OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
In a twist of events, David Pecker, a crucial witness for the prosecution, provided testimony during the criminal trial of former President Donald Trump in New York, but statements seem to have significantly undermined the case being pursued by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
There was anticipation surrounding Pecker, the ex-CEO of American Media Inc., owner of the controversial National Enquirer, to provide crucial testimony against Trump. His testimony was thought to shed light on the infamous “catch and kill” scheme, a method used by the tabloid to purchase damaging stories about Trump during the 2016 election and subsequently suppress them.
However, during cross-examination by Trump’s lawyers, Pecker’s comments seemed to tear apart the story that the prosecution had worked hard to build. Pecker said in court that Trump wasn’t the one who was most worried about potentially damaging stories because of Trump’s fame and history with women. It was Pecker himself and former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.
During his testimony, Pecker revealed that in 2015, he had agreed to act as Trump’s “eyes and ears.” He pledged to inform Cohen about any stories that could potentially cause harm as Trump ran for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. Pecker would buy the rights to these stories but didn’t publish them, which kept them secret.
Following Pecker’s testimony, political and legal analysts seemed to largely agree that he was not quite the star witness that Bragg had hoped for.
“Did the prosecution comprehend that they just looked silly?” “Their main witness just said that Trump didn’t even think of any of this,” a political analyst from Travis Media Group tweeted after the testimony.
“Pecker effectively testified today that he and Cohen drummed up this scheme, without Trump’s instruction. Not a good day for Alvin Bragg and Joe Biden!!!” Raheem Kassam of the National Pulse tweeted.
This ⬇️
Pecker effectively testified today that he and Cohen drummed up this scheme, without Trump’s instruction.
Not a good day for Alvin Bragg and Joe Biden!!! https://t.co/gSGjVevzaO
— Raheem. (@RaheemKassam) April 23, 2024
The week’s trial wrapped with testimony from other key figures including Rhona Graff, a longtime assistant to Trump, and Gary Farro, a former banker associated with Cohen.
At the heart of the trial lies a $130,000 payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, purportedly aimed at hushing up her alleged affair with Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Farro delved into the specifics of the banking mechanisms employed to execute the payment, as jurors received brief testimony from Graff. She affirmed her role in maintaining communications at the Trump Organization for both Daniels and another individual implicated in comparable allegations, Karen McDougal.
Georgetown University law school professor Jonathan Turley was among those who were unimpressed with Bragg’s witnesses. During a Fox News interview, he pointed out weaknesses in the prosecution’s strategy. “I have to say this is collapsing on its own weight,” Turley stated emphatically. “I mean, you just have to stand back and let it fall.”
Turley criticized the prosecution for not addressing what he deemed essential questions. “Just asking simple questions that the jury would want to know has left serious damage for the prosecution,” he noted. “These are the questions that you would have expected the prosecution to ask as just the completion of their line of questioning,” Turley added, suggesting that these omissions could significantly impact the trial’s outcome.
In an earlier Fox interview, Turley called Bragg’s case against Trump “legally absurd.”
Fox host Maria Bartiromo kicked the segment off by asking: “I’m gonna put up this letter, this is from Stormy Daniels that President Trump posted, I know you’ve seen this, it says, ‘Stormy Daniels writes, ‘The fact of the matter is that each party to this alleged affair denied its existence in 2006, 2011, 2016, 2017 and now again 2018. I’m not denying this affair because I was paid hush money. I’m denying the affair because it never happened,’ writes Stormy Daniels. Sir?”
“Yeah, everything about this case is, in my view, legally absurd. You know, this case is basically a state misdemeanor that had run out under the statute of limitations,” Turley began.
“Bragg was forced, after he declined for a long time to bring this charge, to do so. His predecessor rejected it. So they took a dead misdemeanor and bootstrapped it into effectively trying a federal crime. But the federal crime here under election law was rejected under the Department of Justice,” Turley continued.
