Donald Trump’s New York election interference trial continues on Friday with evidence from Douglas Daus, the forensic analyst who found more than 39,000 contacts on the phone of Trump’s disgraced ex-lawyer, Michael Cohen. Among the findings were texts with Trump allies, including Hope Hicks, former White House communications director, and secret recordings from the time of Trump’s 2016 campaign.
George Soros-backed Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg asserts that Trump conspired with Michael Cohen and David Pecker to suppress damaging stories that could impact Trump’s campaign. This alleged conspiracy led to Stormy Daniels being paid $130,000 not to go public with claims of a sexual encounter she supposedly had with Trump. Daniels publicly denied having an affair with the former president before reversing her position.
Douglas Daus, a forensic analyst for Bragg’s office, will be cross-examined on over 39,000 contacts, messages, and secret recordings extracted from a phone belonging to Cohen, a convicted perjurer. However, the recordings are not necessarily helpful to the prosecution. They suggest Cohen, the star witness against Trump, was the driving force behind the settlement, with Trump unclear on the details and unhappy that a deal was being made.
‘THE RIGHT THING TO DO.’
One of the recordings shows Cohen discussing the settlement with Hollywood entertainment lawyer Keith Davidson, who represented Daniels. Cohens tells the lawyer that Trump has complained many times about the settlement. “I can’t even tell you how many times he said to me, you know, ‘I hate the fact that we did it,’” and “my comment to him was ‘but every person you spoke to said it was the right thing to do,’” Cohen says.
Davidson, who has testified the settlement to Daniels was not “hush money,” was questioned on whether he was concerned his efforts to secure a settlement for Daniels ahead of the 2016 election could be regarded as an attempt at “extortion.”
Davidson denied the extortion accusation, though one of Cohen’s recordings shows him complaining that if Trump “loses this election… we all lose all f**king leverage.”
show less
Donald Trump's New York election interference trial continues on Friday with evidence from Douglas Daus, the forensic analyst who found more than 39,000 contacts on the phone of Trump's disgraced ex-lawyer, Michael Cohen. Among the findings were texts with Trump allies, including Hope Hicks, former White House communications director, and secret recordings from the time of Trump's 2016 campaign.
show more
The sixth day of the Manhattan-based Trump hush moneytrial has come to a close. Despite havingnowheardfrom a half-dozen witnesses, the prosecutors in District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s office have yet to present compelling evidence of any crime being committed. The lack of evidence hasn’t gone unnoticed, even by corporate media outlets like CNN. During a Thursday segment, CNN’s political director David Chalian said he’s seen “precious little evidence” of Trump’s involvement in Michael Cohen’s payment deals with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.
MORE GAG ORDER VIOLATIONS?
Prosecutors started the day in court by presenting Democrat–alignedJudgeJuanMerchan with four new accusations of former President Trump violating his court-issued gag order. “His statements are corrosive to this proceeding and the fair administration of justice,” prosecutor Chris Conroy told Judge Merchan Thursday morning. He added: “The defendant is doing everything he can to make this case about politics.”
Todd Blanche, a member of Trump’s defense team, fired back at the prosecution. He argued that Trump has a right to defend himself against public statements made by the likes of Michael Cohen and that Cohen and Stormy Daniels are “not people who need to be protected.”
“Cohen has been inviting and almost daring President Trump to respond to almost everything he’s saying,” Trump’s defense attorney told Judge Merchan. One of the alleged gag order violations cited by the prosecution was a comment where Trump referred to witness David Pecker as “nice.” Blanche noted, regarding the comment: “There’s no animosity between the two of them. There’s no threatening, menacing statements.”
“It’s not about just Mr. Pecker, Judge Merchan responded. He continued: “It’s about what the other witnesses see. It affects those witnesses as well.”
There was no immediate ruling on whether Trump violated the gag order in the four instances cited by prosecutors.
KEITH DAVIDSON BACK ON THE STAND.
The trial resumed after the gag order hearing, with Hollywood entertainment lawyer Keith Davidson returning to the stand for testimony directed by the prosecution. Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass received unexpected pushback from Davidson over his reference to the payments as “hush money.” Addressing the payments, the entertainment lawyer told Steinglass, “It wasn’t a ‘payout,’ and it wasn’t ‘hush money.’ It was consideration in a civil settlement.” Davidson told the prosecution that he’d never use the term “hush money.”
In another strange moment in the prosecution’s case, they opened the door to evidence that Michael Cohen continued to worry about statements made by Stormy Daniels well after the 2016election. This directly undermines the core of their case that the payments were part of a plot to interfere in the presidential election.
At the direction of the protection, Davidson went through texts with Cohen just before Stormy Daniels’s 2018 appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live!The texts between Cohen and Davidson mostly revolved around a statement from Daniels that denied she ever had a relationship with Trump. Regarding the statement, Davidson said: “I think it’s technically true.”
The remainder of Davidson’s testimony was a relatively unrevealing back and forth with prosecutors about the nuances of the English language and terms like “hush money,” “payout,” and “affair.”
‘NO INTERACTIONS WITH TRUMP.’
Keith Davidson’s cross-examination went far better for the defense than his initial testimony did for the prosecution. Trump‘s defense attorney, Emil Bove, handled the initial questioning of Davidson, immediately asking the entertainment lawyer if, before Thursday, he’d ever been in a room with Donald Trump. “I have had no personal interactions with Donald Trump,” Davidson responded. Bove spent most of the early stages of Davidson’s cross-examination focusing on the lawyer’s work before 2016. Davidson acknowledged he’d been retained in 2011 by Daniels’s agent to have a story removed from a gossip site.
Trump’s defense attorney then zeroed in on Davidson’s conversation with Cohen regarding Trump’s post-2016 election plans. According to Davidson, Cohen bragged that he may become the President-Elect’s chief of staff or even the U.S. Attorney General. It appears the purpose of this line of question is to show Cohen as someone prone to delusions of grandeur, often overstating his role in Trump’s personal, business, and political activities.
HUSH MONEY OR EXTORTION PLOT?
Next, Bove moved on to the topic of “extortion.” He pressed Davidson: “In your mind, you were concerned about avoiding creating evidence of extortion, correct?” The entertainment lawyer responded, “Not particularly.” However, Bove then raised a 2012 extortion investigation into Davidson involving a sex tape allegedly featuring Hulk Hogan. Davison insisted he did nothing illegal in that case, stating: “I did everything I could to make sure my activities were lawful.”
Bove then pivoted to the 2016 presidential election, addressing Davidson’s claim that he didn’t use the political contest as leverage in his negotiations with Cohen. “You made no threats to Michael Cohen related to the 2016 election, is that the answer?” Trump’s defense attorney asked, with Davidson responding: “I made no threats to anyone.”
“You never linked these negotiations to the 2016 election with anyone. Is that your testimony?” Bove countered. The entertainment lawyer replied, “That’s fair.”
When asked about his involvement with payout plots involving other celebrities, including Charlie Sheen, Manny Pacquiao, and Tila Tequila, Davidson claimed his memory was “fuzzy.” This likely further bolstered the defense’s contention that Davidson and his clients had more sinister motives behind their claims, bordering on extortion.
ANOTHER BLOW TO BRAGG’S CASE.
In another blow to District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s case, Davidson acknowledged—under cross-examination—that Trump never signed the non-disclosure agreement with Daniels. During earlier testimony, Davidson claimed that references to “DD” or “David Dennison” were stand-ins for Trump.
After Bove concluded his cross-examination of Davidson, the court took a short break. Alvin Bragg, perhaps surveying the damage his prosecution has taken, entered the court following the recess for the first time during the trial. The District Attorney and Trump exchanged brief glances at each other.
During a brief redirect, Bove asked Davidson if he recalled telling Cohen that if Trump lost the election, Daniels would lose her leverage. Davidson said he did recall the conversion. The defense then played a recording of Davidson telling Cohen: “If he loses this election, and he’s going to lose, we all lose all f**king leverage.”
You can read The National Pulse’s Day Five trial coverage here, and if you find our work worthwhile, consider joining up as a supporter.
show less
The sixth day of the Manhattan-based Trump hush money trial has come to a close. Despite havingnowheardfrom a half-dozen witnesses, the prosecutors in District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office have yet to present compelling evidence of any crime being committed. The lack of evidence hasn't gone unnoticed, even by corporate media outlets like CNN. During a Thursday segment, CNN's political director David Chalian said he's seen "precious little evidence" of Trump's involvement in Michael Cohen's payment deals with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.
show more
Mark Pomerantz, an attorney formerly with the ManhattanDistrict Attorney‘s office, refused to acknowledge whether he broke the law or violated anyone’s constitutionalrights while he investigated former President Donald J. Trump over alleged hush money payments. In a never-before-seen video of Pomerantz during a Congressional deposition last summer, the former Manhattan D.A. employee pleaded the fifth to a series of probing questions from Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL).
POMERANTZ TAKES THE FIFTH.
“And did you knowingly break any laws when investigating President Trump?” Gaetz asked Pomerantz. The attorney formerly with the Manhattan D.A‘.s office responded, “Same response,” referring to an earlier invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights. At the start of the questioning, Pomerantz invoked his “Privilege against self-incrimination.”
“Did you break any laws when you worked at the Manhattan District Attorney’s office?” Gaetz asked. Pomerantz again invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, stating: “Same response.”
Gaetz pushed further, questioning Pomerantz: “Did you violate any person’s constitutional rights when you worked on the Trump investigation?” The anti-Trump attorney answered again with: “Same response.”
“Mr. Pomerantz, did you violate any person’s constitutional rights while you worked at the Manhattan D.A.‘s office?” continued Gaetz, with Pomerantz offering a variation this time, responding: “Same answer.”
When asked if he had misused any federal funds while working for the Manhattan District Attorney‘s office or while investigating former President Trump, Pomerantz pleaded the Fifth. He again invoked his Fifth Amendment rights when Gaetz asked if he had violated any New York State Bar rules while investigating Trump.
AT THE CENTER OF THE WEB.
Pomerantz, while serving under former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, was the legal mind behind the dubious grounds for prosecuting former President Trump on felony charges of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Vance concluded there was neither sufficient evidence nor any underlying federal crime on which the felony charges could be predicated. This prompted Pomerantz to resign from the D.A.’s office in protest.
When Alvin Bragg defeated Vance’s re-election bid in 2022, Pomerantz wrote a book on his investigation of Trump. Some legal observers allege that Pomerantz’s book was intended to essentially bully Bragg into pursuing the Trump prosecution now underway in Manhattan.
WATCH:
NEW VIDEO:
Trump Prosecutor PLEADS FIFTH when asked if he BROKE THE LAW investigating Trump! pic.twitter.com/enDGztIhtD
Mark Pomerantz, an attorney formerly with the ManhattanDistrict Attorney's office, refused to acknowledge whether he broke the law or violated anyone's constitutionalrights while he investigated former President Donald J. Trump over alleged hush money payments. In a never-before-seen video of Pomerantz during a Congressional deposition last summer, the former Manhattan D.A. employee pleaded the fifth to a series of probing questions from Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL).
show more
The House Judiciary Committee has initiated an investigation into Matthew Colangelo, a top prosecutor in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s case against former President Donald J. Trump. Colangelo previously served in a senior role as an attorney with the Biden government’s Department of Justice (DOJ). It is suspected that he may serve as a go-between for federal officials and the District Attorney’s office.
Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH), who chairs the Judiciary Committee, is requesting communications and other records related to Colangelo‘s employment with Biden‘s DOJ. “The Committee on the Judiciary is conducting oversight of politically motivated prosecutions by state and local officials,” Chairman Jordan wrote in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. He continued: “Since last year, popularly elected prosecutors—who campaigned for office on the promise of prosecuting President Trump—engaged in an unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority: the indictment of a former President of the United States and current leading candidate for that office.”
WHO IS MATTHEW COLANGELO?
Colangelo has featured prominently in the hush money trial, even delivering opening arguments for the prosecution team. The former DOJ attorney told the court that they would present evidence implicating Trump in a “criminal conspiracy and a cover-up.” The former federal attorney’s work against conservatives and Republican lawmakers dates back to the Obama government, where Colangelo served in the DOJ’s Voting Section.
While working in the Voting Section, Colangelo coordinated with the infamous left-wing groups Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and Project Vote to pressure law enforcement to target conservative political candidates.
Former President Trump faces 34 charges of falsifying business records. These charges are typically misdemeanors. However, Bragg and his prosecutors are using a dubious legal theory to boost the charges to felonies. They contend that the misdemeanors were committed in the course of breaking federal election law. Trump has neither been charged nor convicted of any federal election violations by either the Federal Election Commission or Biden’s DOJ.
The National Pulse has reported that much of District Attorney Bragg’s strategy appears to hinge on the credibility of disgraced attorney Michael Cohen, whom a federal judge accused of being “perverse.”
show less
The House Judiciary Committee has initiated an investigation into Matthew Colangelo, a top prosecutor in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case against former President Donald J. Trump. Colangelo previously served in a senior role as an attorney with the Biden government's Department of Justice (DOJ). It is suspected that he may serve as a go-between for federal officials and the District Attorney's office.
show more
A majority of likely voters say Donald Trump’s prosecution by George Soros-backed Democrat District Attorney Alvin Bragg either makes no difference to their voting intentions or makes them more likely to vote for the former president, according to new polling by Rasmussen Reports.
The pollster sampled over a thousand likely voters in late April, asking, “In terms of this year’s presidential election, has the New York trial made you more likely or less likely to vote for Trump? Or has the trial not made much difference in how you will vote in the presidential election?”
Thirty-two percent said the trial, which Trump has called a politically motivated witch hunt, makes them more likely to vote for the former president. Forty percent say it makes little difference to them. Just 26 percent say it makes them less likely to vote for him.
Among Republican voters and voters who identify as conservative, the prosecution appears to be having an energizing effect, with 51 percent and 53 percent saying it makes them more likely to vote for Trump, respectively.
The prosecution is much less of a motivator among Democrats and liberals, with 42 percent of the former and 45 percent of the latter saying it does not make much difference to them.
Separate polling by Emerson has found that even a ‘guilty’ verdict in Bragg’s election interference case could actually be a boon for Trump, boosting him among independent voters in Arizona, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Margins are less favorable but fairly small in the other swing states of Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin.
Recent polls have Trump leading Biden in either all seven or six of seven swing states.
A DUBIOUS CASE.
Bragg’s prosecution of Trump is dubious, to begin with. The National Pulse has detailed that it appears the entire case is now reliant on the credibility of disgraced attorney Michael Cohen. Recently, while attempting to terminate the conditions of his supervised release from federal prison, Cohen was called “perverse” by a federal judge. The request to end his sentence early was denied.
In addition, the Manhattan hush money prosecution is predicated on the idea that Bragg can charge former President Donald J. Trump with felony crimes that require an underlying federal crime to have been committed. It is important to note that the former Republican President has neither been charged nor convicted under the needed federal statute. In fact, both the Federal Election Commission and Biden’s Department of Justice declined to prosecute him for the campaign finance violations that Bragg alleges.
show less
A majority of likely voters say Donald Trump's prosecution by George Soros-backed Democrat District Attorney Alvin Bragg either makes no difference to their voting intentions or makes them more likely to vote for the former president, according to new polling by Rasmussen Reports.show more
Editor’s Notes
Behind-the-scenes political intrigue exclusively for Pulse+ subscribers.
The fifth day of testimony in former President Donald Trump’s Manhattan-based hush money trial has ended. Democrat-aligned Judge Juan Merchan kicked off the day by fining Trump $1,000 for each of his nine alleged violations of the court’s gag order. The gag order was ostensibly imposed to prevent the former President from communicating with the public about endemic corruption in the Alvin Bragg and Joe Biden-led case.
Prosecutors continued questioning Michael Cohen‘s banker, Gary Farro. The banker began his testimony before the court adjourned last Friday.
Following Farro, District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s prosecution team moved on to their next witness, Keith Davidson. A Beverly Hills lawyer and frequent Democrat donor, Davidson formerly represented Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal in their attempts to strong-arm Trump out of cash. The entertainment lawyer has faced numerous legal sanctions for his unsavory activities.
FARRO PART 2.
Prosecutor Rebecca Mangold kicked off the second day of banker Gary Farro’s testimony. The banker testified that he opened a home equity line of credit for disgraced attorney Michael Cohen for $130,000. It is this amount that Cohen then allegedly paid Stormy Daniels. The email communications between Cohen and Farro presented by the prosecution were from the former’s personal TrumpOrg.com account, and not one affiliated with Trump‘s presidential campaign.
Further undermining Bragg‘s accusations that Cohen‘s activities were in the service of aiding Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, Farro testified that he saw no indication that the consulting business accounts he helped establish were connected to any political candidate. “There would be additional scrutiny,” he said, if the bank had any indication that the accounts were for political activities.
To set up entertainment lawyer Keith Davidson’s testimony, Mongold showed the jury a wire transfer for $130,000 from Cohen to a trust controlled by Davidson. The transfer occurred just after Cohen had secured the line of credit from Farro. She then asked the banker why an attorney might pay a fellow lawyer a retainer in a real estate transaction. Farro replied, “There could be a number of things.”
FARRO SINKS COHEN.
During Farro’s cross-examination by Trump‘s defense team, the banker acknowledged that Cohen‘s rushed requests were not at all unusual. “90 percent of the time, it was an urgent matter,” Farro said of his dealings with the disgraced attorney. The banker confirmed that he’d never done business with former President Trump.
In one of the most damning moments for Bragg’s case in the trial so far, Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche drew the jurors‘ attention to Michael Cohen’s bank filings in which Cohen had asserted he was NOT acting as an agent on behalf of anyone else. This acknowledgment directly contradicts the prosecution’s claim that Cohen was directed to make the payments to Daniels and McDougal by Trump.
Addressing the matter, Farro told Blanche: “If the client told me it was a shell corporation, it would not have been opened. It would give me pause, very frankly.”
JUDGE DENIES BIDEN DOJ COLANGELO’S MOTION.
In a surprise moment, Democrat-alignedJudgeJuanMerchan denied a request by former Biden Department of Justice attorney Matthew Colangelo — now a member of District Attorney Bragg’s office — to introduce statements by Trump regarding Cohen and Daniels. Colangelo argued that the statement would demonstrate consciousness of guilt. He also ruled against the prosecution‘s request to introduce texts from Stormy Daniels’s publicist as evidence.
However, Merchan did decide to allow the prosecution to introduce statements that refute claims that Cohen and Daniels have benefited financially from attacking Trump.
BETTER CALL KEITH?
The day in court concluded with the start of testimony by the ethically dubious Hollywood entertainment lawyer Keith Davidson. It is from Davidson that the term “catch and kill” may have first originated, though it appears it was popularized in the American press by Australian journalist Lachlan Cartwright. The National Pulse’s editor-in-chief, Raheem Kassam, has a deep dive into Davidson’s sordid history that can be read here.
“At that time, my practice was heavily involved with media cases,” Davidson told prosecutors regarding his legal work between 2015 and 2017. He went on to acknowledge he was granted immunity for his testimony before the grand jury but was in court today under subpoena.
Davidson acknowledged that he was a friend of Dylan Howard — the former chief content officer at the National Enquirer‘s parent company, American Media, Inc. (AMI). However, the entertainment lawyer claimed that it was not his standard practice to sell stories to tabloid media outlets.
This appears to contradict a 2018 story that describes Davidson as “the attorney to hire if you are seeking to monetize a celebritysex tape or compromising information about public figures like Trump, Charlie Sheen, Tiger Woods, and Kanye West. Davidson specializes in extracting payments in exchange for the quashing of incriminating videos and/or details about sexual indiscretions, STDs, and all manner of regrettable behavior.”
BEST DEAL FOR HIS CLIENT.
Regarding the Karen McDougal story about Donald Trump, Davidson admitted that he had played the National Enquirer and ABC News off of each other. “At the time, as is often the case with negotiations, I was trying to play two entities off of each other,” he said, adding his intent was to “create a sense of urgency, if you will.”
Davidson stated that McDougal “did not want to tell her story” but instead wanted to “rejuvenate her career, to make money.” This comment by Davidson seemingly adds credence to the defense team’s claims that McDougal and Daniels were simply engaging in a shakedown. The entertainment attorney also acknowledged receiving 45 percent of the money paid to McDougal by AMI as payment.
DAVIDSON NAMES TRUMP WITHOUT PROOF.
In another damaging moment for Bragg‘s case, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass attempted to get Davidson to confirm that Trump was Cohen‘s client. The entertainment lawyer obliged, saying that is what he believed. However, Davidson added — unfortunately for Bragg — that at no point was Trump actually named as a party to the deal he made with Cohen.
The remainder of Davidson’s testimony relied on the same degree of innuendo. While he could point to existing texts between himself and Cohen, the attorney could not provide the prosecution with any definitive proof tying former President DonaldTrump or his 2016 presidential campaign to the payment negotiations.
Overall, the day in court continued along the path that The National Puluse suggested the prosecution was taking last Friday. It appears that despite the District Attorney’s office’s witnesses at times undermining its case, each is meant to bolster Cohen‘s credibility as having been the middleman between Donald Trump and AMI. Whether the prosecution can demonstrate this beyond a reasonable doubt remains yet to be seen — and honestly, it is unlikely.
show less
The fifth day of testimony in former President Donald Trump's Manhattan-based hush money trial has ended. Democrat-aligned Judge Juan Merchan kicked off the day by fining Trump $1,000 for each of his nine alleged violations of the court's gag order. The gag order was ostensibly imposed to prevent the former President from communicating with the public about endemic corruption in the Alvin Bragg and Joe Biden-led case.
show more
Matthew Colangelo, assisting the George Soros-backed District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of Donald Trump, oversaw the Voting Section of the Justice Department, which reportedly coordinated with a former affiliate of the disgraced Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) during the Barack Obama administration.
Documents uncovered by Judicial Watch in 2011 suggest the Project Vote organization had high-level access to the Voting Section of the Justice Department under Obama. A contemporary report on the findings characterizes the documents as revealing “how left-wing civil rights groups work against Republican or conservative candidates by attempting to leverage law enforcement against them.” Colangelo is listed among the high-level Justice Department officials to whom the groups had access.
The Project Vote group appears to have recommended hires to the Voting Section and to have directed Voting Section resources against conservatives trying to combat voter fraud.
Colangelo is reported to have used the Voting Section to block state election integrity laws on multiple occasions during the Obama administration. Voter ID in South Carolina was among the measures he blocked. Future Donald Trump Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh later ruled he acted unlawfully.
‘PRESSING CONCERNS.’
Multiple employees of ACORN, with which Project Vote was formerly affiliated, were convicted of crimes related to voter registration fraud during the George W. Bush and Obama administrations.
Matthew Colangelo’s resignation from the Department of Justice to join DA Bragg’s team had already seen Republican lawmakers warn the Joe Biden regime may be directly involved in his notionally state-level prosecution of Trump.
“The fact that Colangelo stepped down from a senior DOJ role to join a prosecution team in a city DA office raises some pressing concerns,” commented Rep. Lance Gooden (R-TX) earlier this month. He has requested “immediate access to all records and communication in relation to the Department of Justice and the Manhattan District Attorney General’s Office process of hiring Matthew Colangelo.”
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's "all-star" prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo has a history of coordinating with radical Far Left groups to interfere in presidential elections.
In 2011 ahead of the 2012 presidential election, emails obtained by @JudicialWatch show how Colangelo and…
Matthew Colangelo, assisting the George Soros-backed District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution of Donald Trump, oversaw the Voting Section of the Justice Department, which reportedly coordinated with a former affiliate of the disgraced Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) during the Barack Obama administration.
show more
Lachlan Cartwright appears to have confessed to being one of the most critical sources for the “catch and kill” claims against President Donald J. Trump, as well as the initial ‘hush money’ story published in the Wall Street Journal just days before the 2016 presidential election. During his time as executive editor with the National Enquirer, Cartwright claims he was intimately involved in the tabloid publication’s work to protect certain individuals from negative press and to direct scathing stories at others.
In a lengthy essay for The New York Times, the former tabloid editor describes these efforts in great detail, shedding more light on the origins of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of former President Trump. Additionally, Cartwright admits he promoted the narrative that the tabloid acted under the direction of Trump.
Even more troubling is his admission that his decision to serve as a confidential source was primarily motivated by a need to retain his U.S. work visa and rehabilitate his byline after working for the Enquirer. An Australian national, Cartwright went on to serve as an editor at large for the far-left Daily Beast website and is currently a special correspondent for The Hollywood Reporter.
ALL FOR A WORK VISA.
In his essay, Cartwright readily admits that after leaving the Enquirer, he worked as a source—with no compensation—for several national news publications as a means of integrating himself back into corporatejournalist circles. He says this was prompted after he already technically left his role with the tabloid in July 2017, but remained listed as an employee as part of his severance agreement. This allowed him to retain his U.S. work visa as an Australian national.
According to Cartwright, in October 2017, his attorney received a letter from the National Enquirer‘s then-parent company, American Media, Inc. (AMI), which threatened a termination of employment per the severance agreement. This, the letter noted, would result in him losing his work visa and subsequent deportation from the U.S. The letter suggested they believed he was behind several leaks to national media outlets regarding the Enquirer’s involvement in purchasing and burying stories on behalf of several notable public figures.
Now, several years after the letter, Cartwright admits AMI’s suspicions were correct. He also suggests his work as a confidential source on AMI likely contributed to his gaining employment with the far-left Daily Beast.
ORIGIN OF “CATCH AND KILL”?
Cartwright claims he first heard the term “catch and kill” from an unnamed colleague. The phrase was used in conjunction with a $30,000 payout by AMI to Trump Tower doorman Dino Sajudin. According to the doorman, Trump had fathered a love child in an affair. However, Cartwright says the tabloid’s investigation into the matter found Sajudin to be unreliable, noting the man’s claims were unfounded. Despite Cartwright and his colleagues concluding that Sajudin’s story was likely untrue, he says AMI CEO David Pecker authorized a $30,000 payment to the doorman anyway.
“I stressed to him the importance of the term ‘catch and kill’…
– Lachlan Cartwright
Cartwright says the second occasion he heard the term “catch and kill” was in relation to former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal’s alleged affair with Trump. At the time, McDougal was being represented by Hollywood entertainment lawyer Keith Davidson.
The confirmed connection with Keith Davidson raises questions about the “catch and kill” term’s origins. During his testimony in the hush money trial, David Pecker insisted “catch and kill” was not a term used by AMI or the National Enquirer. However, as The National Pulse’s Editor-in-Chief, Raheem Kassam, reported last week, the phrase has a history of being used in connection with Hollywood, and disgraced film producer Harvey Weinstein.
SOURCE FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
“Catch and kill” made its first appearance in connection to former President Donald Trump in a November 4, 2016, story in the Wall Street Journal detailing the alleged payments and nondisclosure agreement between AMI and Karen McDougal. Cartwright admits to being the newspaper‘s source and using the term “catch and kill’ when speaking with reporter Lukas Alpert.
The WSJ story from 2016.
According to Cartwright, Alpert had never heard the phrase prior to his use of it.
“I stressed to him the importance of the term ‘catch and kill‘ and told him that if the Journal included it, it would give me some breathing room,” Cartwright wrote, recalling their conversation. In addition, Cartwright says he broke into the safe where the Sajudin nondisclosure agreement was kept and supplied details from the document, including names of individuals involved, to the Wall Street Journal.
THE TRUMP NON-CONNECTION.
The most glaring omission from Cartwright’s recollection of events is that he can never definitively connect former President Trump to any of AMI’s actions prior to the 2016 election. He either assumes a connection or makes innuendo to one, but the former editor for the Daily Beast is careful never to claim Trump actually directed any of his or David Pecker’s actions. In fact, Cartwright strangely only mentions MichaelCohen, Trump’s then-personal attorney, in passing — despite the District Attorney’s office insisting that Cohen was heavily involved with Pecker, AMI, and the National Enquirer‘s senior staff in executing the “catch and kill” operations.
Cartwright admits that he also spoke to the New York Times after the paper broke the Harvey Weinstein story and detailed the National Enquirer‘s handling of the McDougal allegations. Regarding his conversations with the newspaper, Cartwright admits he “stressed that the real story was the Enquirer’s work on behalf of Trump.” He has yet to provide any evidence of this claim.
The Australian national’s essay for the New York Times could have serious implications for Bragg’s prosecution of Trump.
Cartwright appears to be not only an originator of the “catch and kill” phrase now being bandied about by the District Attorney‘s office but also the source for the idea that the tabloid worked on behalf of the Trump campaign. The fact that Cartwright admits to opening an AMI safe and leaking documents and other materials to competing news outlets calls into question not only his ethics but also his credibility.
show less
Lachlan Cartwright appears to have confessed to being one of the most critical sources for the "catch and kill" claims against President Donald J. Trump, as well as the initial 'hush money' story published in the Wall Street Journal just days before the 2016 presidential election. During his time as executive editor with the National Enquirer, Cartwright claims he was intimately involved in the tabloid publication's work to protect certain individuals from negative press and to direct scathing stories at others.
show more
Disgraced attorney MichaelCohen may face sanctions in the Manhattan-based Trump “hush money” trial even though he has yet to testify. Last Tuesday, Cohen took to TikTok to discuss the trial details with tens of thousands of listeners. “Trump 2024?” Cohen said before adding: “More like Trump 20-24 years.”
Cohen went on to use the Chinese–owned social media app to discuss his history with former President DonaldTrump, his thoughts on the trial, and the testimony of other witnesses so far. Even more concerning is that it appears the disgraced lawyer, who was dubbed “perverse” by a federal judge in late March, is personally profiting from his social media appearance on TikTok.
While Cohen‘s social media activity is ethically dubious and will likely further damage his already tattered credibility, it does not appear to violate any standing court order for those involved in the trial other than former President Trump and his attorneys. Judge Juan Merchan, who presides over the case, enacted a gagorder that only affects Trump at the request of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
After the former President began publicizing that Merchan’s daughter is a well-connected Democrat fundraiser with ties to national party leaders, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, the judge expanded the order to include himself and family members.
Earlier on Monday, Cohen said he’d cease his social media posts, still striking a defiant tone. “I am not the defendant in this criminal matter and am not the subject of Judge Merchan’s gag order. Donald is,” the disgraced and ethically challenged lawyer said in a statement. He added: “Nevertheless, I elected, out of respect to the court and the prosecutors, to cease commenting on Trump and this matter; which I have done.”
show less
Disgraced attorney MichaelCohen may face sanctions in the Manhattan-based Trump "hush money" trial even though he has yet to testify. Last Tuesday, Cohen took to TikTok to discuss the trial details with tens of thousands of listeners. "Trump 2024?" Cohen said before adding: "More like Trump 20-24 years."
show more
The fourth day of Manhattan District Attorney AlvinBragg‘s prosecution saw jurors hearing continued testimony from David Pecker as former President Donald Trump‘s defense attorneys finished their cross-examination of the tabloid newsman.
In addition to Pecker, jurors have now heard from two new prosecution witnesses. Rhona Graff, a former executive assistant to DonaldTrump and a former senior vice president in the Trump Organization, gave brief testimony after being called by the prosecution. Her cross-examination by Trump’s attorneys was short as well. The day closed with Bragg’s team putting banker Gary Farro on the stand — his testimony will continue on Thursday after a several-day break for the end of the Passover holiday.
At this juncture, the prosecution’s strategy has become readily apparent. More on that below.
FINISHING OFF PECKER.
Tabloid newsman David Pecker’s time on the stand came to a close on Friday. Former President DonaldTrump‘s attorneys continued their cross-examination of the prosecution witness, with even more damage done to Bragg’s case. Pecker admitted to the former President’s attorney Emil Bove that “catch and kill” was never discussed during a 2015 meeting between Trump, Michael Cohen, and himself. He also acknowledged that the three never discussed any financial agreements during the same meeting.
In a most damning moment, Pecker said he was aware that Cohen and Karen McDougal’s attorney at the time knew each other both professionally and socially. The tabloid newsman admitted the two attorneys could have been merely discussing an agreement they had made on their own.
RHONA GRAFF NO HELP FOR BRAGG.
The former executive assistant and senior vice president at the Trump Organization, Rhona Graff, briefly took the stand after Pecker. Prosecutors asked very little of Graff, mainly focusing on having her confirm the veracity of a thumb drive they claimed contained a list of contacts belonging to former President Trump. Among the contacts included in the drive are Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels.
Graff’s cross-examination by Trump’s defense team was also abbreviated. She was asked if she enjoyed her time working with former President Trump. Graff replied that she did, noting that Trump showed her a great deal of respect because of her intelligence and work ethic.
Addressing Stormy Daniels, Graff said she had seen the woman at Trump Tower but had assumed she was there to interview to be a cast member of The Apprentice. “It was part of the office chatter,” she told Trump defense attorney Susan Necheles.
COHEN’S MONEY MAN.
The next prosecution witness was banker Gary Farro. While working at First Republican Bank, Farro listed Michael Cohen among his clients. The banker told prosecutors he was assigned to Cohen because of his ability “to handle individuals that may be a little bit challenging.”
Farro told prosecutors that in October 2016, Cohen approached him about setting up a new LLC. “Need an account opened for Mike Cohen immediately. He wants no address on the checks,” Farro told associates in an email dated October 13, 2016. On forms setting up the company, Cohen marked “no” when asked if the organization would be “associated with Political Fundraising/Political Action Committee (PAC).”
The court adjourned for the day without finishing Farro’s testimony.
WHERE IS THIS GOING?
It is becoming clear that the prosecution is attempting to build up to the testimony of Michael Cohen. They hope that through Cohen, they can convince the jury that former President Trump engaged in illegal activity despite them so far being unable to provide any conclusive evidence. Each of the witnesses so far appears to be primarily concerned with boosting Cohen’s dubious credibility — which, as he appears to be Bragg’s singular star witness, is a top concern for the DA.
You can read The National Pulse’s Day Three trial coverage here, and if you find our work worthwhile, consider joining up as a supporter.
show less
The fourth day of Manhattan District Attorney AlvinBragg's prosecution saw jurors hearing continued testimony from David Pecker as former President Donald Trump's defense attorneys finished their cross-examination of the tabloid newsman.
show more
Share Story
FacebookTwitterWhatsappTruthTelegramGettrCopy Link
Real News Fan? Show It!
Many people are shocked to learn that because of active censorship, we currently have to spend more time making sure you can even see The National Pulse, than on producing the news itself. Which sucks. Because we do this for the truth, and for you.
But the regime doesn’t want you being informed. That’s why they want us to go away. And that will happen if more people don’t sign up to support our work. It’s basic supply and demand. So demand you get to read The National Pulse, unrestricted. Sign up, today.
We don’t sell ads, and refuse corporate or political cash. It all comes down to you, the reader. I hope you can help.
