A background witness in former President Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial delivered a "devastating blow" in his testimony Tuesday, according to a trial lawyer watching the case.
Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker took the stand in Manhattan's criminal court to detail stories cooked up to damage Trump's political rivals during his 2016 presidential campaign and, in doing so, did significant damage to Trump's defense, argued criminal defense attorney Stacy Schneider.
"This is a very strategic on the part of the prosecution," Schneider said on a CNN panel. "David Pecker, who is just a background witness in this case, actually dealt very devastating blow to the Trump defense."
Schneider then pointed to Pecker's testimony about Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen and their relationship ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
"There was an arrangement that Michael Cohen would, according to David Pecker, would call him up after one of the Republican debates," Schneider explained. " Whoever was doing the best at the debate, [Cohen] would direct him — David Pecker — to run a devastating story about that person."
For Schneider, this represented a bombshell moment in Pecker's testimony.
"That's setting up...for the jury to see, the fact that Trump allegedly seems to have a pattern and history of gaining an unfair advantage during that election," Schneider said. "And I think that that point, although subtle today, is going to come back later on in the trial."
Among the stories that Pecker admitted to slapping on his covers is one suggesting Trump's Republican contender Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) secretly had a love child and linked to cocaine.
ALSO READ: A criminologist explains why Trump’s Manhattan trial is the biggest threat to his freedom
For Schneider, Pecker laid the foundation that Bragg will build his case upon.
"It's the same theme that that Trump is being tried on right now: unlawfully influencing the election and then covering it up through paying off Stormy Daniels," Schneider said. "I think that was a really subtle and good talking point later on for the [District Attorney.]
