind.

            • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              7 months ago

              No, what I’m saying is that when they finally throw Trump in jail the logic needs to be so ironclad that idiots can’t refute it.

              Have you met these people? Logic, facts, reality … they don’t mean much to them. Trump could be convicted and jailed in a case where everything is done by the book, it simply doesn’t matter to these people. They live in a bubble of their own making and only let in things that support their world view.

              Do you think it makes sense for them to rush judgements

              I don’t think anybody is calling for a rush to judgement.

              Feel free to prove me wrong.

              How can I prove an opinion wrong?

  • ForestOrca@kbin.social
    0·
    7 months ago

    I was curious about a specific term:

    "In a pivotal stretch of testimony, David Pecker, the longtime publisher of The National Enquirer, described a 2015 meeting with Mr. Trump and his fixer at the time, Michael D. Cohen, at Mr. Trump’s midtown Manhattan headquarters.

    Fixer
    Noun
    2. A person who uses influence or makes arrangements for another, especially by improper or unlawful means.

    • Monument@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      0·
      7 months ago

      This is a bit circular as an explanation, but that’s actually what Cohen did for Trump.

      Trump has referred to Cohen as a lawyer that helped him deal with things, and Cohen has fully admitted that he acted as a traditional fixer for Trump for years.

      So… yeah. The definition is spot on.

      • ForestOrca@kbin.social
        0·
        7 months ago

        My point being that one doesn’t need a fixer, unless one does illegal things. Can we not have criminals in places of power? Soonish?