Trump trial: Biden calls Trump's remarks 'dangerous'

Trump was found guilty on all 34 felony counts in his hush money trial.

Former President Donald Trump has been found guilty on all 34 felony counts related to a 2016 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. It marks the first time in history that a former U.S. president has been convicted on criminal charges.

Trump last April pleaded not guilty to a 34-count indictment charging him with falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment his then-attorney Michael Cohen made to Daniels in order to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.


Trump guilty on all 34 counts


0

Prosecutor role-plays alleged call between Cohen, Trump

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass addressed the defense allegation that Michael Cohen lied on the witness stand about an Oct. 24, 2016, phone call with Trump bodyguard Keith Schiller while Schiller was with Trump.

“Of course the defense says, ‘Ah-ha! That’s per-jur-y,’” Steinglass said, exaggerating the syllables to mimick how defense attorney Todd Blanche had said it during his closing.

“To them, that’s the big lie. But that’s not the only interpretation,” said Steinglass.

Steinglass then role-played the alleged conversation between Schiller and Cohen to suggest that Cohen could have talked to both Schiller and Trump during the 90-second call, as Cohen had testified.

“Forty-nine seconds,” Steinglass said after completing the role-play.


Cohen is 'understandably angry,' prosecutor says

"Michael Cohen is understandably angry that to date he's the only one who paid the price," prosecutor Josh Steinglass said about the state's star witness.

"Cohen did the defendant's bidding for years," Steinglass said. "Anyone in Cohen's shoes would want the defendant to be held accountable.

Regarding Cohen stealing $30,000 from the Trump Organization by submitting an inflated reimbursement request for IT expenses, Steinglass said Cohen "is the one who brought it to everyone's attention. He raised it. He volunteered it."

As to why he wasn't arrested, Steinglass said, "he paid his price."

"He's been convicted of multiple felonies, ... he can't get a mortgage ... not to mention the steady stream of online attacks," Steinglass said.

And, Steinglass added, Cohen's theft is not a defense to falsifying business records.


State says Trump didn't want public to hear Daniels' story

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass conceded that Stormy Daniels gave, at times, "cringe-worthy" testimony -- but told they jury the details she provided bolster her credibility.

"To be sure, there were parts of her testimony that were cringe-worthy," Steinglass said. "Some of the details of what the suite looked like, the contents of his toiletry bag" he said "ring true."

He accused the defense of working hard to discredit Daniels because that's the story Trump didn't want the American public to see.

"Stormy Daniels is the motive," Steinglass said. "And you can bet the defendant would not pay $130,000 ... just because he took a photograph with someone on the golf course."


Prosecutor calls Pecker's testimony 'devastating'

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass took aim at the defense assertion that Stormy Daniels was out to extort Donald Trump.

"Maybe you think it's a sordid practice," he said. "In the end it doesn't really matter because you don't get to commit election fraud or falsify business records because you believe you have been victimized."

Steinglass told the jurors that many of the witnesses they heard from are Trump friends or fans.

"Pecker has no reason to lie here," he said, speaking of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker. "He still considers Donald Trump a friend and mentor, and still his testimony is utterly devastating."

"These people like the defendant," Steinglass said. "If anything, they have incentive to skew the testimony" in a way that will help him.


Jury rehears Pecker's testimony about Trump, National Enquirer

The jury heard a readback of David Pecker's testimony about Donald Trump dating the "most beautiful women," the National Enquirer's coverage of Bill Clinton's "womanizing," and the "mutually beneficial" relationship between the tabloid and the Trump campaign.

Q: Can you explain to the jury how the topic of women in particular came up?

A: Well, in a presidential campaign I was the person that thought that there would be a number -- a lot of women come out to try to sell their stories, because Mr. Trump was well-known as the most eligible bachelor and dated the most beautiful women. And it was clear that based on my past experience, that when someone is running for a public office like this, the -- it is very common for these women to call up a magazine like the National Enquirer to try to sell their stories. Or I would hear it in the marketplace through other sources that stories are being marketed.

Q: Did you have or express any ideas about how you may be able to help kind of deal with those stories by women?

A: All I said was I would notify Michael Cohen.

Q: What about Bill and Hillary Clinton, did their names up during this meeting?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you explain how?

A: As I mentioned earlier, my having the National Enquirer, which is a weekly magazine, and you focus on the cover of the magazine and who -- and who and what is the story that is the topic of the week, the Hillary running for president and Bill Clinton's womanizing was the biggest, one of the biggest sales I had for the National Enquirer and the other tabloids, that's the other things that the readers wanted to read about and that's what I would sell weekly. So I was running the Hillary Clinton stories. I was running Hillary as an enabler for Bill Clinton, with respect to all of the womanizing. And I was -- it was easy for me to say that I'm going to continue running those type of stories for the National Enquirer.

Q: And did you believe that that would help Mr. Trump's campaign?

A: I think it was a mutual benefit. It would help his campaign; it would also help me.

The jury also heard the testimony where Pecker testified that he never purchased stories to kill for Trump prior to the 2016 election.

Q: And what was the purpose of notifying Michael Cohen when you came upon stories like that?

A: Well, as I did in the past, that would be in the past eight years, when I notified Michael Cohen of a story that was a negative story, he would try to vet it himself to see if the story was true or not. He would go to the individual publication to get the story to make sure the story wasn't published and getting killed.

Q: Prior to that August 2015 meeting, had you ever purchased a story to not print it about Mr. Trump?

A: No.