Trump’s New York Criminal Trial Hears First Witness

‘It was election fraud, pure and simple.’

By , and
432

Happy Wednesday! Our hats go off to the London marathon runner who correctly identified 21 of 25 wines he blind sampled during the race on Monday. “There was a real trio of bad ‘uns,” he said of the wines.

Quick Hits: Today’s Top Stories

  • The Senate voted 79-18 on Tuesday to pass the $95 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and the Indo-Pacific advanced by the House over the weekend—with the legislation receiving more “yea” votes in the Senate than a similar package did in February. The Senate also passed as part of the package a measure that will force ByteDance, the Chinese technology company, to divest TikTok within nine months, under threat of a national ban of the app. President Joe Biden is expected to sign the bill on Wednesday, and the Department of Defense is reportedly already preparing to send $1 billion worth of weapons—including artillery and air defenses—to Ukraine, with Pentagon spokesman Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder suggesting earlier this week that weapons could arrive in the war-torn country within days.
  • Secretary of State Antony Blinken arrives in China today for a three-day trip. According to a senior State Department official, Blinken will seek to address China’s continued support for Russia, its aggressive activity in the South China Sea, and its manufacturing overproduction. He’s the second Cabinet secretary to visit China this month after Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s visit to the country in early April.
  • A summary filing in special counsel Jack Smith’s case regarding former President Donald Trump’s mishandling of classified documents released on Monday revealed that Walt Nauta—Trump’s valet and co-defendant in the case—was told that, if Trump were reelected, he would receive a presidential pardon in 2024 “even if he gets charged with lying to the FBI.” This revelation came from an FBI interview in November 2022 with a witness identified as “Person 16.” Nauta—whom Smith alleges helped Trump hide classified documents from federal authorities—has pleaded not guilty to the charges, which include lying to the FBI, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and corruptly concealing documents or records.
  • David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid and first witness in former president Donald Trump’s New York civil fraud case, testified on Tuesday that he agreed in 2015 to suppress potentially politically damaging stories about Trump in what Manhattan prosecutors argue ultimately amounted to criminal conspiracy to commit election fraud. Meanwhile, in a hearing the same day examining whether Trump breached an April 1 gag order—prohibiting him from commenting on witnesses and jurors in the case—Judge Juan Merchan did not issue a final decision but cautioned Trump attorney Todd Blanche that he was “losing all credibility with the court.”
  • On Tuesday, the Justice Department announced it has agreed to pay a total of $138.7 million to settle 139 claims stemming from sexual abuse allegations against former USA Gymnastics team physician Larry Nassar, including claims that the FBI failed to sufficiently investigate reports of Nassar’s behavior. Nassar is currently serving a de facto life sentence without the possibility of parole for a bevy of felony crimes, including the sexual abuse of hundreds of victims. “These allegations should have been taken seriously from the outset,” said Benjamin C. Mizer, the acting associate attorney general. “While these settlements won’t undo the harm Nassar inflicted, our hope is that they will help give the victims of his crimes some of the critical support they need to continue healing.”
  • In a 3-2 vote on Tuesday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned the use of noncompete clauses—contractual agreements that generally restrict employees’ ability to leave one company and immediately work for its competitors—deeming the practice an “unfair method of competition.” The FTC estimates that nearly one in five Americans are bound by noncompetes, which the federal agency described as an “often exploitative practice.” Later on Tuesday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—a business association—announced it would sue the FTC to block the rule, saying in a statement it “sets a dangerous precedent for government micromanagement of business and can harm employers, workers, and our economy.”
  • Progressive Rep. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania fended off Democratic primary challenger Bhavini Patel by a 20-point margin on Tuesday after a campaign that centered around Lee’s strong opposition to the war in Gaza. Meanwhile, the November Senate race in the state is now set, with three-term incumbent Democratic Sen. Bob Casey Jr. squaring off against former hedge fund manager and Bush administration official Dave McCormick, who finished second in the 2022 GOP Senate primary against celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz. Both parties’ Tuesday’s Senate primaries were uncontested.
  • Former Rep. George Santos of New York—who in December became the sixth member ever to be expelled from Congress and currently faces 23 charges of felony fraud—announced on Tuesday that he was ending his independent campaign for New York’s 1st Congressional District. Santos said he chose to end his bid to avoid splitting the vote with incumbent GOP Rep. Nick LaLota thereby handing the seat to Democrats. Santos had represented New York’s 3rd Congressional District—now represented by Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi—but sought to pivot to the state’s more conservative-leaning 1st district before dropping out.

Another Case About Election Interference

Former U.S. President Donald Trump departs the Manhattan Criminal Court on April 23, 2024. (Photo by Yuki Iwamura-Pool/Getty Images)
Former U.S. President Donald Trump departs the Manhattan Criminal Court on April 23, 2024. (Photo by Yuki Iwamura-Pool/Getty Images)

Jury duty is always a drag—taking time out of your busy schedule to sit in a chilly courtroom, being scrutinized for potential bias, and knowing you may end up holding someone’s fate in your hands. 

As unpleasant as the process is on a normal day, imagine showing up for jury duty to find it’s none other than former President Donald Trump sitting behind the defendant’s table ready for the first of potentially a handful of “criminal trials of the century.” 

“I have to be honest,” one potential juror reportedly said during the selection process last week, holding back tears. “I feel so nervous and anxious right now. I’m sorry.” 

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
432
By , and
Comments (432)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Edcolt01

    I was one of those Pennsylvanians who cast my vote for Nikki Haley. With the exception of Vivek Ramaswamy, I would have voted for any other Republican candidate that made it to PA even though I was not in agreement with everything they stood for. But Trump is uniquely unfit for office. I will not vote for Trump or Biden in November. "Of two evils, choose neither" Charles Spurgeon.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    David Klever

    After reading all that depressing news, it was good to hear a little Johnny Cash.

    Collapse
  3. Tempe.Berggren

    Oh, it's fun to hear something new from Johnny Cash. For me it feels like a gift from the artist and I look forward to more of them leaving treasures for the future.

    Collapse
  4. Hpyle27

    >What do you make of releasing an artist’s unfinished music posthumously...<

    I love this question. I felt like I was the only one I knew that was shocked at The Beatles release of Now and Then (especially considering the creative differences Lennon and McCartney consistently had within the group).

    I believe unpublished work of deceased artists should remain unpublished, as the creator cannot consent to its release, and is forever affiliated with the work. The artist may have had strong reasons to avoid publication that could range from incredibly personal to perhaps the simple acknowledgment that the work is of lesser quality, thus deminishing the reputation of the artist.

    Collapse
  5. Alex G

    “ What do you make of releasing an artist’s unfinished music posthumously—like the forthcoming Johnny Cash album and (in part) The Beatles’ recent single?”

    All for it. My favorite piece of music, Haydn’s Cello Concerto No. 1 in C major (Hob. VIIb/1) is a piece of “found” music. It’s believed to have been composed around 1765, but was literally lost until a musicologist found a manuscript in a Prague library in 1961.

    It’s gorgeous. The entire work sounds like falling in love. Without it, our civilization would be missing something of real, enduring value.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Bill Nelson

    I’m waiting for the recovered recordings from Derek and the Doninoes.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Mike B

    That Johnny Cash number was really catchy. Thanks!

    Collapse
  8. BDM

    LUK: I'm okay with releasing the music posthumously, though I can tell why Cash never released this one. It's a typical catchy, Johnny Cash song, but the lyrics aren't really up to the standards of his great ones.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    PaulH

    The Trump prosecution spent most of its opening statement describing a conspiracy or scheme to make illegal payments. This struck me as odd because Trump is not charged with a conspiracy and the prosecution did not explain why the payments were illegal. The explanation for the latter oddity is clear -- the payments were not illegal and the prosecution knows it. Non-disclosure agreements are common and accepted in all jurisdictions. Political campaigns routinely have their employees sign non-disclosure agreements and when one of their employees is terminated and there is a settlement agreement (a reasonable common occurrence), the settlement agreement contains a non-disclosure agreement. No one has ever thought that the routine practices constituted election fraud -- even though it is likely that that the employees could tell some very interesting and relevant stories about the candidates.

    In the end the prosecution's strategy seems to be to emphasize the sleaziness of Trump's behavior and use the terms "scheme" and "conspiracy" a lot rather than actually explain the law and how Trump broke it. As the judge is allowing them to do this, it is possible that the jury will conclude something illegal must have happened, even if they don't know exactly what is was.

    FWIW, Trump's team should not bother to contest that the payments were made to influence the election (they obviously were). On the other hand, they can make the argument that the false entries (which is the actual crime) were made in order to ensure that Melanie did not know about the settlements. That is entirely plausible. Indeed, the idea that they were made to influence the election is absurd since the plan to make them was hatched in 2017 -- after the election had occurred.

    Collapse
    1. BPhillips

      The way I understand it, the crime being prosecuted is Trump paid hush money to Stormy Daniels to benefit his campaign (that in itself wouldn't be illegal, but there are campaign finance laws that would need to be followed). The purpose of Pecker's testimony was to show that the payments were indeed to benefit the campaign, not Trumps personal life. That is step one - the payments were made to benefit the campaign. Step two is to show how he broke campaign finance laws - that's the having Cohn pay her, then reimburse Cohn as a legitimate private business expense.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Rebecca

        Apparently Bragg is not alleging campaign finance violations at all.

        Collapse
        1. BPhillips

          You're right - some NY election fraud statute. That seems better than trying to link the fraud to a federal campaign crime. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out,

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            PaulH

            Andy McCarthy over at National Review has an article in which he states that Bragg is pursuing the NY election fraud claim. Interestingly, he states the to establish that the payments were "unlawful" under NY law (which a mere NDA would not be), Bragg is alleging the the payments were an illegal contribution under federal law -- which sounds like a bit of bank shot approach.

            Note that I think Bragg still has an issue based on the elements set forth in the falsification statute itself. Under the statute, the false records must be made with "an intent to defraud" (in addition to being made to conceal/commit/aid a crime). Who could Trump have been trying to defraud in 2017 when the entries were made? Bragg doesn't explain that.

            Collapse
  10. Pohl

    QOTD: Why is there already another question about “In the Zeitgeist”? Just no.

    Collapse
Load More