Media boss says being pro-Trump was good business
The former publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid told the jury in the Donald Trump criminal trial yesterday that running coverage beneficial to Trump was in effect business as usual, as the defence tried to chip away at the prosecution’s claim that there was a conspiracy involved.
David Pecker was instrumental in coordinating three hush-money payments that were paid during the 2016 election campaign to quash negative stories about Trump.
In cross-examination on his fourth day of testimony, Pecker was grilled by Trump’s defence attorney Emil Bove about whether he benefited from running positive stories about Trump and negative stories about other politicians, even before the alleged scheme to catch and kill unflattering stories.
Pecker testified that the Enquirer ran negative stories about the Clintons as part of the effort to help the Trump campaign, agreed in a meeting on August 2015.
Asked if there were negative articles before the meeting, Pecker said: “That’s correct” and agreed that it was because it made good business sense for the National Enquirer to run articles about the Clintons long before he did so on Trump’s behalf.
Bove’s questioning also seemed to try to drive wedges into the notion that Trump’s 2006 affair with Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, was any real threat to Trump’s reputation – apparently suggesting that if she did not constitute an actual problem, then giving her money was not meant to influence the election.
Pecker admitted that Trump did not pay him any money directly related to McDougal. He also told jurors he understood that McDougal wanted to rekindle her work in magazines.
Pecker has testified that American Media Inc (AMI), the publisher of the National Enquirer, paid $30,000 (£24,000) to a former Trump Tower doorman who said Trump had a child out of wedlock. Another $150,000 was paid to McDougal.
It is a third payment, however, worth $130,000 and paid by Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels in October 2016, that is at the heart of the case.
Prosecutors have charged Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records and say Trump illegally marked reimbursements to Cohen for the hush money as payment for Cohen’s legal services.
Bove began on Thursday afternoon to outline the defence’s argument – namely, that AMI had had a long relationship with Trump, one that began well before the election. Buying stories and not publishing them was also standard for the tabloid.
Bove also started questioning Pecker’s memory, saying that he listed two different time periods for when he first met Trump about hi campaign.
Earlier in the week, Pecker detailed how he operated as the “eyes and ears” for Trump’s campaign starting in 2015, right after Trump announced his candidacy.
He promised Trump and Cohen that he would inform them of any people trying to sell negative stories about Trump.
While Pecker seemed eager to help Trump pay off the doorman, he started becoming wary of the hush payments as AMI was working on an agreement with McDougal.
The former Playboy model was requesting $150,000 in payment for her story. Pecker said Cohen told him: “I’m your friend, the boss will take care of it.”
Pecker was also nervous about potential campaign finance contribution violations, alluding to previous troubles the National Enquirer had when helping the former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger bury stories.
Although AMI would ultimately facilitate payments to McDougal, Pecker would decline to reimburse Stormy Daniels directly.
“I said I don’t want the National Enquirer to be associated with a porn star,” Pecker said. “This would be very damaging for the magazine, very damaging for American Media.”
Even though the Wall Street Journal would ultimately publish McDougal’s story – and the National Enquirer’s involvement in killing it – four days before the election in November 2016, Trump won the presidency. He would go on to thank Pecker on several occasions following his victory.
Bove also tried to create distance between Pecker and the Daniels payoff, again in an effort to undermine an alleged conspiracy.