NEW YORK — A reluctant Donald Trump will be back in a New York City courtroom Thursday as his hush money trial resumes at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington hears arguments over whether he should be immune from prosecution for actions he took during his time in office. president has taken. .
Jurors will hear more testimony from a veteran tabloid publisher, and Trump faces a looming decision on whether he violated a court-ordered silence order. But he had asked to skip his criminal trial that day so he could attend the special hearing of the Supreme Court, where the justices will weigh whether he can be prosecuted over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden to make.
That request was denied by New York State Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the trial over the hush money program designed to prevent damaging stories about Trump from emerging in the final days of the 2016 campaign. come.
“Arguing before the Supreme Court is a big deal, and I certainly understand why your client would want to be there, but a trial before the New York Supreme Court … is a big deal too,” Merchan told Trump attorney Todd Blanche last week when he ignored the idea.
Although the cases were separated by some 200 miles (320 kilometers) on Thursday – and were completely separate cases – they were thrown together into one big legal and political puzzle that has implications not only for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, but also for the American presidency at large. lines.
In both cases, Trump is trying to dig himself out of legal jeopardy as he makes another bid for the White House. But the outcome of the Supreme Court case will have lasting implications for future presidents, as the justices will answer the never-before-posed question of “whether and, if so, to what extent a former president enjoys presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct” it is alleged that there were official acts during his term of office.”
The Supreme Court’s decision may not affect the case in New York City, which largely hinges on Trump’s conduct as a presidential candidate in 2016 — and not as president. He faces 34 felony counts of falsifying company records in connection with hush-money payments intended to prevent embarrassing stories from emerging. It is the first of four criminal cases against Trump to go before a jury.
The New York trial resumes after a scheduled day off with more testimony from the Manhattan District Attorney’s first witness, David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer and a longtime friend of Trump, who vowed to be his “eyes and ears.” during his 2016 presidential election campaign.
In testimony earlier this week, Pecker explained how he and the tabloid turned rumors into splashy stories that smeared Trump’s opponents and, just as crucially, used his connections to suppress seamy stories about Trump, including a porn actor’s claim about a extramarital sexual encounter. years earlier.
Pecker traced the origins of their relationship to a meeting in the 1980s at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, and said the friendship blossomed alongside the success of the real estate developer’s TV show “The Apprentice” and the subsequent celebrity version of the program. .
Pecker told how he promised then-candidate Trump that he would help suppress damaging stories and even arranged to buy the silence of a doorman.
“I made the decision to buy the story because of the potential embarrassment it would have brought to the campaign and to Mr. Trump,” Pecker said of the doorman story that his publication later determined was untrue.
Judge Merchan could also decide whether or not to hold Trump in contempt and fine him for violating a gag order that banned the Republican leader from making public statements about witnesses, jurors and others involved in the case goods.
Some of Trump’s recent online posts in question included one describing prosecution witnesses Michael Cohen, his former attorney, and Stormy Daniels, the porn actress, as “sleaze bags” and another repeating a false claim that liberal activists had tried to infiltrate the jury.
Merchan criticized Blanche this week for excusing the messages because Trump was simply responding to political attacks and commenting on his experiences with the criminal justice system.
“If your client violates the gag order, I expect more than one word,” Merchan said.
A jury conviction in the hush money investigation would not prevent Trump from running for president again, but because it is a state matter, he would not be able to forgive himself if found guilty. The charge carries a maximum sentence of four years in prison, although it is not clear whether the judge will put him behind bars.
The Supreme Court’s arguments, meanwhile, relate to charges in federal court in Washington, where Trump is accused of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. The case stems from Trump’s efforts to have the charges against him dismissed. Lower courts have ruled that he cannot claim immunity for actions that, prosecutors say, illegally attempted to disrupt the election results.
The Supreme Court is moving faster than usual in hearing the case, but not as quickly as special counsel Jack Smith wanted, raising questions about whether there will be time to hold a trial before the November election , if the justices agree with the lower courts that Trump can be prosecuted.