Trump's lawyers try to discredit testimony of prosecution's first witness in hush money trial

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: AP

NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump’s defense team attacked the credibility Friday of the prosecution’s first witness in his hush money case, seeking to discredit testimony detailing a scheme between Trump and a tabloid to bury negative stories to protect the Republican’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Returning to the witness stand for a fourth day, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker was grilled about his memory and past statements as the defense tried to poke holes in potentially crucial testimony for prosecutors in the first criminal trial of a former American president.

Two other witnesses followed Pecker as prosecutors built the foundation of their case involving a hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels, who alleged a sexual encounter with Trump. Trump’s longtime executive assistant told jurors she recalled seeing Daniels in a reception area of Trump Tower, though the date of the visit wasn’t clear.

Pecker’s testimony provided jurors with a stunning inside look at the supermarket tabloid’s “catch-and-kill” practice of purchasing the rights to stories so they never see the light of day. He’s believed to be a key witness to bolster prosecutors’ theory that Trump sought to illegally influence the 2016 race by suppressing negative stories about his personal life.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-hush-money-david-pecker-868e6b9d30a039d5009ec6a9d7e96ff7

[BumRushDaShow]

1. I think they also got through at least 2 other witnesses today too

relatively quickly.

[BWdem4life]

2. Trump trial: Lawyers try to shoot down Pecker. nt

[Warpy]

3. David Pecker is a sleazebag who peddles lies to morons

I don't know anyone who wouldn't acknowledge that. He agreed to testify if he was granted immunity, a damned big grant, IMO, since his policy of "catch and kill" unflattering stories to protect political candidates should be illegal, even though it's probably not, along with publishing unflattering stories about candidates they don't like . What might be illegal is paying him to suppress them.

IOW, it's not like he's got much of a reputation to destroy.

[Demobrat]

4. He's a sleazebag with no reputation to destroy,

and at this point no reason to lie.

[Warpy]

5. If he has daughters, he'd pimp them off

for no money just because he could.