- Trump faces trial for alleged hush money to Stormy Daniels
- Newspaper editor-in-chief acted as Trump’s “eyes and ears”
- Witness reveals details of “catch and kill” scheme with Trump
Donald Trump, who is accused of falsifying business documents to pay hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels in order to cover up their alleged affair prior to the 2016 election, is the first former president of the United States to face a criminal trial.
According to court testimony, a newspaper editor-in-chief served as Donald Trump’s “eyes and ears” during the run-up to the 2016 election, stifling negative articles about him.
Trump is the first former president of the United States to be tried on criminal charges.
He is accused of providing hush money to pornographic actress Stormy Daniels and fabricating business documents in an effort to cover up their alleged affair.
The initial witness in the trial was David Pecker, the former CEO of publisher AMI. In his testimony, Pecker detailed his involvement in a “catch and kill” scheme alongside Donald Trump and his attorney Michael Cohen, which aimed to suppress negative press coverage throughout the 2016 presidential campaign.
The Manhattan criminal court also heard Mr. Pecker, who represented Trump as his “eyes and ears” and signed a “non-prosecution” agreement with prosecutors after AMI admitted to making hush-money payments, characterise his role as such.
Mr. Pecker stated that he would notify Mr. Cohen of news stories and have him verify their veracity. Although this agreement was not documented in writing, Mr. Pecker disclosed it to one of his publications, the National Enquirer editor-in-chief Dylan Howard.
Mr. Pecker disclosed to the court that he was present at a meeting in August 2015 that included former President Hope Hicks, Mr. Cohen, and Trump.
“I would serve as the ears and eyes.”
“During our meeting, Donald Trump inquired as to what I could do to assist the campaign,” he stated.
“As for my stance, I declared that I would run or publish favourable articles concerning Mr. Trump, while I would disseminate unfavourable articles concerning his opponents.
I claimed to be the eyes and hearing as well.
Particularly, Mr. Pecker stated that he would inform Cohen “because Mr. Trump was well-known as the most eligible bachelor and dated the most beautiful women” if he became aware of any negative reports pertaining to Trump or his alleged relations with any women.
He further stated, “From my previous encounters, it was evident that it is not uncommon for women running for public office to contact publications such as the National Enquirer in an attempt to sell their anecdotes.”
In one such instance, Mr. Pecker allegedly paid $30,000 (£24,000) to the court to purchase a story that claimed Trump was the father of an illegitimate child with a housekeeper.
Mr. Pecker stated, “I called Michael Cohen immediately and relayed precisely what I was told.”
I provided the penthouse housekeeper’s identity and requested that he first validate it against the payroll of the Trump Organisation.
Purchasing adverse press
According to Cohen, Mr. Pecker was informed that the story was “absolutely not true” when he was sold on it by the investigators.
He further stated, “I decided to purchase the story because it had the potential to be embarrassing for the campaign and Mr. Trump.”
“Unlock your financial potential with free Webull shares in the UK.”
Concerning the proceedings of the day, there were accusations that Trump had contravened a prohibition order through his campaign website and social media posts.
The restraining order limited the scope of Trump’s public discourse regarding potential witnesses, jurors, and other individuals pertinent to the case.
Prosecutors requested that Trump be fined $10,000 (£8,000) for ten allegedly illegal online posts, but the judge had not rendered a verdict by the conclusion of the day’s proceedings.
Opponents of politics are targeted
However, the court heard that in addition to safeguarding Trump’s reputation, Mr. Pecker purportedly targeted his political adversaries.
He stated, “Hillary Clinton would be the enabler of a womaniser in a Hillary Clinton story.”
The prosecution inquired, “Did you hold the belief that it contributed to the advancement of Trump’s campaign?”
Mr. Pecker testified before the court that it benefited both Trump’s campaign and newspaper sales, thereby being mutually beneficial.
It was disclosed to the court that Mr. Pecker’s publisher would also publish articles “based on the success of some of the candidates” that discussed Trump’s Republican opponents.
He further stated that I would be contacted by Michael Cohen, who would advise Dylan Howard and me on which candidate to support and in what direction to proceed.
