Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker took the stand in a New York court on Tuesday, marking the commencement of Donald Trump’s criminal trial over hush money payments. Pecker’s testimony shed light on the Enquirer’s role in suppressing potentially damaging stories about Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign, a tactic commonly referred to as “catch and kill.”
Pecker, 72, disclosed that the Enquirer paid off individuals who were attempting to sell stories of Trump’s alleged sexual misconduct but chose not to publish them. He explained that such occurrences were typical during political campaigns, with individuals seeking to capitalize on their stories by selling them to magazines like the Enquirer.
The decision to suppress these stories, Pecker stated, was made following a meeting in 2015 where he assured Trump of the Enquirer’s support by publishing favorable articles while also promising to keep an eye out for any detrimental stories. He instructed an editor to maintain secrecy regarding this arrangement.
Among the stories buried by the Enquirer was that of former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who alleged a sexual relationship with Trump from 2006 to 2007. Pecker testified that Trump declined to purchase McDougal’s story himself, leading the Enquirer to acquire it for $150,000 in 2018. Trump has vehemently denied the affair.
Additionally, the Enquirer paid $30,000 for a false story from Trump Tower doorman Dino Sajudin, who claimed Trump had fathered a child with a maid. Pecker admitted that this payment was made due to concerns over potential embarrassment to Trump’s campaign.
Prosecutors argue that Pecker’s actions aided Trump in deceiving voters by concealing stories of alleged extramarital affairs, while Trump himself faces charges of falsifying business records to cover up a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, who alleges a sexual encounter with Trump a decade prior. Trump has pleaded not guilty to these charges, maintaining his innocence and asserting that he acted to safeguard his reputation.
The trial, which may be the only one of Trump’s four criminal prosecutions to proceed before the November election, holds potential consequences for his candidacy. A guilty verdict would not prevent Trump from assuming office, but it could damage his electoral prospects.
Following the proceedings, Trump faced scrutiny for violating a gag order prohibiting criticism of witnesses, court officials, and their relatives. While Justice Juan Merchan deferred ruling on a $10,000 fine requested by prosecutors, he expressed skepticism towards Trump’s defense, suggesting a lack of credibility. Trump, however, continued to assert that the gag order infringed upon his constitutional right to free speech.
Prosecutors cited Trump’s social media posts, including one referring to witnesses as “sleazebags,” as evidence of his disobedience. Despite seeking a relatively modest fine, they highlighted Trump’s deliberate defiance of the order. Trump’s defense contended that his posts were responses to political attacks rather than attempts to intimidate witnesses.
As the trial unfolds, it underscores the legal challenges facing Trump and the potential ramifications for his political future.
