The curtain fell on a wild week for defendant Donald Trump with Friday’s cross-examination in New York of David Pecker, the former owner of the notoriously sleazy American supermarket tabloid National Enquirer and first prosecution witness in the criminal case against the 45th President of the United States.
Pecker, a dapper, softly-spoken man who once wielded his media power with the subtlety of Thor’s axe, laid out in the Manhattan Criminal Court how he, Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen and Trump himself conceived and operated a “catch-and-kill” scheme in 2015 aimed at keeping damaging stories about the then aspiring politician - affairs with porn stars and Playboy models, supposedly secret abortions, just your regular unimaginably sleazy kind of thing - under wraps, lest it ruin Trump’s nascent campaign for the Presidency.
“I wanted to protect my company, I wanted to protect myself and I wanted, also, to protect Donald Trump,’’ he told the jury.
Taken in the abstract this is a revelation for the ages - a head-spinning, world changing, solid-gold media sensation that once upon a time would have flattened a mountain never mind a political career. Not any more. The rules have changed and under the new rules Pecker’s appearance in the witness box was merely the warm-up act for the headliner - Sabrina Carpenter to Taylor Swift, if you like.
The Taylor Swift in this analogy is a Trump lawyer (he has an army of them) called Jack Sauer who popped up in the US Supreme Court down the road in Washington DC to present the case that American Presidents should have absolute immunity for any crimes they may have committed while in office - a notion so legally ridiculous that not even Richard Nixon’s lawyers dared to go there. But then, as recent history tells us, when it comes to taking a chainsaw to centuries of American jurisprudence, Tricky Dicky is no Donald Trump.
To his credit Sauer, whose sandpaper voice is a perfect match for his solid brass neck, kept a straight face while dressing his argument in a coat of constitutional plausibility. He droned on for an hour before Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the three liberal judges in a court of nine, grew tired of him and cut to the chase. “So if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?” she asked.
Game, set and match. Right?
Wrong. Sauer didn’t flinch. “I think it would depend on the circumstances,” he said.
So there we have it. Donald Trump famous assessment of the hold he has over his supporters - “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” - now stands in the historical record as a legal argument made to the Supreme Court. If the response of the conservative majority during the hearing is anything to go by, it is to be taken seriously.
READ MORE LAWRENCE DONEGAN
Donald Trump trial: Dismissals, denials and the real truth
Can Joe Biden's message cut through the noise of Donald Trump?
Justice Kagan, Sotomayer’s colleague on Team Liberal, gamely tried again. “How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup?”
“I think it would depend on the circumstances,” Sauer said.
Back in New York Harbour the Statue of Liberty laid down her torch and put her head in her hands.
The Supreme Court is expected to hand down its ruling on Trump’s claim of absolute immunity by June and all indications are that while the majority are expected to come down against him, albeit in a way that will enable him to avoid a trial on criminal charges he faces relating to his efforts to overturn the result of the 2020 election. If that happens, the Statue of Liberty might as well buy a one-way ticket on the boat back to France.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel