Former President Donald Trump’s criminal trial for alleged felony falsification of documents related to hush money payments is underway.
Critics argue the prosecution’s strategy of calling David Pecker, the former CEO of American Media Inc., as their first witness is problematic.
While Pecker was involved in catch-and-kill payments to suppress stories of Trump affairs, his testimony concerns the Stormy Daniels payment and not the charges at hand.
Legal experts contend this opens the case up to appearing as an attempt to influence the jury based on unrelated allegations rather than the merits of the charges.
“The fact that Bragg is starting with David Pecker to discuss an affair not directly involved in the alleged crimes is telling. With a dubious criminal theory, defuse facts, and delayed charges, the case will focus on a different alleged affair and hush money payment,” law professor Jonathan Turley wrote.
The prosecution hopes Pecker’s testimony establishes a pattern of behavior, but it does not directly relate to the charges.
“AMI paid a doorman at a building owned by the Trump Organization $30,000 in exchange for information about allegations Trump had fathered a child out of wedlock (claims the Enquirer ultimately deemed were untrue), and also paid former Playboy model Karen McDougal $150,000 for rights to her story that she had an affair with Trump, also in 2006, but never published — what’s known as a ‘catch and kill’ scheme,” prosecutors wrote.
Sen. Mitt Romney said, “I believe President Trump’s character and conduct make him unfit for office. Even so, I believe the New York prosecutor has stretched to reach felony criminal charges in order to fit a political agenda.”
“You’ve got to work hard to make President Trump a martyr,” Rep. Nancy Mace wrote, adding, “Congratulations to Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, who has managed to do just that.”
Combined with preexisting criticisms that the case represents a political agenda rather than strong criminal evidence, experts assert the trial risks lacking focus on the key issues.
“With a dubious criminal theory, defuse facts, and delayed charges, the case will focus on a different alleged affair and hush money payment,” Turley wrote.
By starting with a witness only tangential to the core allegations, the prosecution may be undermining its own case and fueling perceptions it has stretched to pursue charges against the former president.
