Trump trial: 1st week of testimony ends with testimony from Michael Cohen's former banker
Banker Gary Farro testified in Donald Trump's hush money trial in New York.
Former President Donald Trump is on trial in New York City, where he is facing felony charges 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 tried on criminal charges.
Trump last April pleaded not guilty to a 34-count indictment charging him with falsifying business records to hide the reimbursement of a hush money payment his then-attorney Michael Cohen made to Daniels in order to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
Top headlines:
- Banker says he set up LLC, which Cohen used to pay Daniels
- 'Thank you for handling' McDougal, Pecker says Trump told him
- 'This story is true,' Pecker recounts being told of Stormy Daniels
- Pecker describes $150,000 negotiations for McDougal's story
- Secret Service has plans if Trump is confined for contempt: Sources
What to know about the hush money case
READ MORE: Here's what you need to know about the historic case.
Trump, exiting court, criticizes scheduling conflicts
Exiting court after a lengthy day of proceedings, former President Trump complained about the scheduling conflicts created by his criminal trial, including conflicts with his presidential campaign, his plans to attend Supreme Court oral arguments, and potentially his son Barron's high school graduation.
"Now I can't go to my son's graduation," Trump said. "I can't go to the United States Supreme Court. I'm not in Georgia or Florida or North Carolina campaigning like I should be," Trump told reporters outside court.
Trump repeated his past complaints about the fairness of the trial, saying he has a "real problem" with Judge Merchan.
"It's a scam, it's a political witch hunt," Trump said. "We're not going to be given a fair trial."
Judge won't excuse Trump to attend Supreme Court arguments
At the end of the court day, Judge Juan Merchan denied a request from defense attorney Todd Blanche to excuse Trump from the proceedings in New York next Thursday, when the U.S. Supreme Court hears Trump's bid for presidential immunity in his 2020 federal election interference case.
"It's an incredibly unusual case," Blanche said.
"Arguing before the Supreme Court is a big deal; I can understand why your client wants to be there," Merchan said -- adding that standing trial in New York is also a big deal.
"Your client is a criminal defendant in New York County Supreme Court. He's required to be here," the judge said.
Several more jurors dismissed during questioning
After the parties questioned a total of 11 witnesses, two of them were struck for cause, including a man who cited a conflict with the trial due to his child's wedding.
One potential juror disclosed that he worked for the Bronx district attorney's office, and other jurors listed professions including sales, oncology nursing and social media marketing.
Another potential juror, who lives on the Upper West Side and works at a bookstore, made a brief remark about the fairness of the justice system while answering the questionnaire.
"I believe that nobody is above the law, whether it be a former president or a sitting president or a janitor," he said.
The remaining jurors are due to return to court tomorrow to complete the questions. Merchan said another panel of prospective jurors will arrive at court tomorrow morning.
Prospective jurors questioned about their jobs, hobbies
A portrait of New York is emerging as prospective jurors explain their job, their hobbies, and, most importantly, whether they harbor an opinion of the former president that might render them unable to evaluate the facts of the case impartially.
After about 50 jurors were excused after claiming they could not be fair or impartial, and nine more prospective jurors were excused after saying they could not serve for other reasons, about 34 of the initial group of 96 jurors remain under consideration.
One prospective juror was overheard in the hallway after leaving the courtroom, saying "I just couldn't do it."
The remaining 34 are now answering a 42-question form out loud, one by one.
A venture capitalist from Midtown East, a creative ad director from Midtown, and a city employee from the Upper West Side have shared details of their lives and remain in the running to be seated on the jury -- for now.
They listed New York Times, CNN, TikTok and al Jazeera as their news outlets of choice. Each has a degree of higher education: an MBA, a BFA, and an unspecified Masters' degree.
At times, Trump appears to be reading along with them as they answer the questions -- including if they follow him on social media or have read any of his books.
'The boss will be angry' if the deal is off, Pecker says he was told
Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker described one of the most heated moments so far during the catch-and-kill arrangement between him, Donald Trump and Trump's then-attorney Michael Cohen.
When Cohen approached Pecker with a plan to reimburse the National Enquirer for buying the exclusive rights to Karen McDougal's story, the two men drew up paperwork in which Cohen would repay the Enquirer's parent company, AMI, through a shell company he created, Pecker said.
But Pecker testified that he had a change of heart after consulting with his general counsel.
"I called Michael Cohen and I said to him that the agreement we signed -- the deal was off. I am not going forward, it is a bad idea," Pecker testified. "I want you to rip up the agreement."
"He was very, very, angry. Very upset, screaming basically at me. And I said, I'm not going forward with this agreement, rip it up," Pecker said.
Pecker said Michael Cohen then brought up "the boss."
"And Michael Cohen said, the boss is going to be very angry with you. And I said, I'm sorry, I am not going forward. The deal is off," Pecker recounted. "And he said, I can't believe it. I'm a lawyer, I'm your friend. I don't understand why you're not going forward. I said I am not going forward. Period."
Pecker previously described at length that he was aware that the National Enquirer's payment to Karen McDougal in order to catch and kill her story for the benefit of Trump's campaign would amount to an illegal campaign contribution -- softening his tone when he testified to this.