Trump Offered to Take DNA Test to Disprove Salacious Rumor, ‘Hush Money’ Witness Testifies

A witness testifying in the so-called “hush money” trial has told the jury that President Donald Trump offered to take a DNA test to disprove a salacious rumor about him.

The 45th president wanted to take the test in response to claims that he impregnated a Trump Tower employee, a witness testified.

The testimony was from former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, the first witness for prosecutor Alvin Bragg.

However, Bragg’s plan may have backfired as Pecker ended up blowing a large hole in the state’s narrative about a sinister “catch and kill” scheme by Trump to influence the 2016 election.

Pecker said he paid a doorman $30,000 for the rights to the story about Trump fathering a baby out of wedlock.

Nevertheless, Pecker said that further investigations proved that the story was false.

Pecker said he informed Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen about the rumor.

Cohen called the claim “impossible” and said Trump was willing to take a DNA test.

“He’s German-Irish and this woman is Hispanic and it’s absolutely impossible,” Cohen told Pecker.

Pecker told Cohen a DNA test would not be necessary.

He also told the court that further vetting found the story was false.

That admission did not deter prosecutors from pushing their narrative about a sinister scheme to sway the 2016 election, however.

“Why are you paying $30,000 for an untrue story?” prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked.

Slay the latest News for free!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

“Because if the story got out to another publication, it would have been embarrassing for the campaign,” Pecker said.

“So this was a way to lock it up?” Steinglass asked.

“That’s correct,” Pecker responded.

The trial centers on a $130,000 payment that Cohen supposedly made out to adult star Stormy Daniels to stay quiet about an alleged affair with Trump.

Trump has long denied having an affair with Daniels or paying her any “hush money.”

His lawyers also contend that he would have been perfectly within his rights to want her story out of the press to protect his family and reputation if he had made the payments.

Pecker’s testimony shows that Trump had good reason to be proactive about guarding his reputation from people with ulterior motives – like the doorman who pocketed $30,000 to keep quiet about something that never happened.

In short, Bragg’s whole narrative about a nefarious scheme to interfere in the election is off to a bumpy start.

The state’s own witness admits that Trump wanted to “catch and kill” a story that was false.

Trump was so confident of this that he was willing to submit DNA evidence.

Even if it were true, it isn’t a crime for Trump, or anybody, to want to suppress bad publicity.

Bragg is quickly showing the world what a sham this case really is.

READ MORE – ‘Lone Holdout’ Juror Blocked Acquittal of Arizona Rancher George Alan Kelly

SHARE:
join telegram

READERS' POLL

Who is the best president?

By completing this poll, you gain access to our free newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.

By Nick R. Hamilton

Nick has a broad background in journalism, business, and technology. He covers news on cryptocurrency, traditional assets, and economic markets.

Subscribe
Notify of

Recommended

5
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x