1998 was the first time you gave Trump a heads up about a potentially negative story, right? Yes. So you provided Trump w/ a heads up about negative stories for 17 years? Yes. Before this investigation started, you had never heard the phrase catch and kill? Right. The first time you heard that term was from a prosecutor? Right.
Bove asks Pecker about other celebrities with whom he had a "mutually beneficial" relationship and for whom he has sought to publish positive stories or kill negative stories. You had similar relationships w/ people other than Trump? Yes. Meaning other people who you would publish positive stories about because it was mutually beneficial? Yes. And you know that politicians often work w/ media? Yes. That's standard operating procedure? Yes.
Pecker says he helped suppress a negative story about the actor Mark Wahlberg. Wahlberg had an argument with his wife. The story was “bubbling” and was going to come out, Pecker says. Pecker also admits that he helped suppress a negative story about Rahm Emmanuel at the request of Emmanuel's brother, Ari.
Moving on, Bove tries to focus the jurors on (1) the fact that the events underlying this prosecution occurred long ago, and (2) potential inconsistencies in Pecker's testimony and recollections.
Pecker admits, for example, that he initially testified to a grand jury that the pivotal August 2015 Trump Tower meeting occurred during the first week of August. At trial, he testified that meeting occurred in the middle of August. Did you know Trump was at a debate at that time, so he couldn’t have been present for that meeting? I did not know he was at a debate, Pecker says.
These events were a long time ago? Yes. And you spoke to people who have given you information that has helped you put together some of the dates? Pecker says prosecutors always told him to testify to the best of his recollection.
You testified at trial that Hope Hicks was “in and out” of that August 2015 meeting? Yes. The first time you testified about this meeting was in 2018, right? Yes. With federal prosecutors? Yes. And you were warned that it was a crime to withhold information? Yes. You understood it was serious? Yes.
And in that interview in July of 2018, you did not tell *anyone* that Hope Hicks was present at the August 2015 meeting, correct? This elicits an objection. Merchan invites the parties to the bench for a sidebar out of earshot of the jurors. He sustains the objection.
Bove tries again. He proffers a report from the meeting Pecker had in July 2018. At that meeting, you were specifically asked about what happened in August 2015 at Trump Tower, right? Yes. And that document doesn't indicate that you said Hope Hicks was at that meeting, correct? Pecker agrees.
Bove: You also testified before a federal grand jury after that meeting, correct? Prosecutors object and ask to approach the bench. An out-of-earshot sidebar ensues. When the parties return from the bench, Merchan tells the jurors that we're going to break for the day.
Once the jurors are out of the room, the parties discuss prosecutors' objection to Bove's line of questioning regarding Pecker's previous statements about Hope Hicks' presence at the 2015 Trump Tower meeting. Merchan gets frustrated with Bove. Basically, he thinks Bove didn't properly refresh Pecker's recollection and that the testimony he elicited as a result might mislead the jurors. He says he'll try to cure potential misperceptions with a jury instruction before we begin tomorrow morning.
And with that, court is out for the day. But Ben Wittes and I aren't done with our coverage just yet! At 5:30 ET, we'll go live on @lawfare's YouTube channel to discuss what happened on Day 3 of Trump's trial. Join us then, and subscribe: youtube.com/watch?v=-Vx_84…
@AnnaBower Good. Bove was not only attacking witness's credibility, he was trying to intimidate and threaten him into either silence or into walking back his evidence. Right out of Trumps own play book! I hope Merchan can see that.
@AnnaBower wasn't that foundation established during direct?