Insights from Day 6 of the Donald Trump hush money trial

Judge Juan Merchan seemed ready to penalize Donald Trump on Tuesday for breaking the gag order in his hush money case by questioning his lawyers about why Trump's social media posts were considered appropriate.

Former President Donald Trump appears in court for his trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 23, in New York City.

Former President Donald Trump appears in court for his trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 23, in New York City.

Yuki Iwamura/Pool/Getty Images

Related live-story

Second day of testimony wraps in Trump hush money trial

Tuesday started off with a hearing about Trump's alleged violations of the gag order. It ended with David Pecker, former chief of American Media Inc., discussing how he checked claims of an affair between Trump and Playboy playmate Karen McDougal in 2016, while staying in touch with Trump's ex-lawyer, Michael Cohen. (Trump says the affair never happened.)

Despite a shorter court day due to the Passover holiday, the combination of the gag order breaches and the revelations about deals to hide negative stories about Trump during the 2016 election made it a tough day for Trump. He was unhappy with the news coverage of the trial and the restrictions of the judge's gag order.

Pecker will be back on the stand Thursday since court is not in session on Wednesday. He has already discussed two catch-and-kill deals, but has not yet talked about adult film star Stormy Daniels, which is expected to happen on Thursday.

Here are the key points from Tuesday’s court proceedings:

Trump had a rough time at the gag order hearing. The judge, Merchan, put the order in place before the trial started. This stopped Trump from talking about the witnesses, jury, or the district attorney’s team. Merchan later made the order even stricter. Trump wasn't happy about it and has appealed. The judge now included Trump's family in the order after Trump made negative comments about his daughter.

The judge has not made a decision on the district attorney's request to penalize Trump for possibly breaking the gag order, but it was clear where the judge stood on the matter.

Merchan did not accept the reasons provided by Trump's lawyer, Todd Blanche, for the controversial posts. Blanche attempted to argue that the posts concerning Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen were political in nature and not related to the case.

Blanche argued that Trump's response to a Cohen post about Michael Avenatti, Daniels' former lawyer, was political because it discussed pardons. The judge grew frustrated with this argument.

The judge asked Blanche, "So the pardon is what makes it political?"

“Of course,” Blanche responded.

“When your client is violating a gag order, I expect more than one word,” Merchan said after Blanche argued that pardons were political in nature.

Merchan also asked Blanche about Trump's intentions regarding reposts on Truth Social. Trump's attorney had argued that reposts from others on the platform may not violate the gag order.

Shortly before the hearing concluded, Merchan questioned Blanche. He wanted to know if Trump's client truly believed that reposts did not breach the gag order. Or was Blanche simply asking him to accept it without providing further explanation?

Merchan did not provide a timeline for when he would make a ruling. The district attorney has requested the judge to impose a $1,000 fine on Trump for each violation, and to also caution him that further violations could lead to imprisonment.

The judge expressed that Trump's lawyers are gradually losing their credibility.

Tensions escalated between Trump’s legal team and the trial judge at the gag order hearing. Merchan kept asking Blanche for specific examples of when Trump responded to attacks from Cohen and Daniels on social media. Merchan became visibly frustrated when Blanche couldn't provide the requested clarification.

Merchan pointed out to Blanche that she had not provided any evidence despite being asked multiple times to show the specific post the person was responding to.

Blanche mentioned at one point that President Trump was making sure to follow the order carefully.

Merchan responded, "You’re losing all credibility with the court."

Last week, Merchan backed prosecutors in their decision not to provide Trump’s legal team with a witness list in advance. He mentioned that he empathized with their choice due to Trump’s continuous social media attacks.

Assistant district attorney Josh Steinglass mentioned last Thursday that he was hesitant to expose trial witnesses to potential backlash on social media from Trump.

During the discussion, when Blanche asserted that Trump wouldn't disclose or talk about the upcoming witnesses, Merchan disagreed, stating, "I don't believe you can guarantee that."

Pecker, the former head of American Media Inc. during the 2016 election, recently testified in court for approximately two-and-a-half hours. He explained to the jury how he collaborated with Michael Cohen to suppress negative stories about Trump during the election campaign.

Pecker testified on Tuesday about the "catch and kill" deals involving McDougal and Trump's doorman. He mentioned meeting with Trump and Cohen in 2015, where he agreed to be the "eyes and ears" of the campaign, watching out for negative stories.

During the meeting, Donald Trump and Michael asked Pecker what he and his magazines could do to support the campaign. Pecker testified that he would publish positive stories about Mr. Trump and negative stories about his opponents.

Video Ad Feedback

'A profound betrayal': Stelter reacts to Pecker's testimony about Trump

01:44

• Source:

CNN

Pecker wasn’t directly involved in the $130,000 payment to Daniels, but his role is crucial to prosecutors. He shows that there was a pattern of payments to hide negative stories about Trump during the 2016 election.

Pecker explained, “I believe it was mutually beneficial. It would benefit his campaign and also benefit me.”

Pecker revealed on Tuesday that Cohen was deeply involved in the alleged "catch and kill conspiracy." He testified that since 2007, Cohen had been the intermediary between Trump and Pecker, handling media stories for them.

During the August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower, Pecker mentioned that he would inform Cohen about any negative stories. He stated, "If I hear anything negative about you or about women selling stories, I would let Michael Cohen know, as I have done in the past few years." Pecker explained that Cohen would then take steps to prevent the stories from being published, such as killing the stories in another magazine or purchasing them.

During Trump’s campaign in 2015 and 2016, Pecker revealed that Cohen would suggest stories about Trump’s political rivals and provide input on behalf of Trump, whom Cohen referred to as “the boss.”

Pecker stated, “Michael Cohen would contact me and ask, ‘We want you to publish a negative article about a certain – let’s say, for example, Ted Cruz.’” Cohen would then share details about Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, or Marco Rubio, which formed the basis of the story that would be expanded upon later.

Editor's P/S:

The article highlights the ongoing legal battle between former President Donald Trump and the court over the gag order imposed in his hush money case. Judge Juan Merchan's frustration with Trump's lawyers' attempts to justify his social media posts is evident, and it seems likely that Trump could face penalties for violating the order. The testimony of David Pecker, former head of American Media Inc., has further implicated Trump in a scheme to suppress negative stories during the 2016 election, as he discussed "catch and kill" deals involving McDougal and Trump's doorman. This evidence adds to the growing body of allegations against Trump, and it remains to be seen what consequences he will ultimately face.

The article also exposes the tensions between Trump's legal team and the judge, with Merchan accusing Blanche of losing credibility with the court. The judge's reluctance to provide Trump's team with a witness list in advance due to concerns about witness intimidation on social media also underscores the challenges in handling high-profile cases involving influential individuals. As the trial progresses, it will be interesting to see how the judge balances the need for a fair trial with the potential for further violations of the gag order by Trump.