Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

Major ‘Hush-Money’ Witness Reveals Inconsistencies In FBI Report

The details of this case are murky, to say the least.

David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid, was recently grilled by President Trump’s attorneys and claimed that a 2018 FBI report contained inconsistencies.

More specifically, the 2018 FBI report indicated that President Trump did not thank Pecker for allegedly suppressing stories to help bolster his campaign.

However, in his recent testimony, Pecker claimed that the former President did thank him and said that the FBI report must be wrong.

This casts doubt on the FBI’s account and its investigation into this entire case. If such a detail wasn’t correct, what else isn’t correct?

Moreover, Pecker’s testimony in, and of, itself is littered with inconsistencies. Here’s more on Pecker’s testimony:

The Epoch Times noted that President Trump’s legal team found inconsistencies within Pecker’s testimony:

Also Friday, Mr. Bove walked Mr. Pecker through his testimony yesterday, highlighting discrepancies of detail.

He had said that President Trump never thanked him for the deal with a doorman, but Mr. Pecker also had said President Trump said “I want to thank you for the doorman situation.”

According to Travis Media Group: “David Pecker just testified that he’s the one who told Trump women might come to him with stories, because Trump was such a popular bachelor who dated the most beautiful women.

Apparently Trump was just planning a campaign run, but Pecker and Cohen were the ones worried about women coming forward.

Does the prosecution realize they just made themselves look ridiculous? Their key witness just said Trump didn’t even come up with any of this.”

According to The Associated Press:

Under cross-examination, Trump’s lawyers appeared to be laying the groundwork to make the argument that any dealings Trump had with Pecker were intended to protect Trump, his reputation and his family — not his campaign.

The defense also sought to show that the National Enquirer was publishing negative stories about Trump’s 2016 rival, Hillary Clinton, long before an August 2015 meeting that is central to the case.


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!