Staff Reports
In a surprise twist at the trial of former President Donald Trump in New York, a crucial witness, David Pecker, shared testimony that shook up the case led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Pecker, who used to head American Media Inc., the company owning the National Enquirer, was expected to give important details about the practice of buying and burying stories about Trump during the 2016 election.
HAPPENING NOW: David Pecker resumes testimony in Trump's hush money trial. @VaughnHillyard has the latest. pic.twitter.com/U0AthSqSgS
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) April 23, 2024
During questioning, Pecker’s statements seemed to challenge the prosecution’s narrative. He claimed that it was not Trump but himself and Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, who was more worried about negative stories due to Trump’s fame and past relationships. These revelations raised doubts about the prosecution’s case against Trump.
Conservatives believe that Pecker’s testimony undermines the prosecution’s argument and shows that Trump may not have been directly involved in the alleged scheme. This development has garnered attention from political analysts and media outlets, with many pointing out potential flaws in Bragg’s legal team’s strategy.
Jurors in Trump’s hush money trial heard testimony from the architect of a notorious “catch-and-kill” scheme that buried damaging stories about the former president in the run-up to the 2016 election: former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker.
🔗 https://t.co/nqjbwrqgls pic.twitter.com/B2QzGPr85p
— Rolling Stone (@RollingStone) April 23, 2024
Pecker shared how he alerted Cohen about a rumor involving Trump and an alleged illegitimate child, showing that he was the one taking action, not Trump. He also mentioned a plan to purchase the story to prevent its publication, suggesting that Cohen was aware of and approved this decision.
Overall, Pecker’s testimony has raised questions about the prosecution’s case and sheds new light on the dynamics behind the scenes. This development could impact the trial’s outcome and public perception of the allegations against Trump.
