Delivered a win for the prosecution

The Trump Trial Takes a Turn

David Pecker’s testimony delivered a win for the prosecution. The Supreme Court hearing in D.C. was another story.

By CALDER MCHUGH

The prosecution in the Trump trial got what they wanted from former American Media CEO David Pecker this week — a concession that the hush money payments he made on behalf of Trump were done in order to help Donald Trump’s campaign for president.

Over the course of five days, Pecker made more than a few assertions that were useful in the case against Trump. He testified that he made “catch and kill” deals with a former Trump Tower doorman and former Playboy model Karen McDougal to keep potential bombshell stories quiet in the midst of the election.

All were direct torpedo hits to the defense’s opening statement Monday, in which Trump lawyer Todd Blanche argued that any and all hush money payments were to keep negative stories from reaching Trump’s family’s eyes, rather than the voting public. Prosecutors want to prove the payments corrupted the 2016 election, Trump’s lawyers want the jury to believe that they had little to do with politics and everything to do with protecting Trump’s family.

In the midst of his testimony, Pecker provided new details about Trump’s 2016 campaign and White House operations. Pecker detailed a “thank you” dinner that Trump hosted for him at the White House in July 2017 for his help keeping these stories private. “It’s your dinner,” Pecker testified Trump told him. When Pecker arrived, Trump also inquired as to how Karen McDougal was doing.

The former publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid also testified as to Trump fixer Michael Cohen’s insistence that Trump “has [then-attorney general] Jeff Sessions in his pocket,” altogether painting a picture of the former president as a man willing to bend rules and regulations to his personal and political benefit.

The prosecution’s successful week in Manhattan court was made all the more important by another legal proceeding about 250 miles away in Washington.

In a hearing at the Supreme Court on Thursday concerning Trump’s claim of immunity from federal criminal charges, Trump’s team had a shockingly good day. While legal observers generally assumed the Court would swat down Trump’s argument that a former president should be immune from prosecution relating to his time in office, at least three justices — John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch — suggested that the Court would at the very least have to send the case back to lower courts to determine just what evidence special counsel Jack Smith could bring to trial. That’s in addition to two justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who appeared to fully accept Trump’s claims of presidential immunity.

Alito went so far as to put forward the argument that not granting full presidential immunity from prosecution would in fact make the president more likely to commit crimes in an attempt to stay in office.

Even if the Court doesn’t entirely endorse Trump’s insistence that he’s fully immune, sending the case back down to a lower court would end any hope that prosecutors had to bring it before the election. And that’s a victory of sorts for Trump — if he wins in November, the decision would for all intents and purposes stop him from being prosecuted for his attempts to overturn the outcome of the 2020 election at all, given that he would be able to shut down the work of the special counsel as president.

The Manhattan hush money case is largely considered to be the weakest legal case of the four criminal cases in which Trump has been indicted. But the big, bright spotlight on it grew even more intense this week. All indications are that this is the only bite at the apple that criminal prosecutors around the country are going to get at Trump this year.

And with next week scheduled to feature testimony from additional witnesses — who have yet to be identified — the two sides are digging in. Trump’s lawyers are trying to undermine Pecker and other witnesses in order to stick to their argument that none of the payments were politically motivated. The prosecution, meanwhile, seeks to tie all of the hush money payments to malfeasance related to the 2016 election.

Legal observers have likened this trial, largely about falsifying business records, to getting Al Capone on tax evasion. But the events of the week revealed that it’s suddenly more important than originally thought — it’s the only case that will conclude before the presidential election. If the pressure wasn’t ratcheted all the way up before, it certainly is now.