During the cross-examination of David Pecker by Donald Trump's attorneys, several key points were brought to light regarding American Media Inc.'s business practices and its involvement with negative press related to Trump's opponents.
One significant revelation was Pecker's acknowledgment that running negative articles about Trump's foes was beneficial for business. The defense aimed to establish that Pecker's actions were driven by the company's financial interests rather than any personal vendetta.
Pecker confirmed that negative information about Ben Carson would have been published even without Trump's involvement, emphasizing that such practices were common within the media industry.
The defense also highlighted the legitimate business purpose behind the agreements with individuals like Karen McDougal, suggesting that securing rights to stories first was advantageous for AMI.
Another crucial point was the absence of any discussion about 'catch and kill' tactics during a pivotal 2015 meeting, where Pecker agreed to monitor negative stories about Trump for his campaign.
A notable discrepancy arose between Pecker's recent testimony and his 2018 FBI interview regarding Trump's gratitude for handling certain stories. Pecker acknowledged the inconsistency and an error in recalling specific details.
Pecker expressed reluctance to engage with the Stormy Daniels allegations, citing concerns about potential harm to an editor's reputation due to non-payment issues.
The defense underscored that the McDougal deal underwent legal review by an election law attorney, indicating Pecker's confidence in avoiding legal repercussions.
Overall, the cross-examination shed light on the intricate dynamics between media, business interests, and political relationships, offering insights into the operations of American Media Inc. and its interactions with key figures in the Trump sphere.
