Defense cross-examination concluded with efforts to point out inconsistencies. Here's a recap
Audio
Audio
Follow CNN Politics

Day 8 of Trump New York hush money trial

By CNN's Kara Scannell, Lauren Del Valle and Jeremy Herb in the courthouse

Updated 6:31 p.m. ET, April 26, 2024
84 Posts
Sort byDropdown arrow
1:24 p.m. ET, April 26, 2024

Defense cross-examination concluded with efforts to point out inconsistencies. Here's a recap

Defense attorney Emil Bove spent much of his cross-examination trying to dismantle former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker's credibility by using small inconsistencies in Pecker's statements to prosecutors over the years in comparison to his trial testimony.

Here are some key highlights:

  • The defense tried to tie Pecker’s non-prosecution agreement with prosecutors to his deal to sell the National Enquirer. Pecker confirmed he was trying to sell the National Enquirer to the Hudson News Group. The deal included a provision that the investigation had to be resolved before the deal could be finalized.
  • The defense tried to poke another hole in the 2018 non-prosecution agreement by producing answers from Pecker that the Enquirer's parent company, American Media Inc., did not admit to a campaign violation. Despite that testimony, the agreement does have a statement of facts saying AMI knew it was subject to federal campaign finance laws and did not report to the Federal Election Commission that it had made the $150,000 payment to model Karen McDougal.
  • Bove zeroed in on a separate conciliation agreement AMI made with the FEC in 2021. Pecker pushed back on Bove when he asked about his testimony with prosecutors when he said AMI committed a campaign violation. Bove asked Pecker to confirm it wasn’t true to which Pecker pushed back, saying, “Yes, yes it was.”
  • Bove pointed out that this 2021 agreement does not include an admission of a campaign violation. He elicited testimony from Pecker that his lawyers used a sworn declaration stating he sought legal advice on the McDougal agreement as a way to argue to the FEC that there was no campaign violation.

CNN's Laura Dolan contributed reporting to this post.

1:02 p.m. ET, April 26, 2024

Court is breaking for lunch

We are now breaking for lunch, and the judge is instructing the jury to not discuss the case.

Steinglass says he has less than a half hour left, and Bove says he will ask another round of questions. Pecker is off the stand.

Court will resume at 2:15 p.m. ET.

1:13 p.m. ET, April 26, 2024

Pecker confirms he had no intentions to publish McDougal's story

Steinglass spent a portion of his redirect questioning Pecker on the potential impacts of publishing a story like Karen McDougal's.

Here's how that went:

"Had you published a story about a Playboy model having a year-old sexual affair while he was married with a presidential candidate, would that have sold magazines, you think?" Steinglass asked.
"Yes," Pecker said.
"That would be National Enquirer gold?" Steinglass asked.
Yes, Pecker replied.
"At the time you entered into that agreement, you had zero intention of publishing that story?" Steinglass asked. Yes, Pecker said.

1:02 p.m. ET, April 26, 2024

Pecker describes how he and Michael Cohen would approach negative stories for sale about Trump

During another round of questions from the prosecution, Steinglass is having his key witness David Pecker outline his takeaways from a 2015 meeting at Trump Tower.

"It was my understanding that I would use the company's sources geared for any information that would be coming out on Mr. Trump or the campaign, related to specifically women who would be selling their stories," Pecker said.

"Those stories that come up, I would speak to Michael Cohen and tell him that, 'These are the stories that are going to be for sale,' that, 'If we don't buy them somebody else will,' and that Michael Cohen would handle — buy them or try to make sure that they don't ever get published."

12:59 p.m. ET, April 26, 2024

Pecker says that prior to Trump arrangement, he didn't have deals to share positive stories about candidates

Steinglass asked Pecker whether he had ever shared positive stories about a candidate ahead of time or shared negative stories about a candidate's opponents prior to the arrangement with Trump.

Pecker said he had not previously.

Steinglass confirmed Pecker's earlier testimony that because he was friends with Trump, he didn't run negative stories about him even before the campaign.

"Prior to the August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower, did AMI ever agree to publish stories attacking Mr. Trump’s political opponents?" Steinglass asks. "No," Pecker says.

Steinglass asked, "Did you ever specifically use the term catch and kill in that meeting?"

"No I did not," Pecker said.

12:57 p.m. ET, April 26, 2024

Steinglass is now seeking to tie Cohen to Trump's campaign

Steinglass is now seeking to tie Michael Cohen to Trump's campaign.

Pecker confirms that Cohen was known to work his media contacts for the campaign. Cohen went on television to talk campaign talking points and invited Pecker to a campaign fundraiser.

"When you formulated the agreement" to help the campaign in 2015, Steinglass asks if Cohen was part of the agreement. "Yes he was," Pecker says.

Steinglass asked, "In this case did you suppress stories to help a presidential candidate?"

"Yes," Pecker said with regards to 2015 agreements.

12:53 p.m. ET, April 26, 2024

Prosecutor highlights Michael Cohen's involvement in the effort to buy a Trump Tower doorman's silence

Steinglass has returned to the National Enquirer's agreement with Dino Sajudin, the Trump Tower doorman who claimed to have a story about Trump fathering a child.

The prosecution is now picking at Trump attorney Emil Bove's efforts to have Pecker describe the arrangement as a standard source agreement.

Steinglass brings up an amendment to the agreement, which changed the length of the contract from 90 days to "in perpetuity." Pecker says that change was made after his conversation with then-Trump attorney Michael Cohen.

Steinglass asks if it is "standard operating procedure" for American Media Inc., the Enquirer's parent company, to consult a lawyer for a presidential candidate about a source agreement. Pecker says, "No."

Pecker also confirms that adding a clause that would require Sajudin to pay AMI $1 million if he breached the agreement was not standard operating procedure.

That, too, was made at Cohen's request, Pecker says.

12:46 p.m. ET, April 26, 2024

Pecker confirms he told Cohen to rip up the McDougal agreement after speaking with attorneys

Steinglass is revisiting the Karen McDougal agreement and that Pecker only agreed to enter into it because Michael Cohen promised to reimburse him.

They had drawn up a transfer agreement and "you went so far as to sign the document?" Steinglass asks. "Yes," Pecker replies.

But Pecker says after speaking with the general counsel, "I called up Michael Cohen and told him that the deal was off and to rip up the agreement."

12:43 p.m. ET, April 26, 2024

Pecker testifies that McDougal contract did not mention "the word campaign"

As he reviewed records on the stand, Pecker said the retained election law attorney billed American Media Inc. for 30 minutes of work to review the contract with Karen McDougal.

Steinglass went through the contract, asking if it mentions anything about Trump reimbursing him, Michael Cohen's name, the discussion at Trump Tower, or the word campaign.

Pecker repeatedly said "no."

"Does the contract even mention the word campaign?" Steinglass asked.

"No," Pecker said.

Steinglass noted that the contract that the outside counsel reviewed had none of these details.

Every juror is watching Steinglass as he's asking the question.

Remember: The McDougal contract is separate from the Stormy Daniels' contract at the center of the hush money case. Prosecutors have used the payoffs as evidence that the schemes were aimed at protecting Trump's electoral chances. Trump has denied affairs with both women.