Trump NY trial testimony resumes as Supreme Court hears immunity arguments

Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he leaves court during his trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 22, 2024 in New York City. Former President Donald Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first of his criminal cases to go to trial. (Brendan McDermid-Pool/Getty Images)

Former President Trump reacted to the "monumental" hearing on presidential immunity at the Supreme Court Thursday, saying he thinks it was "made clear" that a president "has to have immunity."

The former president spoke to reporters after sitting in a Manhattan courtroom for hours Thursday—the seventh day of his criminal trial stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all 34 charges of falsifying business records in the first degree.

While Trump sat in court listening to witness testimony, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments on the issue of presidential immunity, and whether he is immune from prosecution in a separate case—Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case related to 2020 election interference.

Click here to read more.

This is an excerpt from an article by Fox News' Brooke Singman.

While President Biden visits pivotal swing states to make the case for his re-election, Trump is not as free to do so, given his various trials and proceedings for criminal cases. The former president has also noted that he would rather be campaigning for the presidency than attending court. 

However, it's unclear whether this is truly a disadvantage for Trump. The indictments against him have actually become a focal point in his campaign.They have often referred to the various criminal cases as “election interference” and accused Biden of trying to prevent him from campaigning. 

Trump’s court cases also get significant media coverage, keeping him at the forefront of current events, even without being on the trail. 

Depending on the events that unfold during his trials and how the public perceives them, especially in swing states, Trump may be able to make his case for the presidency from the courtroom. 

The Supreme Court of the United States appeared concern in how presidential immunity for crimes alleged by special counsel Jack Smith will impact the future functioning of the executive branch. (Courtesy: William J. Hennessy Jr.)

After a marathon debate over whether former President Donald Trump should be granted presidential immunity for crimes alleged by special counsel Jack Smith, legal experts tell Fox News Digital that most of the Supreme Court justices appear concerned with how the ruling will impact the future functioning of the executive branch.

In nearly three hours of debate on Thursday, the high court wrestled with this question: "Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?"

Legal experts told Fox News Digital that while it appeared the majority wasn’t sold on the idea of absolute immunity, they could determine that Trump, and any future former presidents, should be granted a qualified version of it.

Click here to read more.

This is an excerpt from an article by Fox News' Brianna Herlihy

AP Photo

After a marathon debate over whether former President Donald Trump should be granted presidential immunity for crimes alleged by special counsel Jack Smith, legal experts tell Fox News Digital that most of the Supreme Court justices appear concerned with how the ruling will impact the future functioning of the executive branch. 

In nearly three hours of debate on Thursday, the high court wrestled with this question: "Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."

Legal experts told Fox News Digital that while it appeared the majority wasn’t sold on the idea of absolute immunity, they could determine that Trump, and any future former presidents, should be granted a qualified version of it ...Read more

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged former President Donald Trump in April 2023 with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.

Bragg alleged that Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.

Bragg claimed that Trump instructed his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to pay adult film actress Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about a sexual encounter she claims to have had with Trump in 2006.

Daniels was paid the money in the final weeks of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Trump allegedly reimbursed Cohen through a series of checks, allegedly to make it look like a retainer.

Bragg also alleged that  former playboy model Karen McDougal was paid $150,000 in 2016 by the parent company of the National Enquirer for the rights to the story that she allegedly had a 10-month affair with Trump in the mid-2000s. Trump denies the affair.

American Media Inc. allegedly employed the “catch and kill” strategy to bury McDougal’s story, and acknowledged that its payments to McDougal were done specifically to assist Trump’s election bid and were made “in concert” with his campaign.

Donald Trump (Getty Images)

Trump and his attorneys returned to court just after 2:15 p.m.

Former American Media CEO David Pecker has taken the stand, and was reminded by Steinglass of a meeting at Trump Tower.

Pecker reportedly visited the White House in July 2017. Pecker explained on the stand he received a call from the White House in which Trump invited him over for a “Thank You dinner.” Pecker responded by saying he needed to talk to his wife first and would let them know.

Pecker’s wife did not want to go to Washington, D.C., so Trump told Pecker to bring his friends or associates because this was his dinner – he said he brought business associates with him.

Getty Images

Tabloid publisher David Pecker is known as a longtime friend of former President Trump. He recently testified about the “catch-and-kill” scheme to hide allegations of a past affair that surfaced when then-candidate Trump was running for the White House in 2016.

Pecker was the CEO of American Media until summer 2020, during which time he was publisher of news outlets like the National Enquirer, Men’s Fitness, and Star.

According to Pecker, he told Trump and his personal lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen, that he would be their “eyes and ears” for any negative stories that could crop up during the campaign.

One of those stories is now part of the driving force behind Trump’s hush money trial. Pecker previously admitted to working with Trump’s team to purchase and suppress a story from former Playboy model Karen McDougal about claims of a 2006 affair with Trump. She was reportedly paid $150,000 to keep quiet. 

Pecker was granted immunity in 2018 after working with prosecutors on their hush money case against Cohen.

A federal judge in New York rejected former President Trump's appeal to pay E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million after a jury decided he must pay damages after he denied allegations he raped her in the 1990s, and denied his request for a new trial. 

A federal jury decided in January Trump must pay $18.3 million in compensatory damages, and $65 million in punitive damages. 

Trump and his attorneys filed a motion requesting a new trial in the case, arguing that the court limited his testimony during the trial and that statements he made about her allegations were meant to "defend his reputation, protect his family, and defend his Presidency." 

In their motion for a new trial, Trump's lawyers argued that the court severely limited the former president's testimony, which they say influenced the jury's verdict. 

Trump's lawyers said he made statements about Carroll in an effort to "defend his reputation, protect his family, and defend his Presidency."

Trump attorneys also filed a stay on the $83.3 million judgment.

This is an excerpt from an article by Fox News' Brooke Singman

Supreme Court (Getty Images)

The Supreme Court adjourned after just under three hours of debate on Thursday over former President Trump's claims of presidential immunity.

Justices said the had asked all their questions and adjourned at roughly 12:45. The case will not be in session again until May 9.

Thursday's argument saw several key exchanges between justices and both Trump's attorneys and attorneys for the special counsel. Trump attorney John Sauer clashed with Justice Elena Kagan over a hypothetical question on whether a president who "ordered" a "coup" could be prosecuted.

"If it's an official act, there needs to be impeachment and conviction beforehand," Trump's attorney John Sauer argued Thursday before the Supreme Court, which is being broadcast publicly via audio only. 

Sauer's statement was in response to Justice Kagan's hypothetical question, asking if a president who is no longer in office directing the military to stage a coup would constitute an "official act."

"He's no longer president. He wasn't impeached. He couldn't be impeached. But he ordered the military to stage a coup. And you're saying that's an official act?," Kagan asked.

"I think it would depend on the circumstances, whether it was an official act. If it were an official act, again, he would have to be impeached," Sauer responded. 

"What does that mean? Depend on the circumstances? He was the president. He is the commander in chief. He talks to his generals all the time. And he told the generals, 'I don't feel like leaving office. I want to stage a coup.' Is that immune [from prosecution]?" Kagan pressed.

Sauer responded it would "depend on the circumstances of whether there was an official act" if the hypothetical president would be immune from prosecution.

Justices also pressed attorneys for the special counsel on whether future presidents would face unreasonable prosecutions if the court stripped the presidency of too much immunity.

Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker says he originally informed then-Trump attorney Michael Cohen about pornography actress Stormy Daniels potentially going public about an affair with former President Trump.

Pecker says one of his partners at the Enquirer informed him that Daniels was willing to sell her story for $120k. Pecker, as part of his "catch-and-kill" agreement with Trump and Cohen, relayed the information to Cohen.

Pecker says Cohen then asked him to purchase the story, but he refused, saying he was not going to get involved with a porn star. Cohen said Trump would be furious with that decision, but Pecker said he remain obstinate.

The exchange came in early October 2016, just after the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape was publicized.

Prosecutors in the New York v. Trump case are relying on the proximity of Trump's alleged hush money payments to the Access Hollywood release to establish that Trump was acting in the interest of his campaign when he made the payments.

(Getty Images)

Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed special counsel Jack Smith's lawyer, Michael Dreeben, on the potential for a "creative prosecutor" to use a "vague statue" to prosecute a president for official acts in the Oval Office.

"Do you agree that there are some aspects of Article II presidential power that are exclusive and that Congress cannot regulate and cannot criminalize?" Justice Kavanaugh asked.

"Absolutely," Dreeben responded.

"For other official acts that the president may take that are not within that exclusive power, assume for the sake of argument this question that there's not blanket immunity for those official acts. But that to preserve the separation of powers, to provide fair notice to make sure Congress has thought about this, that Congress has to speak clearly to criminalize official acts of the president by a specific reference," Kavanaugh asked.

Dreeben responded that he does not agree with a "broad proposition that unless the president is specifically named, he's not in the statute."

"And I don't think that that's necessary in order to afford adequate protection for the president's valid articles to function,"Dreeben argued.

"You said unless there's a serious constitutional question," Kavanaugh interjected.

"Well...it's a serious constitutional question whether a statute can be applied to the president's official acts. So wouldn't you always interpret the statute not to apply to the president, even under your formulation, unless Congress had spoken?" he pressed .

"Well, I don't think across the board that a serious constitutional question exists applying any criminal statute to the president," Dreeben responded.

"The problem is the vague statute, you know, obstruction and... conspiracy to defraud the United States can be used against a lot of presidential activities, historically, within a creative prosecutor who wants to go after a president," Kavanaugh stated.

"I think that the question about the risk is very serious. Obviously, it is a question that this court has to evaluate. For the executive branch, our view is that there is a balanced protection that better serves the interests of the Constitution, that incorporate both accountability and protection for the president," Dreeben responded.

Supreme Court (Getty Images)

Special Counsel attorney Michael Dreeben argued that U.S. presidents cannot enjoy blanket immunity from criminal prosecution Thursday.

Dreeben's argument came as part of the Supreme Court's debate over former President Trump's immunity claim in his election interference case. He argued that if a president were to commit a crime toward the end of his term, Congress would likely be unable to act in time.

"The blanket immunity that [Trump's attorney] is arguing for just means that criminal prosecution is off the table unless, he says that impeachment and conviction have [occurred]. Those are political remedies that are extremely difficult to achieve in a case where the conduct misconduct occurs close to the end of a president's term, Congress is unlikely to crank up the machinery to do it," Dreeben said.

Justices have questioned lawyers both for Trump and the special counsel's office throughout Thursday morning. Trump's attorneys are attempting to prove that Trump cannot be prosecuted for his efforts to prevent the certification of President Biden's 2020 election win because he himself was president at the time.

(Getty Images)

In an exchange former President Trump's attorney, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called his argument " totally circular."

"Let me ask you another question about this 'clear statement' line of questioning. First of all, I didn't see you argue that below," Justice Jackson pressed.

A “clear statement rule” is a judicial presumption that courts should only interpret a statute a if Congress has made a “clear statement” requiring an outcome.

"[T]hat's not that's not the question presented in this case. The question presented in this case comes out of your motion for immunity. So to bring in now an argument that you didn't raise below, it seems to me you forfeited it," she said.

"The question is does immunity exist and to what extent does it end. The argument is immunity at least exists to the extent that it raises a grave constitutional questions," John Sauer stated.

"But that’s totally circular," Justice Jackson interjected. "You use that argument to avoid constitutional questions. You are asking us a constitutional question here, so it doesn't even make sense to talk about clear statement in rule the way that it's come up in the context of an immunity question."

"What is the argument that the president of the United States, who you say is bound by the law, is not on notice that he has to do his job consistent with the law?" Jacksonn questioned.

"I mean, to the extent that the clear statement rule comes in at all, it's about the person not being on notice. So I guess I don't understand why Congress, in every criminal statute, would have to say and the president is included," she pressed.

"I thought that was the sort of background that if they're enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the president just like everyone else," Justice Jackson said.

Former National Enquirer publisher David pecker says his outlet paid $150,000 for rights to a story it never intended to publish regarding an alleged year-long affair former President Trump had with a Playboy model.

Pecker said his company paid the $150k as part of his agreement to "catch and kill" negative stories about Trump ahead of the 2016 election. He told prosecutors with Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's office that he believed news of the affair would have been extremely damaging to Trump's campaign.

The payment went to former Playboy model Karen McDougal, and Pecker testified that he believed the story to be true.

Pecker confirmed he had no plans to publish the story despite paying the exorbitant amount, and he said he would not have entered the deal without assurance from then-Trump attorney Michael Cohen that he would be reimbursed.

“Why are you so worried, I'm your friend, the boss will take care of it," Pecker said Cohen told him regarding the reimbursement. Prosecutors clarified that "the boss" referred to Trump.

An attorney for former President Trump argued in the Supreme court that a president who ordered the U.S. military to conduct a coup would need to be impeached before he could be prosecuted.

Attorney John Sauer made the argument during a discussion with Justice Elena Kagan on Thursday. The court is debating Trump's presidential immunity claim in his election interference case.

Kagan adopted a hypothetical in which the president who ordered the coup "is no longer president."

"He couldn't be impeached. But but he ordered the military to stage a coup," Kagan said, pressing Sauer to say whether that would constitute an "official act" granting the president immunity under his argument.

"I think it would depend on the circumstances, whether it was an official act, If it were an official act, again, he would have to be impeached," Sauer responded.

"What does that mean? Depend on the circumstances? He was the president. He is the commander in chief. He talks to his generals all the time. And he told the generals, 'I don't feel like leaving office. I want to stage a coup.' Is that immune?" Kagan pressed.

"If it's an official act, there needs to be impeachment and conviction beforehand," Sauer repeated.

"That answers sounds to me as though it's like, yeah, under my test it's an official act. But that sure sounds bad, doesn't it?" Kagan said.

"The framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution. They knew how to--There were immunity clauses in some state constitutions. They knew how to give legislative immunity. They didn't provide immunity to the president. And, you know, [that's] not so surprising. They were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law. Wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law?" she continued.

(Getty Images)

During the justices questioning of John Sauer, lawyer for former President Trump, Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether a bribe for ambassadorship should be considered an "official act" of a president.

"Well, if you expunge the official part from the indictment, how do you I mean, that's like a one legged stool, right?," Justice Roberts questioned.

"I mean, giving somebody money isn't bribery unless you get something in exchange. And if what you get in exchange is to become the ambassador of a particular country that is official. The appointment that's within the president's prerogatives, the unofficial part, I'm going to get $1,000,000 for it. So if you say you have to expunge the official pardon, how does that go forward?" he pressed.

Sauer replied, "what we say is virtually all the overt conduct is official. We don't believe it would be able to go forward. "

"I mean, there could be a case where it would But if you look at even the government's brief in this case divides up the indictment into things that, other than the electors allegations...they haven't disputed that they are official acts," Sauer said."But what they do is say, 'well, we tie it all together by characterizing it as done.' And these are the allegations the court just referred to by an improper private aim, or private end," Sauer continued," he continued.

"That's their words. And that just runs loggerheads, you know, dead set against this court's case law saying you don't look at what immunity determinations, the mode of improper motivation or purpose," Sauer added.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asserted that every president in U.S. history has entered office with the understanding that they were potentially "under threat of prosecution" for their conduct.

Jackson went back and forth with Trump attorney John Sauer on the issue at the outset of the court's hearing on Trump's presidential immunity claim.

"When you were giving your opening statements, you suggested that the lack of immunity and the possibility of prosecution in the presidential context is like an 'innovation.' And I understood it to be the status quo," Jackson told Sauer. "I mean, I understood that every president from the beginning of time essentially has understood that there was a threat of prosecution if for no other reason than the the Constitution suggests that they can be prosecuted after impeachment or that the Office of Legal Counsel has said forever that presidents are amenable to a threat of prosecution and they have continued to function and do their jobs and do all the things that presidents do. So it seems to me that you are asking now for a change in what the law is related to immunity."

Sauer then responded: "I would quote from what Benjamin Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, which I think reflects best the founders original understanding and intent here, which is at the Constitutional Convention. Benjamin Franklin said history provides one example only of a chief magistrate who is subject to public justice, criminal prosecution. And everybody cried out against that."

"No I understand. But since Benjamin Franklin, everybody has thought, including the presidents who have held the office, that they were taking this office subject to potential criminal prosecution. No?" Jackson pressed, going on to bring up the pardon for President Richard Nixon, which would suggest presidents could face prosecution.

"Well, he was under investigation for his private and public conduct at the time--official acts and private conduct. I think everyone has properly understood that the president since President Grant's carriage riding incident, everyone has understood that the president could be prosecuted [for private conduct]," Sauer responded.

In his opening arguments before the Supreme Court, John Sauer, attorney for former President Donald Trump contended that prosecuting a president for official acts while in office is “incompatible” with the U.S. Constitution. 

“Prosecuting the president for his official acts is an innovation with no foothold in history or tradition and incompatible with our constitutional structure,” Sauer argued before the high court. 

“The implications of the court's decision here extend far beyond the facts of this case,” Sauer argued to the justices, before presenting a list of hypothetical scenarios for consideration.

 “Could President George W. Bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding or allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq? Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strike? Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies?" he questioned.

"The answer to all these questions is no,” Sauer said

Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker returned to the witness stand as the seventh day of former President Trump's New York criminal trial began Thursday.

Pecker testified on Tuesday that he entered into an agreement with Trump and his then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, to assist Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. He said he agreed to publish positive stories about Trump and attempt to kill negative stories about him, going so far as to purchase stories from sources and not publish them, a practice known as "catch and kill."

In one instance, a Trump Tower doorman claimed he had information that Trump had impregnated a maid employed in the building. Pecker said the Enquirer purchased the story for $30,000, with no plans to publish it before Election Day. Pecker went on to say that an investigation found the story to be "1000% false."

Pecker is expected to testify about further examples of his partnership with Cohen throughout Thursday's proceedings.

Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley joined 'Fox & Friends' on Thursday to discuss the presidential immunity case being taken up by the Supreme Court and the upcoming ruling on whether Trump violated his gag order.

"[The Supreme Court] have been avoiding this for decades. They did have a civil case in which they did say that a president needs immunity in order to function, including in those sort of outer parameters of his office. The question is whether that also extends to criminal charges," Turley said.

Turley went on to say that the court is unlikely to side unilaterally for or against Trump's position, and they are more likely to afford some immunities to the presidency while clarifying limits.

The Supreme Court's hearing will take place in tandem with the seventh day of the New York v. Trump trial in Manhattan, where Trump is attempting to fight off 34 charges of falsifying business records. Witness testimony is expected to continue throughout the day in that case.

Donald Trump (Getty Images)

Former President Trump blamed President Biden for a disappointing GDP growth report from the U.S. Commerce Department on Thursday.

The Commerce Department says the GDP grew by just 1.6% on an annualized basis in the three-month period from January through March. That is lower than the 2.4% increase forecast by LSEG economists and marks a sharp slowdown from the 4.9% pace seen during the fourth quarter.

Trump blasted Biden over the report, saying his presidency has been a disaster for the American economy.

"As you probably have heard, some very big things have happened. But the biggest seems to be that the GDP just announced to all the way down to 1.6% and it's heading south. It's going to get worse. Gas prices in California were just also announced at $7.60. Gasoline is going way up. Energy costs are going way up and the stock market is, in a sense crashing. And the numbers are very bad. This is Bidenomics. It's catching up with them," Trump said.

"We have a president who is the worst president in the history of our country," he added.

Thursday's proceedings in Trump's trial will focus on continued testimony from former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker.

Donald Trump (Getty Images)

Former President Trump's motorcade arrived to the Manhattan courthouse for day 7 of his New York criminal trial on Thursday.

Thursday's trial proceedings are expected to focus on continued witness testimony by former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker. Judge Juan Merchan may also issue a ruling on Trump's alleged gag order violations, which could result in a fine of up to $11,000 for the former President.

Pecker's testimony centers on the Enquirer's "catch-and-kill" news operations and his efforts to assist Trump's presidential campaign prior to the 2016 election.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has also accused Trump of violating Merchan's gag order 11 times since April 1. The gag order prohibits Trump from speaking publicly about witnesses in the case. Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche, made little headway with Merchan when attempting to defend against he accusations on Tuesday.

Prior to Trump's arrival at the courthouse, he met with supporters at a construction site in downtown Manhattan, one of the only campaigning opportunities he has had since the trial began.

In what may be the most closely watched case this term at the Supreme Court – involving the highest-profile appellant – former President Donald Trump has offered a sweeping argument for why he should not face trial for alleged election interference.

The high court will hold arguments Thursday morning in what could determine the former president's personal and political future. As the presumptive GOP nominee to retake the White House, Trump is betting that his constitutional assertions will lead to a legal reprieve from the court's 6-3 conservative majority – with three of its members appointed to the bench by the defendant himself.  

The official question the justices will consider: Whether, and if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?

This is new territory for the Supreme Court and the nation. No current or former president has ever been criminally indicted.

The stakes could not be higher – both for the immediate election prospects, and the long-term effect on the presidency itself and the rule of law. But it will be the second time this term the high court will hear a case directly involving the former president. 

On March 4, the justices unanimously ruled that Trump could remain on the Colorado primary ballot over claims he committed insurrection in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riots.

The decision to intervene at this stage in the immunity dispute is a mixed bag for both Trump and the Special Counsel. The defendant wanted to delay the process longer – ideally past the November election – and Jack Smith wanted the high court appeal dismissed immediately so any trial could get back on track quickly. 

A federal appeals court had unanimously ruled against Trump on the immunity question.

This is an excerpt from an article by Fox News' Shannon Bream and Bill Mears

Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett joined 'Fox & Friends' on Thursday to discuss his take on presidential immunity for former President Trump as the Supreme Court hears arguments stemming from Jack Smith's charges.

"Presidents already have immunity from civil lawsuits so long as their actions fall into the outer perimeter of official duties," Jarrett said. "It's quite possible, I think, that the justices will extend that civil immunity protection to because the exact same reasoning applies. If there was no immunity, the chilling effect on presidential decision makings would trigger paralysis. America would be ruled by a committee of lawyers."

"If the Supreme Court does grant, lets call it 'immunity with conditions,' then they would have to remand Trump's case back to the trial court to decide whether those conditions have been met.

Jarrett predicted that the process will be time consuming if the court sides with Trump in any degree.

Democratic attorney and former chief counsel to Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee Julian Epstein joined "Brian Kilmeade Radio" Wednesday to discuss why he believes New York City's case against former President Trump is "outrageous" and an "embarrassment to the legal system."

JULIAN EPSTEIN:  This is an outrageous case. It's an embarrassment to the legal system that this case is being brought. The notion, the theory that we heard on Monday from the prosecution, that this is about election interference because the Trump campaign was trying to suppress bad stories. Suppressing bad stories is not election interference. Everyone does it. Nondisclosure agreements are perfectly legal. If suppressing bad news were election interference, then what would one say about the Biden campaign in 2020 that actively used all of its resources to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop case? I mean, that had much more serious implications in terms of the election than the alleged affair with Donald Trump in 2016. You know, everything falls apart, Brian. I mean, the idea that this was election interference, the conduct, the election occurred in November of 2016. The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017.

New York prosecutors on Tuesday revealed the other crime they allege that former President Trump was trying to conceal when he allegedly falsified his business records.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. For prosecutors to secure a criminal conviction, they must convince the jury that Trump committed the crime of falsifying business records in "furtherance of another crime."

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all 34 counts.

New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass on Tuesday said the other crime was a violation of a New York law called "conspiracy to promote or prevent election."

Prosecutors will try to prove that the alleged conspiracy was to conceal a conspiracy to unlawfully promote his candidacy during Thursday's proceedings and moving forward.

Former President Trump predicted that he could win New York in the upcoming election on Thursday.

"We're gonna make a play for New York," he told reporter at a surprise campaign stop. "Traditionally, a Democrat would win New York, but we've seen some new polls and I think we're gonna do very well in New York."

Trump went on to highlight other polls he said have him leading Biden in "every swing state." Trump made the comment during an early-morning campaign stop at a construction site in Manhattan. A crowd of union workers chanted his name and "Four more years."

Trump will appear at Judge Juan Merchan's courtroom later in the morning for the seventh day of the New York v. Trump trial.

Former President Trump made an early morning stop to meet with a crowd of supporters in New York City on Thursday, before heading to his mandatory attendance at the New York v. Trump trial.

Trump waved to supporters, shook hands and spoke briefly at the event, arriving at roughly 6:30 am. Trump's campaign had previously handed out some printed talking points, focusing heavily on criticizing President Biden's impact on the economy.

The crowd, comprised mostly of union workers, erupted into cheers of "USA," "We love trump" and "Four more years" as Trump's motorcade arrived.

"It's an amazing show of affection," Trump said. "The Teamsters union loves me. We've built a lot of great buildings with the Teamsters. They're very, very talented people. We used to do three floors a week in concrete on these buildings, and that's because of these guys here."

Trump continued shaking hands with supporters for several minutes after his brief remarks. The crowd again erupted into chants of "New York loves Trump," among other slogans.

"Sleepy Joe Biden is still in bed!" one crowd member shouted.

Trump's ability to meet with supporters has been limited since the New York trial began last week, a key point of frustration for the former president. The trial is in session ever day of the week apart from Wednesday. Notably, however, Trump spent his day off on Wednesday playing golf rather thank campaigning.

Trump faces dueling legal proceedings in both New York City and Washington, D.C. on Thursday. In addition to his criminal trial, the Supreme Court is also hearing arguments in his "presidential immunity" case.

Former President Trump is set to return to Judge Juan Merchan's courtroom Thursday morning for the seventh day of his New York v. Trump trial.

The proceedings will continue with the testimony from former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker. Trump's team also faces a potential ruling on Trump's alleged gag order violations.

Pecker testified on Tuesday that he engaged in a mutual agreement with Trump and his then-attorney, Michael Cohen, to assist the 2016 Trump campaign by publishing positive stories and killing negative ones.

Pecker gave one example of a doorman at Trump Tower who was planning to sell a story claiming that Trump had impregnated a maid in the building. The Enquirer purchased the story with no intentions of publishing it before Election Day. Pecker noted that they investigated and found the claim to be "1,000% false."

Trump also faces a potential $11,000 fine for allegedly violating Judge Juan Merchan's gag order. The order prohibits Trump from speaking publicly about witnesses in the case. Trump attorney Todd Blanche's efforts to argue against the accusations went poorly on Tuesday.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case. 

The high court agreed it would review whether Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has immunity from prosecution.

Arguments at the Supreme Court are expected to begin at 10 a.m. Thursday, but the former president will not be present for the proceedings. 

Instead, Trump will be in New York City for the seventh day of his criminal trial stemming from charges out of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's investigation. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. 

Trump, a criminal defendant, is required to be present for each day of his trial. He requested, though, to attend Supreme Court arguments on presidential immunity, but Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the trial, rejected that request. 

This is an excerpt from an article by Fox News' Brooke Singman