NY vs. Trump: Cross examination of DA Bragg’s first witness unravels important truths

“Cross-examination is the greatest legal tool ever invented for discovering the truth.”

These words, uttered by legendary lawyer John Henry Wigmore in 1923, come from the Sixth Amendment. The defendant has the right to confront the accuser. Shedding light on false statements by witnesses and dark distortions by prosecutors overzealous in hiding the truth. This is an effective way to test the truth of evidence.

Manhattan Prosecutor Alvin Bragg failed the test on Friday. However, that does not stop him from relentlessly pursuing former President Donald Trump in a legally perverted case.

Day 8 of Trump’s New York trial: AMI CEO David Pecker’s testimony concludes; Trump demands gag order lifted

Defense attorney Emile Beauvais vigorously cross-examined the prosecution’s first witness, David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer. The prosecutor sat uncomfortably as important truths were exposed.

Under questioning, Mr. Pecker confessed that his tabloids routinely suppressed negative stories and promoted positive stories about candidates for political office because it was financially profitable. This witness agreed that other mainstream news organizations have done the exact same thing. He acknowledged that at the Enquirer, it was common to pay for, and sometimes kill, articles, especially when celebrities were involved. It’s not just Trump.

It may seem lame, but it’s not illegal to destroy a story. It’s also not illegal to pay someone for their silence.

This was something Mr. Bragg and his prosecution team hid from jurors for much of the week in direct questioning of the jury. The irony and hypocrisy are obvious. Bragg accused President Trump of concealing information to win the election. But prosecutors suppressed key testimony to win the case against Trump.

President Trump praises first prosecution witness in criminal trial: ‘Very good’

Pecker also revealed on cross-examination that Trump didn’t want to hear the sordid story about former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal’s alleged affair with Trump. Candidate Trump at the time said such scandals were bound to emerge.

The National Enquirer independently ended up giving McDougal $150,000, but Pecker insisted that “cash was not the main focus of the agreement.” Instead, she was hired to write advice columns, blogs, and other articles for tabloids.

Note that the entire McDougall saga has nothing to do with the criminal charges against Trump. He didn’t pay her a penny. But prosecutors persuaded Judge Juan Melchan to allow it on the basis of a so-called “similar misconduct” theory. Translation: Let’s smear Trump with irrelevant and biased information. This is the same questionable tactic that led to this week’s reversal of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual conviction.

Trump trial day 7: Da Bragg’s legal strategy is association filth

For four days on the witness stand, Mr. Pecker offered no direct evidence that President Trump directed him to kill the story. But even if they did, where was the sin? It may seem lame, but it’s not illegal to destroy a story. It’s also not illegal to pay someone for their silence.

Furthermore, any money exchanged would not qualify as campaign expenses under relevant election laws, which Mr. Bragg said was an attempt by President Trump to influence the election through “illegal means.” It makes a mockery of the claim. The term is taken from state law, is only a misdemeanor, and does not apply to federal elections. But assuming that’s being done for the sake of argument, where is the illegality? There isn’t one.

Prosecutors shamelessly used inflammatory terms such as “conspiracy” and “fraud.” But as I argued in a previous column, Mr. Trump has not been charged with either crime. Bragg and the assistant DA are deliberately trying to sling mud to fool the jury by implying otherwise. Predictably, the bigoted judge Juan Mercian seems to overlook them.

This brings to light Trump’s original 34 charges of falsifying business records, all of which are misdemeanor charges that have expired. Pecker, McDougall, and Stormy Daniels have no knowledge of private bookkeeping. Still, they were at the center of Bragg’s three-ring circus the first week. Shady dealings by tabloids and criminal activity are not the same.

For more FOX News opinions, click here

It’s a clever deception. Use jargon to confuse jurors and make it seem like something is illegal when it actually isn’t. This is an unconscionable ethical violation and a violation of the prosecutor’s primary duty to ensure that justice is done fairly and impartially. Sadly, too many prosecutors think their job is to win convictions through tricks and tricks. Bragg is the epitome of amoral ruthlessness.

Several years ago, the FBI and prosecutors put pressure on Pecker. They dangled a non-prosecution agreement in front of him in exchange for his cooperation in testifying about payments to Mr. McDougall and Stormy Daniels. Out of fear and intimidation, he signed it. But his signature acknowledging campaign violations on that document does not constitute a legal admission that such violations actually occurred. It was simply a means of relieving undue pressure.

Not surprisingly, Bragg’s prosecutors misrepresented the document before the jury. This is a dirty trick. This is because even if one person admits wrongdoing, even such a false confession, it does not convict another person. It’s irrelevant and biased. In normal circumstances, a responsible judge would not allow it. But Judge Marchan is presiding over a parody of the trial.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Adversarial cross-examination has long been a staple of our justice system, but so far it has proven useful in defending Manhattan prosecutors’ frivolous case against Trump. Deceptions have been dismantled and distortions exposed.

But the question remains, will the jury be able to wade through the ugly quagmire of the prosecution’s case to see the light of truth? At this early stage it is impossible to know.

Click here to read more about Greg Jarrett