The cross-examination phase of the high-stakes New York trial involving former President Donald Trump has recently surfaced critical insights into the prosecution’s case and defense strategies. Central to the trial are the allegations that Trump falsified business records related to hush money payments made to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal.
Defense attorney Emil Bove took the lead in scrutinizing the prosecution’s first witness, David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer. Pecker’s testimony was pivotal as he elaborated on the tabloid’s practice of suppressing negative stories for political and financial gains—a tactic not exclusive to Trump. He admitted that the National Enquirer routinely paid for stories only to bury them, particularly when celebrities were involved.
During this intense cross-examination, Pecker confessed that Trump, at one point, had shown no interest in purchasing McDougal’s story. Despite this, the National Enquirer proceeded to pay McDougal $150,000, albeit with Pecker asserting that “cash wasn’t the primary focus of the agreement,” as she was also contracted to write columns and other pieces for the tabloid.
Over four days on the witness stand, Pecker offered no direct evidence that Trump ever told him to kill stories. But even if he did, where is the crime in that? It may seem tawdry, but it’s not unlawful to quash stories. Nor is it illegal to pay someone for their silence.
Confuse the jury with jargon and create the appearance of illegality that doesn’t actually exist. It’s an unconscionable breach of ethics and a violation of a prosecutor’s principal duty to see that justice is done fairly and impartially. This raises concerns about the fairness of the trial, particularly given that the 34 charges against Trump, which the defense maintains are expired misdemeanors, rely on the testimonies of individuals with no knowledge of Trump’s private bookkeeping.
Years ago, the FBI and prosecutors pressured Pecker. They dangled in front of him a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for his cooperation in testifying about payments to McDougal and Stormy Daniels. Out of fear and intimidation, he signed it. However, his signature on that document conceding there was a campaign violation was not a legal admission that there really was such a violation. It was simply a means to relieve the undue pressure.
Relevant articles:
– NY vs. Trump: Cross examination of DA Bragg’s first witness unravels important truths, FOX News, 04/28/2024
– Trump’s hush money trial done for the week after third witness testifies, The Washington Post, Sat, 27 Apr 2024 04:06:18 GMT
– Trump trial highlights: Former Trump assistant testifies about Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, NBC News, Fri, 26 Apr 2024 20:47:49 GMT
– Witness testimony continues in Trump’s New York hush money trial, Al Jazeera English, Fri, 26 Apr 2024 13:23:55 GMT
– Trump hush money trial live updates: First week comes to an end, The Associated Press, Fri, 26 Apr 2024 09:00:00 GMT