"Is that true, Mr. Pecker, was that your purpose... to influence the election?" "Yes."

[demmiblue]

Link to tweet

[moondust]

1. Bam!

"Your honor, I believe we have a verdict."

[brooklynite]

2. Not guilty?

Nothing on Pecker’s testimony pointed to Trump involvement in the catch ans kill effort, only awareness. That’s going to have to come later.

[Happy Hoosier]

7. I havent heard, but I think it'll be Cohen who makes that connection?

And didn't Pecker already testify that Trump told him that he should contact Cohen on such matters?

My memeory might be fuzzy there.

[moniss]

9. It should be noted

that the legal dogs have all stated that conspiracy does not require participation in each and every part. It only requires that you knew of a portion of it and took part in any portion of it.

[BaronChocula]

3. I keep reminding myself

we have weeks left to this trial, but the prosecution is hitting it out of the park with what may be the hardest thing to prove - that these "legal fees" were unreported campaign expenditures. I've been in a good mood this week.

[onenote]

11. The issue isn't that the payments weren't reported as campaign contributions.

It was that the contribution was an unlawful corporate contribution and was in excess of the contribution limits -- those are the campaign laws that Michael Cohen was charged with violating.

[calimary]

4. Mr. Pecker! That line of questioning! Keep it up!

I hope you'll forgive me. I'm still stuck in puerile mode. Ever since Catholic school...

[Haggard Celine]

5. I'm right there with you.

Mr. Pecker! Sounds like a character on Southpark.

[orangecrush]

6. Same here

[twodogsbarking]

8. On a more serious note, there is this.... Wouldn't you like to be a Pecker.

[link:

|

[calimary]

10. Yep! I was thinking that same little ditty!