Pecker Reveals Common Practice in Enquirer’s Election Coverage, but Truth Remains Elusive in Bragg’s Case Against Trump

The cross-examination of David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer, during Donald Trump’s criminal trial revealed that suppressing negative stories and promoting positive ones involving political candidates was common practice at the tabloid. Prosecutors accused Trump of doing this to influence an election by “unlawful means,” but defense attorney Emil Bove argued on cross-examination that it wasn’t unlawful to quash stories or pay for silence, and Pecker agreed that other news organizations did the same thing with celebrities. Bragg accused Trump of suppressing information to win an election, yet he concealed vital testimony during direct examination by his team of prosecutors. The McDougal affair has nothing to do with the criminal charges against Trump as he didn’t pay any money for her silence, but prosecutors convinced Judge Juan Merchan to allow it under the theory of “similar bad acts.” Bragg stands accused of using incendiary words like “conspiracy” and “fraud,” yet Trump is not charged with either. Pecker signed a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for his cooperation, but any admission of wrongdoing by one person does not dictate the guilt of another. The question remains whether the jury can distinguish truth from muck during Bragg’s absurd case against Trump as deceptions have been disassembled and distortions exposed through cross-examination.