Trump Is Paying Attention to Just One Detail About Hush-Money Trial

Donald Trump has yet another complaint in his hush-money trial: the courtroom is too cold, and he thinks it’s deliberate.

Trump made the claim Friday in the hallway of Manhattan District Court just before the start of proceedings, according to The Hill.

“We have another day in court in a freezing courthouse,” Trump said. “It’s very cold in there, on purpose, I believe. They don’t seem to be able to get the temperature up. It shouldn’t be that complicated.”

He’s not the only one to point out the less-than-ideal temperatures. Journalists, his defense team, and prospective jurors all complained about the cold during jury selection last week, with some people reportedly even shivering. One of Trump’s attorneys, Todd Blanche, asked Judge Juan Merchan last Thursday if it were “possible just to warm it up a degree or two? It is so freezing in here.”

“Honest answer to that question is if I did that, it would probably go about up about 30 degrees,” Merchan said.

It’s not surprising that the courtroom would have temperature issues, considering that the building is more than 80 years old. Trump, though, has been complaining constantly about his trial, particularly that he is legally required to attend the proceedings, and can’t attend his other legal cases, such as his presidential immunity case before the Supreme Court.

But at least the current courtroom temperatures will make it harder for Trump to nod off during the trial.

Trump faces 34 felony charges for allegedly falsifying business records with the intent to further an underlying crime by having his fixer and former attorney, Michael Cohen, pay off adult film actress Stormy Daniels to cover up an affair before the 2016 presidential election. Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts. Several of his former employees, including Cohen and White House aide Hope Hicks, are expected to testify against him. Daniels will also take the stand, which means Donald Trump is going to be spending many more uncomfortable days in court.

An old-friend-turned-witness against Donald Trump in the former president’s New York hush-money trial has spent the better part of the week throwing Trump under the bus—but for whatever reason, Trump still hasn’t slung any mud back.

David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer and former CEO of its parent company, American Media Inc., has so far told the court under oath that Trump coordinated a scheme to pay off his former mistresses ahead of the 2016 presidential election, that Trump administration officials Hope Hicks and Sarah Huckabee Sanders would lend their own approval for the scheme once Trump was in office, that Trump’s effort to bury the affair rumors was singularly intended to sway the 2016 presidential election, and that the payments apparently skirted FEC campaign finance laws. And yet Trump has remained uncharacteristically quiet about Pecker, refusing to take down the former tabloid executive—causing some legal experts to ask why.

“He hasn’t done a darn thing to tear down Pecker,” trial lawyer Michael Popok told the “LegalAF” podcast. “Pecker is dumping willingly on Donald Trump and supporting the entire case.”

That’s notably different from Trump’s treatment of his other ex-allies. His former fixer Michael Cohen, for instance, has become a frequent target of Trump’s social media vitriol, even though Cohen, a witness in the criminal trial, is technically protected by the gag order imposed on Trump.

But some legal experts believe that Trump’s silence could be an indication that Pecker has even more dirt on the GOP presidential nominee.

“My guess is that from Trump’s vantage point, Pecker has a lot of power, because he can create stories (including negative and even fake ones) about HIM! So he has power/leverage; not in Trump’s interest to antagonize him,” wrote former FBI agent and attorney Asha Rangappa on X, formerly known as Twitter.

“Pecker can’t lie, he is already on record and AMI has a non prosecution agreement stipulating to certain facts, so I doubt that is the expectation,” she added.

Trump is accused of using Cohen to sweep an affair with porn star Stormy Daniels under the rug ahead of the 2016 presidential election. He faces 34 felony charges in this case for allegedly falsifying business records with the intent to further an underlying crime. Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts.

Donald Trump’s shortlist for his running mate is full of the right wing’s worst political stars—aside from himself, that is. But reported vice presidential hopeful Kristi Noem has one skeleton in her closet—er, in the woods—that will not be helpful in the polls.

The South Dakota governor admits to deliberately killing her 14-month-old pet dog Cricket in her upcoming book No Going Back: The Truth on What’s Wrong with Politics and How We Move America Forward, reported The Guardian, which obtained an advance copy of the book, on Friday. The book is due out next month.

“I hated that dog,” Noem writes, calling her “untrainable,” “dangerous to anyone she came in contact with,” and “less than worthless… as a hunting dog.”

After repeated failed attempts to train Cricket as a hunting dog, the straw that broke the camel’s back was when Cricket mauled a family’s chickens when Noem stopped at their house following a pheasant hunt.

Cricket had escaped Noem’s truck and attacked the family’s chickens, “grabb[ing] one chicken at a time, crunching it to death with one bite, then dropping it to attack another.”

Noem wrote that she repeatedly apologized, wrote the family a check “for the price they asked, and helped them dispose of the carcasses littering the scene of the crime.”

“It was not a pleasant job,” she writes, “but it had to be done. And after it was over, I realized another unpleasant job needed to be done.”

Noem recalls getting her gun and leading Cricket to a gravel pit before executing her.

Critics were quick to point out that the fault was not with Cricket, but with Noem herself. A 14-month-old dog is a “baby that doesn’t know any better,” Dan Lussen, a professional hunting dog trainer, told Rolling Stone.

“To me, it’s a lack of guidance by the owner, or training by the owner, or discipline by the owner,” he said, explaining that training a young hunting dog is a lengthy and slow process. “There’s a lot of steps that you take before you take it to a field and shoot birds over it.”

Noem’s record as governor of South Dakota isn’t clean, either. Several Native tribes in the state have banned her from their reservations over her racist assertions that Natives in the state work with drug cartels and neglect their children. Plus, Noem’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in a high number of cases in the state, and she tried to prevent Native tribes from implementing their own Covid safety measures.

Her attitude towards canines may not put her in Trump’s VP doghouse, though. He has repeatedly called his opponents dogs as an insult, mentioned on multiple occasions about how much he doesn’t like them, and famously avoided having a pet dog as president because he said it “feels a little phony to me.”

Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin took aim at a peculiar line of questioning brought by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in Donald Trump’s presidential immunity arguments on Thursday, during which one of the high court’s most conservative members seemed to claim that actually punishing Trump for any alleged crimes might only encourage him to break more laws.

“The most astonishing thing for me today was Justice Alito’s question. He actually asked whether holding the president criminally accountable for actual crimes committed, whether murder or coup or you name it, whether holding them accountable would actually encourage them to stage more violent coups to stay in office to avoid prosecution,” Raskin told MSNBC later Thursday.

“Which buys completely into Donald Trump’s narcissistic criminal worldview. I mean, for all of American history, we have said presidents are subject to criminal prosecution if they commit crimes. That’s why Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. That’s why Bill Clinton agreed to give up his law license with the bar for five years so he wouldn’t face criminal prosecution.”

“Now they say, ‘If you’re really mean to Donald Trump and you hold him accountable the same way every other American citizen is held accountable, then he’ll really overthrow the government, he’ll really bring out the big guns, and we can’t afford that,’” Raskin continued. “And that’s a kind of masochistic capitulation-ism of Donald Trump’s authoritarianism.”

“Of course we’ve got to hold the president accountable to the law,” he said. “It’s the basic premise of our law, that nobody is above the law, including the president.”

Raskin also went on to argue that a popular mode of thinking about how to hold Trump accountable—which is that you can “impeach and convict and then you can prosecute him”—defies the language of the U.S. Constitution.

“That twists the language and turns it upside down in the Constitution. It says, even if you’re impeached and convicted, ‘nevertheless’ you can still be prosecuted and tried and convicted and punished, presupposing, of course, that the president is subject to criminal law,” Raskin said.

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case has already significantly waylaid Trump’s D.C. trial, which hinges on whether the former president can be tried for his alleged involvement in the MAGA-led January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, disrupting Congress’s certification of the 2020 presidential election results.

Following a hearing on Thursday, the court appeared ready to reject Trump’s claims that he can’t be tried on alleged election interference, but their decision may still significantly delay a trial that was originally slated to be the GOP presidential nominee’s first criminal proceeding. The high court’s ruling is expected to be released sometime between late June and early July.

A former associate of Rudy Giuliani has blown open the Hunter Biden laptop story, revealing that Donald Trump and his associates decided to target President Joe Biden’s son months before they claimed they had unearthed his laptop at a Delaware repair shop.

In an interview released Thursday night by MeidasTouch, Ukrainian American businessman Lev Parnas claimed the cohort had been notified of the presence of a laptop belonging to Hunter in February 2019.

“We knew as early as middle-to-end of February 2019, is when the first time I heard about the Hunter Biden laptop from Yuriy Lutsenko,” Parnas told MeidasTouch, referring to Ukraine’s former minister of internal affairs. “He told me that there is a hard drive out there with compromising information on Hunter Biden, and he promised to get it to us.”

But that was two months before Trumpworld’s accusations of impropriety by Hunter Biden officially began, with the Delaware computer repair shop owner claiming that a man identifying himself as Hunter Biden had dropped off a laptop for repairs in April 2019.

The laptop story has been thoroughly debunked—including by a joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees, as well as an investigation by the Republican-led House Oversight Committee.

Parnas, who had been tasked with helping Giuliani connect with Ukrainian officials in his effort to “find dirt on the Bidens” ahead of the 2020 election, has been unearthing the inner workings of his former associates since the scheme blew up. On Tuesday, Parnas revealed that Giuliani had basically insisted on bribes while meeting with Ukrainian officials who did not pose immediate aid to the Hunter Biden corruption narrative.

“Lutsenko told me, ‘I’m the General Prosecutor of Ukraine, I want to meet A.G. Barr,’ so, I tell that to Rudy and he’s like, ‘Look, you want to meet Attorney General [Bill] Barr, the way things work here is you pay a lobbyist and they will get you in there, so you can pay me $200,000 and I will introduce you to Attorney General Bill Barr,’” Parnas recalled to MediasTouch.

“That evening I go meet with Lutsenko… they get drunk. Lutensko is pouring his heart out to me, like he can’t believe what just happened, he looked up to Giuliani as his hero and here Giuliani is basically shaking him down for $200,000 to meet with Attorney General Barr.”

Rudolph Giuliani’s defense against facing criminal charges for his involvement in Arizona’s fake elector plot is not exactly a good one: He’s pointing out other states where he may have committed crimes as well.

“Well, I didn’t spend as much time on Arizona as I did, let’s say, with Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. I know those better,” Donald Trump’s former attorney told Newsmax Thursday night.

“I used Christina Bobb to a large extent, and I’m not putting anything off on Christina. If Christina said it happened, it’s probably more accurate than if I said it happened,” Giuliani added, referring to another former Trump attorney.

Bobb is now the Republican National Committee’s new senior counsel for election integrity. She and Giuliani were among seven Trump aides hit with criminal charges in Arizona for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Even after being charged on Wednesday, Giuliani couldn’t stop shooting his mouth off. New York’s former mayor has had a bad year, stuck in bankruptcy court thanks to the various lawsuits against him as well as unpaid legal fees from Trump.

Arizona has joined Michigan, Nevada, and Georgia in charging fake electors for trying to overturn the 2020 elections. Fake electors in Wisconsin have settled a civil lawsuit over their fraudulent efforts. Meanwhile, in Fulton County, Georgia, Trump himself faces charges for trying to overturn the state election results.

Uvalde parent Brett Cross has some words for Texas police, after their brutal crackdown on Texas university students protesting against Israel’s war in Gaza.

At the University of Texas at Austin Wednesday, more than 100 troopers from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) showed up in full riot gear and military fatigues. They were deployed “at the direction of Texas Governor Greg Abbott, in order to prevent any unlawful assembly,” according to a statement sent to The Texas Tribune.

The response caught the attention of Cross, a parent of one of the children shot and killed at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, in May 2022.

“Shit, if only they’d have moved like that when my son was being murdered,” Cross commented on X (formerly Twitter). “But what do I expect….1 AR-15 keeps 376 officers at bay.”

The DPS was one of the many law enforcement agencies who responded to the deadly Robb Elementary School shooting in 2022. Police at the scene were criticized for failing to confront the gunman for more than 90 minutes after the shooting began.

In contrast, police made 57 arrests at largely nonviolent protests at the University of Texas, which began when more than 500 students walked out of class Wednesday to demand the university divest from weapons manufacturers supplying Israel in its attacks on Gaza. The arrests included a cameraman with Fox 7, and video showed him being slammed to the ground. Most charges were later dropped.

Protests against the war and in support of the Palestinians have broken out across the country after a Columbia University protest encampment faced a police crackdown last week, and hundreds of arrests have been made nationwide. The University of Southern California on Thursday canceled its commencement ceremony, citing safety concerns in its own protests. The response from many media commentators and politicians has been to compare protestors to white nationalists who rioted in Charlottesville, Virginia, nearly seven years ago, and to make grandstanding campus visits. Meanwhile, the death toll in Gaza continues to rise and weapons continue to be sent to Israel despite popular objection. 

Donald Trump’s old friend David Pecker is still dishing the dirt on the stand in the real estate mogul’s New York hush money trial, revealing on Thursday that the decision to catch and kill former Playboy model Karen McDougal’s story about having a lurid affair with Trump was later re-approved by top members of his presidential administration.

Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer and former CEO of its parent company, American Media Inc., told the court that he had a joint call with Trump’s White House Communications Director Hope Hicks and White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders about McDougal’s story well after Trump had been elected.

The salacious tabloid executive claimed he had spoken with both taxpayer-funded officials about whether McDougal’s contract should be extended.

“Both of them said that they thought it was a good idea,” Pecker told the court.

And yet, while facing the public, Sanders insisted that allegations that Trump had distributed hush-money payments to women that he slept with were categorically false.

“As the President has said and we’ve stated many times, he did nothing wrong. There are no charges against him and we’ve commented on it extensively,” Sanders said in August 2018, brushing off allegations that Trump had lied to the American public as “ridiculous.”

“Just because Michael Cohen made a plea deal, doesn’t implicate the President on anything,” she said at the time.

Hicks, Cohen, and porn star Stormy Daniels are also expected to testify in the trial against the GOP presidential nominee. Trump is accused of using Cohen to sweep an affair with Daniels under the rug ahead of the 2016 presidential election. He faces 34 felony charges in this case for allegedly falsifying business records with the intent to further an underlying crime. Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts.

During his testimony in Donald Trump’s hush-money trial on Thursday, former tabloid magnate David Pecker wasted no time in blaming Trump completely for the whole scheme.

Pecker, ex-CEO of American Media Inc. and former publisher of the National Enquirer, is a key witness in the trial and returned to court in Manhattan for the third day to testify over charges that Trump illegally paid off adult film actress Stormy Daniels to cover up an affair before the 2016 election. Pecker, in a deal with the prosecution, has immunity and can give up details about his role in “catch-and-kill” schemes designed to protect Trump from negative coverage.

One question in court concerned a deal to pay Playboy model Karen McDougal, who also had an affair with Trump. Pecker told the court that Trump had direct knowledge of the payment contract, in addition to his then-fixer and attorney, Michael Cohen.

When asked by the prosecutor whether Trump wanted to keep negative stories hidden out of concern for his presidential campaign or in order to protect his family, Pecker replied simply: “I thought it was for the campaign.”

During Trump’s presidency, Pecker said he became worried after being contacted by the Federal Election Commission. Cohen tried to reassure Pecker that “Jeff Sessions is the attorney general and Donald Trump has him in his pocket.”. In earlier testimony, Pecker also described in detail how he broke campaign finance laws to help Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, explaining how he didn’t report the hush-money payments.

Trump is facing 34 felony charges for allegedly falsifying business records with the intent to further an underlying crime in his attempt to cover up an affair with adult film actress Stormy Daniels by paying her off. Daniels is expected to take the witness stand in the trial following Pecker.

Disgraced Hollywood producer and serial abuser Harvey Weinstein had his 2020 rape conviction overturned by a New York appeals court on Thursday, but not everyone on the bench agreed with the decision.

In a scathing dissenting opinion, Judge Madeline Singas wrote that the court appeared “oblivious to, or unconcerned with, the distressing implications” of the ruling.

“Men who serially sexually exploit their power over women—especially the most vulnerable groups in society—will reap the benefit of today’s decision,” Singas wrote. “Under the majority’s logic, instances in which a trafficker repeatedly leverages workers’ undocumented status to coerce them into sex, or a restaurant manager withholds tips from his employees unless they perform sexual acts becomes a series of individual ‘credibility contests’ and unrelated ‘misunderstandings.”

Accusations against Weinstein spurred the #MeToo movement into virality in 2017, helping women around the world have their sexual violence accusations be taken more seriously. Dozens of women in the film industry accused Weinstein of more than 100 instances of sexual harassment, abuse, and rape since 1980, but he was convicted on just one charge of rape in the third degree and a criminal sexual act in a landmark decision in February 2020.

The Appeal Court’s 4-3 decision claimed that the inclusion of evidence and testimony from women whose experiences were not a part of the charges filed against Weinstein had been a critical error in the original trial.

“We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose,” wrote Judge Jenny Rivera in her opinion.

Rivera described the errors as “egregious” and said the only solution would be to retry Weinstein, which would involve calling his victims to testify again.

Weinstein is expected to be transferred to a California prison to ride out the remainder of his 16-year sentence for another case in which he was convicted of one count of rape and two counts of sexual assault. However, Weinstein will appeal that conviction on May 20, according to his attorney, Jennifer Bonjean, who spoke with The New York Times. Bonjean expects that Thursday’s ruling will bode well for his appeal in the Los Angeles case.