Why David Pecker’s Testimony Was So Credible

David Pecker resumes testifying on Friday, the fourth day of testimony in Donald Trump’s first criminal trial on 34 felony counts of falsifying documents in the Stormy Daniels hush money case.

Pecker’s weeklong testimony has offered jurors a panoramic view of the alleged conspiracy to illegally influence the election involving Trump, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, and Pecker—a conspiracy that is the centerpiece of the prosecution’s case. Thursday’s testimony included explosive revelations about Trump’s alleged direct involvement in the scheme, the most captivating day of testimony yet.

In the back of the courtroom to witness events unfold on Thursday sat at least half a dozen members of the general public, some of whom had waited in line since 6 a.m. to join the assembled press in the gallery and experience America’s first presidential criminal trial firsthand. Two of the early birds were tourists from Alaska who had taken a day from their weeklong visit to the Big Apple to see Trump on trial. “It’s the most interesting thing going on right now,” one, a commercial fisherwoman, said. “We’ll have to try very hard not to heckle,” her friend added. (The pair’s other big New York show was to see Jeremy Strong and Michael Imperioli perform in a Broadway play called An Enemy of the People, so perhaps there was a theme to the trip.) Another of the public viewers was a criminal lawyer who had previously attended Richard Nixon’s funeral just to “hang around” and wanted to be here for this piece of history surrounding a “similar colorful crook.”

Aside from the cost of an early-morning wake-up, the show for these lucky few on the third day of testimony was free. Based on Pecker’s performance, which seemed to captivate the jury and will likely prove critical to the prosecution’s final case, they got their money’s worth.

Pecker testified about Cohen hounding him over multiple hush money payments to both Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal—respectively an adult film performer and Playboy Playmate who said they had sexual relationships with Trump—mentioning how Cohen would casually refer to Trump as “the boss” in a strikingly mob-like fashion. As in, “Don’t worry, I’m your friend, the boss will take care of” reimbursements for payments to McDougal. Or, “The boss is going to be very angry with you,” once Pecker started to get cold feet about taking part in the hush money schemes.

Mafia-speak aside, Pecker also described in detail personal meetings he had with candidate Trump prior to the election, then President Trump in the White House itself. Per Pecker’s telling, Trump personally invited the tabloid publisher to a “thank-you dinner” that Trump described to him as “your dinner” at the White House to offer his gratitude for Pecker’s help during the campaign.

After Trump took photos with Pecker’s associates, Pecker says that Trump took him aside to walk together privately from the Oval Office to the White House dining room. “As we walked up, President Trump asked me, ‘How’s Karen doing?’ ” Pecker testified, in reference to their McDougal hush money scheme. “I said, ‘She’s doing well, she’s quiet, everything’s going good.’ ” Prosecutors followed this testimony up by offering the jury a photo of Trump and Pecker walking and talking together at the White House, with Pecker corroborating that this was the moment Trump checked in with him about their scheme.

The purpose of this testimony is to tie Trump directly to the conspiracy to influence the election—a crucial element of the case that elevated the record-keeping offense to a felony—by offering a witness more credible than Cohen who can describe Trump’s words and actions firsthand. It was one of the many reasons why Pecker was an ideal opening witness for the prosecution.

There are others. Notably, unlike Daniels and Cohen, who clearly have deep personal animus toward Trump, Pecker has no ax to grind. The former National Enquirer boss says he still considers Trump a “friend” and a “mentor.” Even Trump referred to Pecker as “very nice” in interviews midweek (for which he could be cited with contempt for attempting to influence Pecker’s testimony).

Despite describing openly and unabashedly the seedy business of tabloid publishing—or perhaps because of this unguarded description—Pecker came off as credible, a man who was unashamed of his profession even when it involved extorting celebrities or paying off porn stars. This read as forthrightness and jurors were visibly engaged throughout his testimony.

Pecker was also able to preemptively rebut what will be a key defense argument, testifying that before Trump ran for office, he was concerned about negative stories chiefly for the protection of his wife, Melania Trump, or daughter, Ivanka Trump. After Trump launched his bid for office, Pecker testified, the candidate’s family never came up. “It was basically what the impact would be to the campaign and the election,” Pecker testified. Notably, John Edwards was acquitted in a similar campaign finance case because he was able to convince jurors that he was trying to protect his family by covering up an affair, and not win office. Pecker’s testimony implies that this is not what Trump was concerned about, bolstering the prosecution’s allegation that he sought to unlawfully influence the election.

Emil Bove, the Trump defense attorney who’s leading the cross-examination of Pecker, has tried to portray Pecker’s currying of favors with celebrities as “standard operating procedure” for tabloid publishers, including in Trump’s case. He’s also attempted to poke holes in Pecker’s story by challenging his recollection on key points and implying that he was filling in holes to tell a better story to federal and Manhattan prosecutors in order to win a pair of immunity agreements.

When Bove challenged Pecker that he might be adding in details where his memory had failed to embellish what had happened and give prosecutors a better story, Pecker responded strongly and convincingly. “What I said under oath was the truth,” Pecker said. “That’s all I planned on doing today.”

It was also riveting. By day’s end Thursday, despite the ability to leave during lunch after an incredibly long day, the Alaska tourists were still in the back of the room taking it all in.