//sli.reutersmedia.net/imp?s=126850200&li=&e=gjjtuyu768@gmail.com&p=35241620&stpe=pixel” width=”2″ height=”6″ border=”0″/> |
//sli.reutersmedia.net/imp?s=126850201&li=&e=gjjtuyu768@gmail.com&p=35241620&stpe=pixel” width=”2″ height=”6″ border=”0″/> |
//sli.reutersmedia.net/imp?s=126850202&li=&e=gjjtuyu768@gmail.com&p=35241620&stpe=pixel” width=”2″ height=”6″ border=”0″/> |
//sli.reutersmedia.net/imp?s=126850203&li=&e=gjjtuyu768@gmail.com&p=35241620&stpe=pixel” width=”2″ height=”6″ border=”0″/> |
//sli.reutersmedia.net/imp?s=126850204&li=&e=gjjtuyu768@gmail.com&p=35241620&stpe=pixel” width=”2″ height=”6″ border=”0″/> |
|
|
|
//sli.reutersmedia.net/imp?s=878659&li=&e=gjjtuyu768@gmail.com&p=35241620&stpe=static” border=”0″ style=”max-height:12px;” /> |
|
|
|
|
|
Donald Trump in New York State Supreme Court, May, 2, 2024. Doug Mills/Pool via REUTERS
|
A lawyer for Donald Trump sought on Thursday to portray the hush money payment at the center of his criminal trial as extortion, questioning a lawyer involved in the deal about his cash-for-dirt negotiations with other celebrities. Defense attorney Emil Bove‘s questioning of the lawyer Keith Davidson hinted at a strategy by Trump’s legal team to undermine the credibility of prosecution witnesses in the first-ever criminal trial of a former U.S. president. Read more about today’s proceedings.
Earlier in the day, Justice Juan Merchan signaled he might fine Trump over allegations he again violated a gag order. Prosecutors are asking Merchan to fine Trump $4,000 for violating the gag order four times last week. In one instance, Trump, a Republican, said in a TV interview that “that jury was picked so fast – 95% Democrats. The area’s mostly all Democrat.” Trump’s lawyer argued this was not a violation. Any penalty would follow a $9,000 fine Merchan imposed on Tuesday.
More top news:
|
|
|
//sli.reutersmedia.net/imp?s=878654&li=&e=gjjtuyu768@gmail.com&p=35241620&stpe=static” border=”0″ style=”max-height:12px;” /> |
|
|
|
|
|
When lawyers over the years have asked the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – all 29 active judges sitting together – to review a case, the answer has always been no. But if ever there was a dispute that merits a hearing by the entire bench instead of a “limited” 11-judge en banc panel, Jenna Greene in her latest column writes that the bid by a coalition of Western Apaches to save a sacred religious site from being destroyed by a copper mine might be it. Read more.
Check out other recent pieces from our columnists: Alison Frankel and Jenna Greene
|
|
|
|