Former US President Donald Trump’s lawyers are again questioning David Pecker, former editor of The National Enquirer, with the aim of discrediting the testimony of the Prosecutor’s main witness in the “hush money” trial. The former head of state is accused of falsifying business records to hide money he paid to silence two women during his 2016 presidential campaign.
Trump’s defense sought Friday to undermine Pecker’s testimony that a tabloid practice helped bury embarrassing stories about Trump as “part of a plan” to help the 2016 Republican campaign.
David Pecker, former editor of the National Enquirer, returned to the witness stand for the fourth straight day as defense attorneys tried to find holes in his testimony about his tabloid’s efforts to protect his old friend.
Pecker’s testimony is crucial to prosecutors, who allege the effort was a way to illegally influence the 2016 election.
Under cross-examination, Trump’s lawyers are trying to show that any dealings Trump had with Pecker were intended to protect Trump, his reputation and his family but not his campaign.
Pecker has testified that he hatched a plan with Trump and the former president’s then-lawyer Michael Cohen in August 2015 to have the National Enquirer help Trump’s presidential campaign.
But under questioning by Trump lawyer Emil Bove, Pecker acknowledged that the term “catch and kill,” which describes the practice of tabloids buying the rights to stories so they never see the news, was not mentioned in that meeting. day light.
No “financial dimensions,” such as the National Enquirer paying people on Trump’s behalf for the rights to their stories, were also discussed in the meeting, Pecker said.
Bove also confronted Pecker with statements he made to federal prosecutors in 2018 that the defense attorney said were “inconsistent” with the former editor’s testimony earlier this week. Pecker previously testified that Trump thanked him during a visit to the White House in 2017 for his help.
However, according to notes cited by Bove in court, Pecker had previously told federal authorities that Trump did not express any thanks to him during the meeting.
Pecker stuck to the story he told in court. “The FBI notes that someone writing here could be wrong,” she said; and added: “I know what the truth is.”
Pecker’s cross-examination caps a momentous week in the criminal cases facing the former president as he competes to retake the White House in November.
“Disgusted” This Thursday, David Pecker recalled an irate Donald Trump calling him a day after The Wall Street Journal published an article shortly before the 2016 election that denounced the tabloid National Enquirer’s payment of $150,000 to Karen McDougal for the rights of the story of the former Playboy model who claimed to have had an affair with the presidential candidate.
“Donald Trump was very upset, saying, ‘How could this happen? He thought you had it under control. Either you or one of your people leaked the story,’” Pecker declared. She said she responded to Trump that perhaps McDougal or someone related to her had tipped off the Journal. “Our call ended very abruptly. She didn’t say goodbye, which was very unusual,” Pecker testified.
The journalist also stated that National Enquirer owner American Media’s response to the Journal that the company “had not paid people to kill damaging stories about Mr. Trump” was a lie. “I wanted to protect my company, I wanted to protect myself, and I wanted to protect Donald Trump,” Pecker explained on the stand.
Shortly after, the court broke for lunch and Trump left the courtroom without addressing reporters in the hallway.
Skeptics about immunity On the other hand, in Washington, the Supreme Court of the United States on Thursday was skeptical of Donald Trump’s request to enjoy absolute judicial immunity for having been president of the country, but there were judges who were inclined not to fully resolve the matter and return it to lower courts.
In a historic hearing lasting more than two hours, the nine justices (six conservatives and three progressives) questioned Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, and prosecutor Michael Dreeben about the Republican’s potential immunity.
The high court must decide whether Trump’s pending trial in federal court in Washington for electoral interference and the assault on the Capitol should be annulled. The majority of the judges were skeptical of Trump’s request for absolute immunity, considering that only actions inherent to the functions of a president are protected and not those that are personal in nature.
But there were also conservative judges critical of the Prosecutor’s handling of the case and suggested that they could return the case to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to determine whether Trump’s actions were public or private.
