Trump’s defense scores points in hush money trial

Former President Donald Trump arrives at Manhattan Criminal Court before his trial in New York, Friday, April 26, 2024. (Photo by Jeenah Moon/Pool via AP)

A dramatic first week in Donald Trump’s New York hush money trial came to an end on Friday, as the former president’s defense finally got the chance to conduct an extensive cross-examination of the first – and so far only – witness called in the case.

And unlike most of the week’s proceedings, the 45th president’s defense appeared to score some points against the state.

David Pecker, 72, the former CEO of the National Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc., took the stand for the fourth time as part of a long series of interviews by Emil Bove, a graduate of the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District or New York.

And while much of the aforementioned drama didn’t benefit the defendant earlier this week, the Trump team’s questioning of Pecker on Friday slowly but surely turned the witness’s testimony into a semi-transparent storyline of ultimately questionable import.

Over four days and several hours on the witness stand, Pecker’s recollections sometimes seemed as if they were helping the state’s innovative case on election interference; In other cases, they helped the defense prove that the case was much ado about nothing.

As Manhattan prosecutors heard, Pecker and then-young candidate Trump struck a deal that primarily benefited the GOP candidate’s campaign: directly by spreading positive stories about the game show host-turned-nativist cable news phenomenon ; indirectly, by spreading negative stories about his political rivals; and unilaterally through the so-called “catch-and-kill” process, in which AMI paid for exclusive intellectual property rights to particularly damaging stories about Trump and then sat on them.

The state has traced the genesis of this alleged agreement to an August 2015 Trump Tower meeting between the former publisher, the 77-year-old defendant, and his former fixer, Michael Cohen, 57.

But Pecker, who said he still considers Trump “a friend,” described his efforts to help Trump as an informal “arrangement among friends” that was “mutually beneficial” because it helped the campaign , rising in the polls over their rivals while helping The National Enquirer drives more sales at supermarket checkouts.

More Law&Crime coverage: “Abuse of prosecutorial power”: Law professor and Jeffrey Toobin argue on CNN about the legitimacy of the Manhattan district attorney’s “novel” Trump hush money case

The limits of the catch-and-kill operation were tested Thursday when Pecker accused that he repeatedly rebuked Cohen’s demands to buy and cover up the story spread by Stormy Daniels, 45.

On Friday, the defense tried to show that the catch-and-kill idea was not raised during the infamous Trump Tower meeting.

“At this meeting, the concept of ‘catch and kill’ was not discussed?” Bove asked Pecker, according to a report by Law360 reporter Frank G. Runyeon.

To which Pecker replied, “That’s right.”

Later, in response to a redirect, Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass attempted to salvage the witness’ testimony by admitting that while the term “catch-and-kill” was not used at the meeting in question, Pecker agreed, “Eye and ears” of the witness According to a report by Just Security employee Adam Klasfeld, the campaign is particularly about “women who sell stories”.

During the forward exchange, Pecker explained that his publications had never attacked Trump due to their long friendship. However, the witness admitted that it was only after the meeting that his publications acted as Trump’s private intelligence agency or attacked his political rivals.

However, since his friend was a first-time political candidate, Pecker agreed with the defense that even without meeting with Trump, he would have spread negative stories about these rivals themselves.

Trump’s defense has also helped cloud clarity about the general nature of the catch-and-kill dynamic in general and in particular.

During Pecker’s cross-examination, Bove used the term “standard operating procedure” to describe the concept of tabloids paying for stories – often to ensure they never saw the light of day. The witness eventually agreed that “checkbook journalism” was his business model. During what may have been a revealing conversation, Pecker noted that AMI had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on catch-and-kill stories about Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The state later tried to distinguish between Trump and Schwarzenegger — pushing the witness to say that buying up stories that benefited the “Total Recall” star and former California governor was more consistent with AMI’s bottom line.

Bove also elicited from Pecker that attempts to suppress a Trump affair story spread by former Playboy model Karen McDougal – with a hefty $150,000 payout – were also legitimate business expenses for AMI. That’s because the publishing giant received commitments from her to pose and write as a fitness personality for various publications. And over the course of about two years, 65 articles appeared under McDougal’s name.

The defense also pointed out, and the witness agreed, that this money never came from Trump or his campaign.

But attempts to reduce the overall money factor failed.

The defense pressed Pecker to say he never understood that money was part of the Trump Tower deal. The witness allegedly pushed back, citing his newspaper’s role as the campaign’s secret investigative arm. And, Pecker reasoned, once that information got to Cohen, it would probably pay off.

Steinglass eventually managed to obtain a succinct restatement of this agreement from Pecker. The state also converted that general description into a more specific instance when the courtroom recessed for lunch.

“Is that true, Mr. Pecker? “Was it your intention to keep the Karen McDougal story under wraps to influence the election?” the prosecutor asked.

The witness replied: “Yes.”

Do you have a tip we should know? (email protected)

Related Posts