Posted on 04/23/2024 10:20:26 AM PDT by thegagline
Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker will return the witness stand today for the second day of Donald Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial over covering up “hush money” payments to a porn star.
Pecker will resume testimony where he is expected to detail the inner workings of a scheme he, Trump and his “fixer” lawyer Michael Cohen devised to buy up and bury bad news during the 2016 presidential election.
Trump is on trial for allegedly fudging business records to conceal a $130,000 payoff to Stormy Daniels made before the 2016 presidential election.
The 72-year-old ex-CEO of the Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc., is slated to continue his testimony around 11 a.m. — after a hearing over whether Trump, 77, breached the terms of a court order barring him from ripping jurors and witnesses online.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office says the ex-president violated the “gag order” at least 10 times, including by sharing a quote on Truth Social from a Fox News host which said, “they are catching undercover liberal activists lying to the judge” in order to get on the jury.
Justice Juan Merchan, the trial judge, has cited concerns about the privacy of the panel of everyday Manhattanites on the jury — including two corporate lawyers, a retired wealth manager who loves yoga, and people who have expressed both admiration and disdain for Trump — who will decide his fate. ***
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
“MSNBC ‘said yesterday there was no criminal evidence presented yet, and it’ is a weak case.”
Take out the words said through it and you have their whole intelligence covered.
wy69
“MSNBC ‘said yesterday there was no criminal evidence presented yet, and it’ is a weak case.”
Take out the words said through it and you have their whole intelligence covered.
wy69
The National Enquirer has never held themselves to the same standards as other newspapers. ‘Journalistic ethics’ aren’t laws and they’re not required. They’re optional. And the Enquirer chose not to follow them at will.
The Enquirer pays for stories. They pay sources to speak. They have no problem with sources that don’t want to ‘go on the record’. And they’ve been known to make up quotes - among other flaws.
So the business of possibly ‘helping’ celebrities in exchange for access etc is totally believable. They often had excellent editors who knew better - but these people could be chosen from real newspaper editors who had made a ‘mistake’ and had tarnished reputations. The Enquirer would hire them at two or three times their normal salary but it was a one way trip. Once an editor had worked for them they could never go back to a real newspaper. It was a career kiss of death.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.