Here in the Berkshires, those who love the Housatonic River are unfortunately used to “catch and release,” and over the last many decades, those who love to fish have learned they can’t eat what they have caught.
But, according to the prosecution in The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, former President Donald Trump, his lawyer Michael Cohen, and the National Enquirer’s David Pecker perfected a politically potent “catch and kill.”
Because New York state won’t televise this historic trial, we are on the outside looking in. In “THE OTHER SIDE: Donald Trump v. The New York Knicks,” I relied on the text of the indictment and the accompanying Statement of Facts, but I have been downloading the actual court transcripts. So, if you are like me and want to go beyond the constant TV speculation, here are excerpts of what the judge, the lawyers, and David Pecker are actually saying about the catching and killing of the Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels affairs.
Court transcripts and evidence are available on the New York State Unified Court System website under “People v Donald J. Trump (Criminal)” and via The New York Times. And I am interspersing relevant documents introduced as evidence.
Whether or not we believe Stormy Daniels’ account of their sexual encounter—a claim Trump’s defense vigorously asserts is a lie—the prosecution argues that Donald Trump, David Pecker, and Michael Cohen worked together to catch and kill her story. Given Donald Trump’s 2016 run for the presidency and the explosive reaction to the Access Hollywood tape, the People claim that all three realized stories about infidelity would grievously damage Donald Trump and his bid for the presidency.
Judge Merchan explained the process to the jury:
The trial formally begins with what the law calls an opening statement by the prosecutor. The law requires the prosecutor to make an opening statement. The law, however, does not require the defendant to make an opening statement … Remember, what the lawyers say in an opening statement, or at any time thereafter, is not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. What I say is not evidence … You must decide this case on the evidence … After the completion of the opening statements, the prosecutor will proceed with the presentation of evidence … The defendant has pled not guilty to those accusations and a trial is for you to hear the evidence and decide whether the defendant is guilty, or not guilty. (Emphasis added.)
Matthew Colangelo of the Manhattan D.A.’s Office began:
The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election, then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again. In June of 2015, Donald Trump announced his candidacy for president … He invited his friend, David Pecker, to a meeting at Trump Tower here in Manhattan. David Pecker was the CEO of a media company that, among other things, owned and published the National Enquirer tabloid. Michael Cohen was also at that meeting. He worked for the defendant as the defendant’s special counsel at his company, the Trump Organization.
And those three men formed a conspiracy at that meeting to influence the presidential election by concealing negative information about Mr. Trump in order to help him get elected. As one part of that agreement, Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to an adult film actress named Stormy Daniels just a couple of weeks before the 2016 election to silence her and to make sure the public did not learn of this sexual encounter with the defendant. Cohen made that payment at the defendant’s direction, and he did it to influence the presidential election.
After the election, the defendant then reimbursed Cohen for that payment through a series of monthly checks, all of which were processed through the defendant’s company, the Trump Organization, and they disguised what the payments were for. The defendant said in his business records that he was paying Cohen for legal services pursuant to a retainer agreement. But, those were lies. There was no retainer agreement. Cohen was not being paid for legal services. The defendant was paying him back for an illegal payment to Stormy Daniels on the eve of the election. The defendant falsified those business records because he wanted to conceal his and others’ criminal conduct.
First, they agreed that Pecker would help the defendant’s campaign by acting as eyes and ears for the campaign. Pecker would use AMI’s network of sources through all of its magazines and publications to gather information that might be harmful to Trump’s candidacy, report that information to Cohen, so Donald Trump would then prevent the information from becoming public.
Second, they agreed that AMI would use its tabloids and magazines to publish flattering stories about the defendant And, third, they agreed that AMI would use those same publications to attack Mr. Trump’s political opponents. (Emphasis added.)
Colangelo explains:
Catch-and-kill is when the tabloid buys up damaging information about someone, demands that the source sign a non-disclosure agreement to prevent them from taking that information or that story anywhere else … not to publish it, but to hide it, make it go away. And in this case, to help the candidate …
Colangelo describes how they dealt with former Playboy Bunny Karen McDougal’s story of her 10-month love affair with Donald Trump:
Colangelo continues:
[Michael] Cohen asked AMI to make arrangements to buy McDougal’s information quickly so they could prevent anyone else from publishing it. Trump and Pecker and Cohen … had a series of conversations and discussions about who would put up the money for that payoff deal. Pecker ultimately agreed that he would have AMI make a $150,000 payment to McDougal in exchange for the limited life rights to the story of her affair.
And three months before Election Day, AMI and McDougal signed that deal. But as the weeks dragged on and the defendant hadn’t yet made good on his agreement to pay AMI back, Pecker started getting antsy … So, to show Pecker that Trump really did plan to pay AMI back for the McDougal payoff, Cohen used his cell phone to record a conversation with Donald Trump in September of 2016 … Cohen tells the defendant that he spoke to Allen Weisselberg, who is the Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer, about how to set the whole thing up … You will hear him ask Cohen: So what do we got to pay for this? One-fifty? You will even hear Mr. Trump … suggest paying in cash. (Emphasis added.)
(View the audio transcript here.)
Colangelo goes on:
Cohen then proceeded to set up a shell company for the transfer … [and] worked out a deal with David Pecker for AMI to sell its rights to the McDougal story to Cohen’s shell company. That way AMI could get paid back and Trump would then own the rights to the McDougal story … [and] neither Pecker nor Trump would even appear as parties to the transaction.
On October 7, 2016, The Washington Post published the Hollywood Access video. Colangelo continues:
One day after the Access Hollywood tape was released, Dylan Howard, he’s the National Enquirer’s Editor-in-Chief, told David Pecker that another woman had come forward with the claim of a sexual encounter that she had had with the defendant while he was married. That woman was an adult film actress, a porn star named Stormy Daniels … Howard got in touch with Michael Cohen at the Trump Organization immediately … He connected him with Stormy Daniels’ lawyer Keith Davidson, the same lawyer who had represented Karen McDougal. And Cohen then discussed the situation with Trump, who was adamant that he did not want the story to come out …
So at Trump’s direction, Cohen negotiated a deal to buy Ms. Daniels’ story in order to prevent American voters from learning that information before Election Day … Daniels agreed that she would not disclose the sexual encounter in exchange for a payment of $130,000. But Trump directed Cohen … to delay making any payment as long as possible … It became clear that the story would become public if the deal wasn’t finalized immediately. So with pressure mounting and Election Day fast approaching, Donald Trump agreed to the payoff and directed Cohen to proceed.
So Cohen discussed other payment options with Trump and with Allen Weisselberg, the Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Organization. And Trump didn’t want to write a check himself to make the $130,000 payment, so he asked Cohen and Weisselberg to figure out some other way to make the payment … they agreed that Cohen would make the payment through a shell company to make it harder to track … And at Trump’s request, Cohen agreed to lay out his own money for the payment to keep Stormy Daniels quiet. Two weeks before the presidential election, on the morning of October 26th, 2016, Cohen made two phone calls to the defendant to confirm that he was finalizing the arrangements …
Then Cohen … opened a bank account in the name of a new shell company called Essential Consultants, LLC … transferred $131,000 from the home equity line of credit on his own home into the shell company’s bank account, and the next day Cohen wired 130 grand to Stormy Daniels’ lawyer … And as part of their efforts to try to keep the entire scheme under wraps, Cohen gave false information to the banks about the shell company’s business purpose … and in the wire transfer records that he filled out describing the purpose of the $130,000 payment.
Cohen made that payment at Donald Trump’s direction and for his benefit, and he did it with a specific goal of influencing the outcome of the election … to help Donald Trump get elected, through illegal expenditures, to silence people who had something bad to say about his behavior, using doctored corporate records and bank forms to conceal those payments along the way. It was election fraud. Pure and simple …
Next, Donald Trump attorney Todd Blanche offered an alternative explanation in his opening: Donald Trump was innocent.
When President Trump became President, when he took the Office of the Presidency in 2017, in January, Michael Cohen, who you heard the People allude to, assumed the role of President Trump’s personal attorney. And … each month in 2017, Michael Cohen sent an invoice to some of the employees at the Trump — at the Trump Tower … for $35,000. And on this invoice, Michael Cohen described his work as “payment to the retainer agreement for legal services rendered.
Blanche continued:
For nine of the checks, the check made its way down to the White House, and President Trump signed it. You’ll hear that he’s the only signatory on his personal checking account, which is why he signed the check. So, what on Earth is a crime? What is a crime about what I just described? This business records violation that the People have brought against President Trump, the 34 counts, ladies and gentlemen, are really just 34 pieces of paper, the 34 counts of the invoices that Mr. Cohen sent to the folks at Trump Tower, the checks that were generated because of that invoice, and then the ledger notation from the invoice that said “for retainer agreement and legal services.
You’ll learn President Trump had nothing to do with any of the 34 pieces of paper, the 34 counts, except he signed on to the checks, in the White House while he was running the country. That’s not a crime … And, look, the reality is President Trump is not on the hook, is not criminally responsible for something that Mr. Cohen may have done years after the fact. The evidence will prove otherwise …
The People just told you that the reason why these invoices were recorded the way they were recorded way after the election … was to cover up for Mr. Cohen, suggesting that Mr. Cohen was somehow trying to influence – “influence” is the word they used — the 2016 election. I have a spoiler alert. There is nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It’s called democracy. They put something sinister on this idea, as if it was a crime. You’ll learn it’s not. Michael Cohen paying Stormy Daniels or Stephanie Clifford $130,000 in exchange for her agreeing to not publicly spread false — false claims about President Trump is not illegal.
I expect that you will learn that when Ms. Daniels threatened to go public with her false claim of a sexual encounter with President Trump … that it was, as the People just said, very close to the election. And it was almost an attempt by Ms. Clifford/Ms. Daniels to extort President Trump … It was sinister. And it was an attempt to try to embarrass President Trump, to embarrass his family …
You will learn that shortly after the election in 2016, Michael Cohen wanted a job in the administration. He didn’t get one … unbeknownst to President Trump, in all the years that Mr. Cohen worked for him, Mr. Cohen was also a criminal … shortly after getting caught in 2018, you will learn that … the decision that he made was to blame President Trump for virtually all of his problems. He had been eventually disbarred as an attorney. He’s a convicted felon. And he also is a convicted perjurer. He is an admitted liar… He has a goal, an obsession with getting Trump. And you’re going to hear that. I submit to you that he cannot be trusted …
I expect Ms. Clifford/Stormy Daniels will testify. She is, similarly, extremely biased against President Trump … You will hear that in the weeks and months leading up to the 2016 election, she saw her chance to make a lot of money, $130,000. And it worked … And since this story came out in 2018, became public, she’s made hundreds of thousands of dollars because of it … But, I’m going to say something else about her testimony, and this is important. It doesn’t matter … She doesn’t know anything about the charged 34 counts in this case. She has no idea what Michael Cohen wrote on the invoice. She has no idea how it was booked at Trump Tower. And she has no idea about the checks that are also charged in this indictment. So, her testimony, while salacious, does not matter …
I encourage you to listen over the next couple of days … when you hear Mr. Pecker testify about this supposed catch and kill. Listen to what he says about his motivation to sell magazines, not surprising, and whether it really is a catch and kill …
You told all of us, you told the Court, you told me, that you would put aside whatever ideas you have of President Trump from the past eight years, the fact that he was President, the fact that he is running again for an election this November. And we trust you to do that. We do. We trust that you’re going to decide this case based upon the evidence that you hear in this courtroom and nothing else. And if you do that, there will be a very swift, a very swift not guilty verdict. Thank you. (Emphasis added.)
And then Mr. Sternglass called David Pecker:
DAVID PECKER: On the celebrity side of the magazine industry, at least on the tabloid side, we used checkbook journalism and we pay for stories. So I gave a number to the editors that they could not spend more than $10,000 to investigate or produce or publish a story. So anything over $10,000 that they would spend on a story, that would have to be vetted and brought up to me … Being in the publishing industry for 40 years, I realized early in my career that the only thing that was important is the cover of a magazine … (Emphasis added.)
Q: Can you describe your relationship with Mr. Trump over the years for the jury?
A: Yes. I have had a great relationship with Mr. Trump over the years … starting in ’89 … because as the, as a celebrity in his own right at that time he was very helpful in introducing me to other executives and other people in New York …
Blanche explained:
Then in 2003 or 2004, when Mr. Trump launched The Celebrity Apprentice … as a national figure on TV as The Boss did a tremendous – also help for my magazines, because they, the audience of the National Enquirer and the other celebrity magazines loved Mr. Trump as a major celebrity … after he announced his run for president, I, I saw Mr. Trump more frequently, maybe once a month …
Q: How would you describe him as a businessman?
A: I would describe Mr. Trump as very knowledgeable. I would describe him as very detail oriented. I would describe him as an, almost as a micromanager from what I saw, that he looked at every, all of the aspects of whatever the issue was.
Q: How about his approach to money?
A: I thought that his approach to money, he was very cautious and very frugal.
Q: Are you familiar with someone named Michael Cohen? …
A: Michael Cohen was Donald Trump’s personal attorney … he has done a lot of great things for him, and all of the contacts that I had with Mr. Trump, that now my contacts should go through Michael Cohen and anything that I came up and told Mr. Trump about, if there were any rumors in the marketplace about Mr. Trump or his family or any negative stories that were coming out or anything that I heard overall that I would go through — I would call Michael Cohen directly …
Q: Do you remember when Mr. Trump announced that he was running for president?
A: It was June of 2015 … I received a call from Michael Cohen telling me that The Boss wanted to see me … most of the time when I received a call from Michael Cohen, he wanted something, so I assumed … I was going to be asked for something … At that meeting, Donald Trump and Michael, they asked me what can I do and what my magazines could do to help the campaign … I said what 1 would do is I would run or publish positive stories about Mr. Trump and I would publish negative stories about his opponents … I would be your eyes and ears … I said that anything that I hear in the marketplace, if I hear anything negative about yourself or if I hear anything about women selling stories, I would notify Michael Cohen, as I did over the last several years, I would notify Michael Cohen and then he would be able to have them kill in another magazine or have them not be published or somebody would have to purchase them … I think it was a mutual benefit. It would help his campaign; it would also help me … He was pleased …
Q: Did you discuss this meeting with anyone afterwards?
A: I went immediately back to my office and I met with Dylan Howard … He was the Chief Content Officer of the company, and the Editor-in-Chief of the National Enquirer … I told him that we were going to try to help the campaign, and to do that, I want to keep this as quiet as possible … I would like to say one other thing, if I can … Michael Cohen would call me and say … we would like for you to run a negative article on, let’s say, for argument sake, on Ted Cruz. Then he would send me … information about Ted Cruz or about Ben Carson or about Marco Rubio … [and] when we were preparing an article, let’s say for Ted Cruz, we communicated what we were doing and the direction of the article with Michael Cohen. We would also send him the PDF’s of the stories before it was published so he could see what direction they were going, that we were moving to, and he would comment on them. So we would add content based on the information, some of the information that Michael Cohen had …
(Emphasis added.)
Q: Do you know somebody named Karen McDougal?
A: … Karen McDougal was a Playboy model. Dylan came to me in June of — early June of 2016 and said that he received a call from one of his major sources in California that there’s a Playboy model who is trying to sell a story about a relationship that she had with Donald Trump for a year …
Q: … Did you ever come to believe that Michael Cohen had spoken with Mr. Trump’s about Ms. McDougal’s claims?
A: Yes, I did … I was in New Jersey … making a business presentation. And their assistant for their office came in and said, ‘Donald Trump is on the phone for you.’ So, I left to pick up the phone to speak to Mr. Trump. And he mentioned to me that — he said, ‘I spoke to Michael … He told me about Karen.’ And he said to me, ‘Uh, what do you think?’ So, I said … I think that the story should be purchased. And I believe that you should buy it. And Mr. Trump said to me, he said … ‘I don’t buy any stories … Any time you do anything like this, it always gets out.’ So I said … ‘I still believe that we should take this story off the market.’ And he said, ‘Let me think about it, and I’ll have Michael Cohen call you back in a few days …’
Q: So did there come a time when Michael Cohen followed up with you …
A: Yes. He called me that day or the next day … he said: ‘You should go ahead and buy this story.’ … And then I said: ‘Who’s going to pay for it?’ So he said to me: ‘Don’t worry. I’m your friend. The Boss will take care of it.’ … He told me that he was sitting in Donald Trump’s office when he called me … He said that: ‘I heard what you said to The Boss’ … ‘I want you to go forward and negotiate the purchase of the story.’ … To purchase the lifetime rights from Karen McDougal was going to cost $150,000 … I wanted to be comfortable that the agreement that we were going to prepare for Karen McDougal met all — all the obligations with respect to a campaign contribution … I called Michael Cohen and I told him that we finalized the agreement with Karen McDougal. That the contract was bullet proof. And we consulted with a campaign attorney … We purchased the story so it wouldn’t be published by any other organization … I didn’t want — we didn’t want the story to embarrass Mr. Trump or embarrass or hurt the campaign …
Q: … But for Mr. Cohen’s promise that Mr. Trump would reimburse AMI, would you have entered into this agreement?
A: No …
Q: … Without revealing any privileged conversations with your legal counsels or general counsel … did you come to the decision that you no longer wanted to be reimbursed for the money that AMI had laid out to acquire Ms. McDougal’s lifetime rights?
A: Yes, that’s correct … I called Michael Cohen, and I said to him that the agreement, the assignment deal is off … I want you to rip up the agreement. He was very, very angry… Screaming, basically, at me … Michael Cohen said, The Boss is going to be very angry at you …
Q: Did AMI ever get reimbursed for the money it spent to acquire the exclusive rights to Ms. McDougal’s story about her affair with Mr. Trump?
A: No. No, we never did …
Q: Mr. Pecker, do you know of someone named Stephanie Clifford?
A: … I received an urgent call from Dylan Howard … Stormy Daniels, is trying to sell a story that she had a sexual relationship with Donald Trump, and Dylan can acquire the story for $120,000 … I said, I don’t want the National Enquirer to be associated with a porn star. I said that our largest distributor, our largest retailer, Walmart, this would be very bad for the magazine, very damaging for American Media … To call Michael Cohen … I said, we already paid $30,000 to the doorman, we paid $150,000 to Karen McDougal, and I am not a bank. I am not paying out any further disbursements among us … He said: ‘Okay, they need to handle it’ … Dylan Howard sent the text to me and he said … I spoke to Michael Cohen. ‘All sorted. Now removed. No fingerprints’ … Dylan came to my office towards the end of October and said that there was an agreement between Keith Davidson and Michael Cohen. It was for $120,000. And Michael Cohen was supposed to wire the funds to Keith Davidson twice and he never did. Dylan … was very agitated and said that Michael Cohen is going to make him look very bad with his two top sources … I set up a Signal call … it was Michael Cohen, myself and Dylan Howard … Michael Cohen said … ‘David, you should pay.’ … I said, ‘Michael, my suggestion to you, you should buy the story, you should take it off the market, because if you don’t, and it gets out, I believe The Boss will be very angry with you.’ …
Q: Directing your attention to November 4, 2016, did you become aware that the Wall Street Journal published an article that day revealing aspects of the Karen McDougal’s story?
A: Yes. … Our communications director from American Media received a number of calls from the Wall Street Journal and had a series of questions about Karen McDougal’s agreement … and also they questioned my relationship with Donald Trump.
Q: Did there come a time after this article came out that you spoke to then candidate Trump?
A: Yes. … I received first a text from Michael Cohen saying that The Boss wants to speak to me. Then Donald Trump called me. It was a Saturday. I was at home. Donald Trump was very upset, saying; how could this happen, I thought you had this under control. Either you or one of your people have leaked the story. So, I said, Donald, there is no way on earth I would leak the story … Not us. I don’t believe that Donald Trump believed it over the phone. He was very agitated … Our call ended very abruptly … He didn’t say good-bye, which was very unusual …
Q: Did AMI also claim that the payment to McDougal was not for her story, but, rather, for her columns and her exclusive life rights? Was that true?
A: No, it was not…. I wanted to protect my company; I wanted to protect myself; and I wanted, also, to protect Donald Trump …
Q: Now, around the same time, and I’m talking November/December of 2016, did you meet with Michael Cohen in Trump Tower? …
A: … Michael said to me that he wasn’t reimbursed for the monies that’s owed to him on the Stormy Daniels’ payment … and he hasn’t received his bonus … And he asked me if I would talk to The Boss on his behalf …
Q: What did you understand that to mean?
A: That Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels out of his own funds, which was the first time I heard of that. This, I never — I wasn’t involved in the transaction, so I didn’t know how it was paid … While I was having a conversation with Michael Cohen, Donald Trump came into the room … And then I asked Mr. Trump, ‘Can I walk back to your office with you? I want to talk to you about a few things.’ And he said, ‘Fine. Come with me.’ …When I go back to Mr. Trump’s office, I said to him that: ‘Michael Cohen is very concerned about his bonus for this year. And I want you to know that he’s very loyal. I want you to know he’s been working very hard, from my perspective, and believe he would throw himself under a bus for you. And he’s saying that his bonus is really very important to him on the monies that he’s going to receive.’ So, Mr. Trump told me that — one, he says, ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about.’ He said, ‘Michael Cohen has multiple apartments in my buildings. I think he’s got about 12 apartments in my buildings. He owns 50 taxi medallions, which are worth a million-dollars apiece.’ He said, ‘Don’t worry about it. I’ll take care of it.’ …
Q: So, directing your attention to January 6th of 2017, did you attend another meeting that day at Trump Tower?
A: … I received a call from Rhona Graff, saying to me that, ‘The President-Elect would like to see you for a meeting … at Trump Tower …’ So, when I got to the waiting room, Keith Schiller was there. And Keith asked me — he said, ‘How’s our girl?’ Which, he was referring to Karen McDougal. So, I said, ‘She’s cool. She’s, um, very quiet. No issues.’ … And Mr. Trump asked me to sit down to chat … He asked me how I was doing. I said, ‘I’m doing okay’ … he asked, ‘How’s Karen doing — How’s our girl — How’s my girl doing — How’s our girl doing?,’ he said. I said, ‘… writing her articles. She’s quiet, easy. Things are going fine.’ So, he said, ‘I want to thank you for handling the McDougal situation.’ … he also said, ‘I want to thank you for the doorman story, the doorman situation.’ …
Q: And did he say why he was so appreciative?
A: He said that the stories could be very embarrassing.
Q: What do you understand that to mean?
A: I felt that it was going to be very embarrassing to him, his family, and the campaign.
Q: Now, did he ever say anything to you that made you think that his concern about these stories getting out was for his family, rather than for his campaign?
A: I thought it was for the campaign.
Q: What makes you say that?
A: Every time we — the conversations that I had with Michael Cohen with respect to both of these stories, the family was — his family was never mentioned; and the conversations that I had directly with Mr. Trump, his family wasn’t mentioned. So, I made the assumption it was the — the concern was the campaign …
Q: Directing your attention to July of that same year, 2017, did there come a time when you visited the White House?
A: … Mr. Trump called and invited me to the White House for dinner … He said it was a thank you dinner … Mr. Trump asked me to join him in a walk from the Oval Office to the — to the dining area … And as we walked out, President Trump asked me, ‘How is’ – ‘How is Karen doing?’ … So, I said, ‘She’s doing well. She’s quiet. Everything is going good.’ …
Q: … Did another article come out in The Wall Street Journal in January of 2018, in which the press publicly reported that Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels not to discuss her sexual relationship with Mr. Trump?
Q: Is this the article that revealed that Michael Cohen had paid Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about her affair with Donald Trump? … Did Mr. Trump contact you in connection with Ms. Daniels’ appearance on Anderson Cooper? …
A: He said that, ‘We have an agreement with Stormy Daniels that she cannot mention my name or do anything like this. And each time she breaches the agreement, it’s $1 million penalty. And based on the interview with Anderson Cooper, Stormy Daniels owes Donald Trump $24 million.’
Q: Directing your attention to early 2018, do you remember receiving a letter from the Federal Election Commission around that time? …
A: When I received the letter from the Federal Election Commission, the FEC, I called up Michael Cohen immediately. And he — and I asked him, I said, ‘Michael,’ I said, ‘I just received this letter.’ So, he — so, Michael Cohen said, ‘So did I.’ I said, ‘What are you gonna do about that?’ He said, ‘I’m gonna respond and I’m gonna send them a letter.’ I said, ‘I’m very worried.’ And Michael Cohen says to me, ‘Why are you worried?’ I said, ‘What do you mean?’ He says, ‘Jeff Sessions is the Attorney General, and Donald Trump has him in his pocket.’ I said, ‘I’m very worried.’
Q: Directing your attention to September 21, 2018, were you aware that AMI entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement and a Statement of Facts with the Southern District of New York?
A: Yes … We admitted to a campaign violation …
Q: In addition to that, did this agreement impose a requirement on AMI and its representatives to cooperate and give truthful testimony and information?
A: Yes.
Q: And as a result of that, would AMI not be criminally prosecuted for campaign finance violations?
A: That is correct.
Q: As part of that agreement, did AMI make several admissions, including in Statements of Facts?
A: Yes, they did …
Q: When was the last time that you saw or spoke to the defendant, roughly?
A: It would — the last time we spoke was, I think, January or February of 2019.
Q: Mr. Pecker, as you sit here today, do you have any bad feelings or ill will towards the defendant?
A: Not at all. To the contrary. As I talked about, I think it was on Monday, I felt that Donald Trump was my mentor. He helped me throughout my career … And I still consider him a close — I still, even though we haven’t spoken, I still consider him a friend.
At which point, Donald Trump’s lawyer Emil Bove began his cross-examination of David Pecker:
Q: And in connection with AMI’s checkbook journalism, under your watch, you only published about half of the stories that you purchased … And there were also instances where AMI purchased a story in order to use it as leverage against a celebrity … to use something like to get the celebrity to participate in an interview? … And in those situations … you had no intention of running the story itself, right, that wasn’t the point?
A: That’s correct …
Q: And I think you said on Tuesday that by that time, the Celebrity Apprentice — the research showed that President Trump was the top celebrity in terms of helping sell the National Enquirer … And so you ran articles about President Trump because it was good for business; correct?
A: It was good for business …
Q: And you are aware that many politicians worked with the media to try and promote their image … And to promote their brand; correct?
A: Yes …
Q: Now, let’s get back to that August 2015 meeting. You testified that Michael Cohen invited you to this meeting; right? … And in your relationship with Michael Cohen, he was somebody that always wanted something for himself; correct?
A: Yes.
Q: He asked you to promote businesses that were separate from President Trump’s work; right?
A: Yes …
Q: … He became sort of an intermediary to help you provide information to President Trump about potentially negative stories … And also when there were situations where President Trump could be promoted in the National Enquirer … Now, you testified on Tuesday that during this August 2015 meeting, there was also a discussion about running negative stories about President Trump’s opponents … And three specific opponents, preliminary opponents came up … Ben Carson … Marco Rubio … And Ted Cruz … But, let me ask you this: It was standard operating procedure for the National Enquirer to, sort of, recycle content from other publications and frame it slightly differently … That’s cost effective … Substantially, everything in the exhibits you were shown … was the National Enquirer recycling information from other publications because it was cost effective and made business sense?
A: Yes …
Q: I want to stick with the August 2015 meeting … At that meeting, the concept of ‘catch and kill’ was not discussed; correct? … And there was no discussion of a financial dimension to any agreement at that meeting … I want to talk a little about Ms. McDougal, if that’s okay … Just to be clear, President Trump did not pay you any money related to Karen McDougal; right? … When you first learned about this story, you understood that Ms. McDougal did not want to publish it; correct? …What she wanted to do was restart her career; correct?
A: Yes.
Q: … And you testified about a meeting that you had with one of your investor’s offices in New Jersey … You said that President Trump got through to you on the phone during that meeting? … And during that conversation, during that call, you discussed Karen McDougal; right?
A: Yes … he said, ‘I spoke to Michael. And I wanted to talk to you about Karen McDougal.’ So, he said: ‘Is it true that there’s a Mexican group that’s looking to buy the story for $8 million?’ And I said, ‘No, I don’t believe that’s true … This story about Karen, since she’s claiming that she has a relationship with you, should be taken off the market.’ And Mr. Trump said, ‘I don’t normally — I don’t buy stories because it always gets out.’ And then I said, ‘I still think you should buy the story.’ And Mr. Trump said to me, ‘I’ll speak to Michael, and he’ll get back to you.’ …
MR. BOVE: … could we take a look at People’s 156 in evidence. And this is the Agreement between AMI and Ms. McDougal from August of 2016 … And you were asked some questions by Mr. Steinglass about this provision of the Agreement … And I think that one of the questions was whether this document was set up so that it would disguise the other provisions in the Agreement … And I think you said: ‘Yes, this paragraph was designed to disguise the other paragraphs;’ right?
A: Yes.
Q: But there were actually very real paragraphs in this agreement; right … And AMI purchased the rights to use Ms. McDougal’s name and likeness in columns in Star Magazine… And you also purchased the rights for 24 columns using Ms. McDougal’s name and likeness in OK! Magazine … And in exchange for all of these things, the columns, the block posts, the magazine covers, and the story rights, AMI agreed to pay Ms. McDougal $150,000; right? … But during the negotiations, Ms. McDougal was not focused on cash; was she? …
A: Money? The cash amount wasn’t a primary portion of the Agreement.
Q: What Ms. McDougal was to focus on was the provisions in Paragraphs 1 and 2; right?
A: Oh, for her, yes …
Q: You testified, I think, yesterday, about a meeting on January 6th, 2017… And I think you said that that meeting happened at Trump Tower; right? … And that when you walked in, President Trump was sitting at his desk; right? … And do you recall testifying — and then you said: ‘This is referring to President Trump;’ right? … Quote, ‘I want to — he also said, I want to thank you for the doorman story, the doorman situation’ … Was that another mistake?
A: No.
Q: And so do you believe that President Trump said that to you, as you sit here right now?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: We talked a couple of times about meetings you had with Federal Prosecutors on July 26th, 2018 … And do you recall saying during that meeting: ‘Trump did not express any gratitude to Pecker or AMI during the conversation on January 6th, 2017?’
A: I don’t recall …
Q: … This is the same document that — the first page I just showed you, the report of the July 26th, 2018 interview by Federal Prosecutors and the FBI; right?
A: So the FBI — these are the FBI notes?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes. So the FBI notes here — what somebody is writing down could be wrong. This is not — I know what I testified to … And I know what I remember …
Q: And during the August 2015 meeting there was no discussion of a financial component to any agreement with President Trump and Michael Cohen, correct?
A: There was a discussion about that I was going to be the eyes and ears of the campaign. And there was a discussion that I would be notifying Michael Cohen of any women that were in the process of or going to be selling stories. And I would notify Cohen that they would be available, and they would either have to buy them or take them off the market or kill them in some manner.
Q: Are you testifying now that there was a discussion of the kill agreement?
A: I said, sell a story … the testimony that I gave, and what I said was, I offered at that meeting that being the eyes and ears and hearing any stories that are there, I would offer — that women would be selling them, and I would be offering them to Michael Cohen. That’s what I said. So, the selling here and purchasing, basically, are synonymous. Somebody has to buy them …
Attorney Steinglass conducted redirect questioning of David Pecker:
Q: I want to show you People’s 161 in evidence … Do you remember being asked about this by Mr. Bove on cross-examination… an invoice that you testified was prepared by Daniel Rotstein … And you testified on direct examination that the true purpose of the contract with Ms. McDougal was to acquire her life rights to her story about her romantic and sexual relationship with Mr. Trump, is that right?
A: That’s correct.
Q: And that you had included the provisions about the articles, the covers, the ghost-written articles to give AMI some plausible deniability?
A: Yes, that’s correct.
Q: Can we put up … part of the Statement of Admitted Facts that AMI entered into with the Southern District of New York … did AMI say in this document that AMI’s principal purpose in entering into the agreement was to suppress the model’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election?
A: That is correct.
Q: … Was that your purpose in locking up the Karen McDougal story, to influence the election? … The provisions about her being on the cover, covers and writing articles that she wasn’t even writing, why was that included in the contract?
A: It was included in the contract, basically, as a disguise …The actual purpose was to acquire lifetime rights to a story … so it’s not published …
Q: Very recently Mr. Bove asked you a series of questions about the FEC investigation into the conduct by AMI … And this page that Mr. Bove showed you, contains the following language … Respondent agrees not to contest that AMI’s payment to Karen McDougal to purchase a limited life story right, combined with its decision not to publish the story in consultation with an agent of Donald J. Trump, and for the purpose of influencing the election, constituted a prohibitive corporate in-kind contribution in violation of 52 USC Section 30118(a) …
A: That’s correct …
Q: I want to show you testimony from the Grand Jury, the Federal Grand Jury in this case … Were you asked these questions and did you give these answers in that Grand Jury: Page 26, line 22:
‘QUESTION: Now, I would like to draw your attention to approximately January 6, 2017. Did you meet with now President-Elect Trump at his request at Trump Tower?
‘ANSWER: Yes, I did.
‘QUESTION: Did you discuss Ms. McDougal? …
‘ANSWER: Trump said to me: How is Karen doing? Referring to Karen McDougal. So I said: Everything is quiet. Karen is writing her articles for the fitness magazines. Trump said that Karen was a good girl. Then he said that he — it says as — I guess it’s was — was very appreciative of the way I handled the McDougal story. He thanked me. He also thanked me for handling the doorman story. He said he was very grateful and both these stories could have been very, very damaging? …
‘QUESTION: What did you understand Mr. Trump to mean by damaging?
‘ANSWER: I believe he was referring to that it would be very damaging to his campaign and his election.’ …
Mr. Bove’s cross examination:
Q: You said that President Trump was one of the first people to reach out to you to see if you were doing okay? …That is one of the reasons that you had and still have a long friendship with him?
A: That’s correct.
Q: You know that he cares about people? … And he cares about his family, right?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: And you believe that, right?
A: Of course I do.
Q: And so you understand that the types of stories that we were talking about during your testimony today in 2016, those were actually things that were stressful to him and his family, correct?
MR. STEINGLASS: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BOVE: Nothing further.
