David Pecker, former publisher of American Media Inc. (AMI), took the stand in Donald Trump's criminal trial on April 23, 2024.
Pecker had final say over content of AMI publications and used checkbook journalism with a $10,000 limit for investigations.
Prosecutors allege Trump sought to illegally influence 2016 election by preventing damaging stories from becoming public.
Trump allegedly repaid Cohen for payoffs through checks listed as legal services in company records.
In the ongoing criminal trial of former President Donald Trump, the first witness, David Pecker, took the stand on April 23, 2024. Pecker is a longtime ally of Trump and was formerly the publisher of American Media Inc., which includes The National Enquirer. Prosecutors allege that during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump and his lawyer Michael Cohen conspired to stifle unflattering stories about Trump using a 'catch-and-kill' strategy. Pecker is expected to testify about his role in this scheme.
According to various sources, Pecker had the final say over content of National Enquirer and other AMI publications, using checkbook journalism with a limit of $10,000 for investigations. Trump allegedly repaid Cohen for the payoff through checks listed as legal services in official company records.
The trial resumed on Tuesday after an agreement was reached at a hearing on the $175 million bond in Trump's New York civil fraud trial. The case is significant as it is the first criminal trial of a former American president.
Prosecutors told jurors that Trump sought to illegally influence the 2016 election by preventing damaging stories about his personal life from becoming public, including hush money payments to a porn actor. Trump has denied any wrongdoing.
Pecker is expected to provide more details about his involvement in the scheme and how it was executed during his testimony.
Donald Trump's former publisher, David Pecker, is expected to testify about helping Trump and his lawyer Michael Cohen stifle unflattering stories during the 2016 campaign using a ‘catch-and-kill’ strategy.
Pecker is accused of functioning as the campaign’s ‘eyes and ears.’
Prosecutors allege that Trump sought to illegally influence the 2016 election by preventing damaging stories about his personal life from becoming public, including hush money payments to a porn actor.
Trump has denied any wrongdoing.
The case is the first criminal trial of a former American president.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the prosecution's position. For instance, it states 'Prosecutors allege that Trump had sought to illegally influence the 2016 race by preventing damaging stories about his personal life from becoming public.' However, it fails to mention that these allegations have been denied by Trump and his team. Additionally, the article uses emotional manipulation by describing the hush money payments as 'hush money trials' and 'historic hush money trial of the former president'. Furthermore, it implies facts without linking to peer-reviewed studies or retracted studies in science and health articles.
The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election.
This was a planned, long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected through illegal expenditures to silence people who had something bad to say about his behavior.
Prosecutors allege that Trump had sought to illegally influence the 2016 race by preventing damaging stories about his personal life from becoming public,
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several informal fallacies and an appeal to authority. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the hush money payments as 'illegal expenditures' and 'election fraud, pure and simple.' However, it is not clear from the article that these payments were indeed illegal. The author also quotes prosecutors making accusations against Trump without providing any evidence or context to support these claims. Furthermore, the author quotes defense lawyer Todd Blanche attacking the integrity of a witness (Pecker), which could be seen as an appeal to authority if taken at face value without considering the context and potential motivations behind such statements.
This was a planned, long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected through illegal expenditures to silence people who had something bad to say about his behavior.
It was election fraud, pure and simple.
The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election. Then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again.
The first criminal trial of Donald Trump is underway.
Prosecutors told jurors that the reimbursement of hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels was part of a larger conspiracy to influence the 2016 presidential election by hiding damaging information about Trump.
Trump’s attorneys responded by telling the jury that Trump was innocent and not involved in the creation of the business records he’s charged with falsifying.
Prosecutors allege that an August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower sparked the conspiracy that ultimately led to the criminal charges against Trump.
Pecker is expected to testify about the scheme and his role in orchestrating two nondisclosure agreements for negative stories about Trump.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article contains editorializing and selective reporting. The authors use phrases like 'illegal payments to try to influence the 2016 election illegally' and 'orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election'. These phrases imply that there was an actual law broken, but no specific laws are mentioned in the article or in any of the quotes from prosecutors. The authors also selectively report details that support their theory of a conspiracy, such as 'Prosecutors allege that an August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower with Pecker and Cohen sparked the conspiracy'. They do not mention any evidence to the contrary or provide context for why this meeting might be significant. Additionally, the authors quote prosecutor Matthew Colangelo telling jurors to 'tune out the noise', which is an attempt to manipulate their emotions and influence their perception of the trial.
The defendant Donald Trump orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election.
Prosecutors told jurors that the reimbursement of hush money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels was part of a larger conspiracy to influence the 2016 presidential election by hiding damaging information about Trump.
Prosecutors allege that an August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower with Pecker and Cohen sparked the conspiracy.
Fallacies
(85%)
The authors make an appeal to authority when they state that 'Prosecutors told jurors that the reimbursement of hush money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels was part of a larger conspiracy to influence the 2016 presidential election by hiding damaging information about Trump.' This statement implies that the prosecutors' words are trustworthy and true, without providing any evidence or reasoning for why this is so. Additionally, there is inflammatory rhetoric used throughout the article, such as 'historic and unprecedented criminal trial of a former president' and 'illegal payments to try to influence illicitly influence the 2016 election that Trump then tried to illegally cover up by falsifying business records.' These phrases are emotionally charged and do not add any value to the analysis of the article.
]Prosecutors told jurors that the reimbursement of hush money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels was part of a larger conspiracy to influence the 2016 presidential election by hiding damaging information about Trump.[
The defendant Donald Trump orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election.
There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It’s called democracy.
Bias
(80%)
The authors use the phrase 'illegal payments to try to influence the 2016 election illegally' and 'cover up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records'. These phrases imply that there was something inherently wrong with trying to influence an election and covering up information related to it, even if it was done legally. The authors also use the term 'criminal scheme' multiple times throughout the article. While it is true that falsifying business records is a crime, the authors' repeated use of this language could be seen as an attempt to sway readers against Trump.
The defendant Donald Trump orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election
Then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again
Donald Trump's criminal hush-money trial resumed on Tuesday with testimony from David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer.
Pecker had final say over content of National Enquirer and other AMI publications, using checkbook journalism with a limit of $10,000 for investigations.
Trump allegedly repaid Cohen for the payoff through checks listed as legal services in official company records.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The author uses emotional manipulation by describing the alleged hush-money payments and affairs as 'devastating' and 'damaging' to Trump's campaign. She also uses sensationalism by implying that these events were part of a 'long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election.' The author selectively reports information, focusing only on the negative aspects of Trump and his alleged actions, while ignoring any potential context or counterarguments.
Another story about infidelity, with a porn star, on the heels of the Access Hollywood tape, would have been devastating to his campaign.
It was a planned, coordinated, long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election.
David Pecker, the chairman of American Media Inc., is the first witness in the trial over Trump’s hush money payments.
Pecker is expected to testify about helping Trump and his lawyer Michael Cohen stifle unflattering stories during the 2016 campaign using a ‘catch-and-kill’ strategy.
