Former National Enquirer publisher testifies he scooped up damaging tales to shield old friend Trump

An Australian journalist has found himself in the spotlight at Donald Trump’s high-profile hush money trial accused of acting as a middleman in a deal to pay off a porn star.

Dylan Howard, the former editor of the National Enquirer tabloid, was named by prosecutors as a co-conspirator in a New York court on Thursday over his role in a deal that sought to secure $US120,000 to keep Stormy Daniels quiet.

Ms Daniels claimed she had an affair with Mr Trump and her silence was bought in the run-up to the 2016 US election in a move prosecutors claim was electoral interference.

The claims about Mr Howard emerged on a day in which David Pecker, the National Enquirer’s longtime publisher and an old friend of Mr Trump, told the court he had scooped up potentially damaging stories about the former president and paid out tens of thousands of dollars to keep them out of the public eye.

But when it came to the sordid claims by porn star Ms Daniels, he said he drew the line.

“I am not going to be involved with a porn star,” he said.

“I am not a bank … If anyone was going to buy it, I thought that Michael Cohen and Donald Trump should buy it.”

Mr Pecker was already $180,000 in the hole on other Trump-related stories by the time Ms Daniels came along, at which point, he said, “I didn’t want to be involved in this.”

But the hush money trial was just one of the consequential legal matters facing Republican presidential candidate Mr Trump on Thursday.

The US Supreme Court also heard arguments over whether he should be immune from prosecution in a federal case over his efforts to reverse his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden.

The high court justices appeared likely to reject his absolute immunity claim, though it seemed possible Mr Trump could benefit from a lengthy trial delay in the case, possibly beyond November’s election.

Mr Trump’s many legal problems collided this week. The hush money case includes a looming decision on whether he violated a gag order and should be held in contempt.

His former lawyers and associates were indicted in a 2020 election-related scheme in Arizona.

And a New York judge rejected a request for a new trial in a defamation case that found Mr Trump liable for $83.3 million in damages.

But the former president has a long history of emerging unscathed from sticky situations — if not becoming even more popular.

The high court’s decision will have lasting implications for future presidents, because the justices were seeking to answer the never-before-asked question of whether and to what extent a former president enjoys immunity from prosecution for conduct during his time in office.

Mr Trump had asked to skip his New York criminal proceedings for the day so he could sit in on the Supreme Court’s special session, but that request was denied by Judge Juan Merchan, overseeing Mr Trump’s trial on 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with the hush money payments, which involved buying the rights to someone’s story but never publishing it.

“I think the Supreme Court has a very important argument before it today,” Mr Trump said outside the courtroom. “I should be there.”

Instead, he sat at the defence table in a Manhattan courtroom with his lawyers, listening intently to Mr Pecker testify how he and his publication transformed rumour-mongering into splashy stories that smeared Mr Trump’s opponents and leveraged his connections to suppress unflattering coverage.

Mr Trump has maintained he is not guilty of any of the charges, and says the stories that were bought and squelched were false.

“There is no case here. This is just a political witch hunt,” he said before court.

As Mr Pecker testified in a calm, cooperative tone about risque tales and secret dealings, the atmosphere in the courtroom was one of quiet attentiveness.

Two Secret Service agents were stationed in the first row of the courtroom gallery directly behind Mr Trump. Ten court officers stood around the room. Jurors intently listened, and some took notes.

Mr Pecker recalled that the National Enquirer bought a sordid tale from a New York City doorman and purchased accusations of an extramarital affair with former Playboy model Karen McDougal to prevent the claims from getting out. There was some talk of reimbursement from Mr Trump’s team, but Mr Pecker was ultimately never paid.

The breaking point came with Ms Daniels, who was eventually paid by Mr Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen to keep quiet over her claim of a 2006 sexual encounter with Mr Trump. The ex-president denies it happened.

Mr Pecker recalled to the jury that he was dining with his wife the night after the public learned of the infamous 2005 Access Hollywood tape in which Mr Trump discussed grabbing women sexually without permission, when then-editor Mr Howard called with an urgent matter.

Mr Howard said he heard from Daniels’ representatives that she was trying to sell her story and that the tabloid could acquire it for $US120,000, Mr Pecker told jurors.

In an email shown to the court Mr Howard wrote: “Woman wants 120k ... I know the denials were made in the past — but this story is true.

“I can lock it on publication now to shut down the media chatter and we can assess next steps thereafter. OK?”

Mr Pecker was tapped out; he told Mr Cohen as much.

At the same time, Pecker advised that someone — just not him — should do something to prevent the story from going public.

“I said to Michael, ‘My suggestion to you is that you should buy the story, and you should take it off the market because if you don’t and it gets out, I believe the boss will be very angry with you’.”

Mr Cohen followed his advice.

Mr Pecker testified that Mr Trump later invited him to a White House dinner in July 2017 to thank him for helping the campaign. The ex-publisher said Mr Trump encouraged him to bring anyone he wanted, recounting that the then-president told him, “It’s your dinner.”

Mr Pecker said that he and Mr Howard, as well as some of his other business associates, posed for photos with Mr Trump in the Oval Office.

At one point during the evening, Mr Pecker said Mr Trump asked him for an update on Karen McDougal.

“How’s Karen doing?” he recalled Mr Trump saying as they walked past the Rose Garden from the Oval Office to the dining room.

“I said she’s doing well, she’s quiet, everything’s going good,” Mr Pecker testified.

But months later, in March 2018, the president became furious when Ms McDougal gave an interview to CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Mr Pecker testified.

“I thought you had and we had an agreement with Karen McDougal that she can’t give any interviews or be on any TV channels,” Mr Trump told Mr Pecker by phone, the former National Enquirer publisher said.

He said he explained to the then-president that the agreement had been changed to allow her to speak to the press after a November 2016 Wall Street Journal article about the tabloid’s $150,000 payout to Ms McDougal.

“Mr Trump got very aggravated when he heard that I amended it, and he couldn’t understand why,” Mr Pecker told jurors.

Later, Trump defence lawyer Emil Bove opened his cross-examination by grilling Mr Pecker on his recollection of specific dates and meanings.

He appeared to be laying further groundwork for the defence’s argument that any dealings Mr Trump had with the National Enquirer publisher were intended to protect himself, his reputation and his family — not his campaign.

In other developments, prosecutors argued Mr Trump again violated a gag order, all while waiting to hear whether he would be held in contempt on other suspected violations.

Judge Merchan has barred him from making public statements about witnesses, jurors and others connected to the case. He set a hearing for Wednesday on the new claims.

Mr Trump was dismissive about the looming decision. When asked if he would pay fines if ordered, he replied: “Oh, I have no idea.” He then said: “They’ve taken my constitutional right away with a gag order.”

A conviction by the jury would not prevent Mr Trump from becoming president again, but because it is a state case, he would not be able to pardon himself if found guilty.

The charge is punishable by up to four years in prison — though it’s not clear if the judge would seek to put him behind bars.