During a recent court proceeding, defense attorney Emil Bove questioned ex-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker about a potentially explosive story involving Donald Trump. The story in question came from Dino Sajudin, a former Trump Tower doorman, who claimed to have information about Trump fathering a child.
Bove probed Pecker about the significance of this story, asking if it could have been the biggest article ever published by the National Enquirer. Pecker acknowledged that indeed, it had the potential to be a major story.
Further pressing Pecker, Bove inquired whether the National Enquirer would have run the story if it was true. Pecker's response was a straightforward 'Uh, yes,' indicating that the publication would have proceeded with publishing the story if it had been verified.
The exchange between Bove and Pecker sheds light on the behind-the-scenes decision-making process at the National Enquirer and the potential impact of such a story on the publication and its readers. The revelation of the intended publication of this story, had it been confirmed, raises questions about the journalistic standards and practices employed by tabloid publications like the National Enquirer.
As the legal proceedings continue, the implications of this exchange may have broader implications for the media landscape and the public's perception of the National Enquirer's editorial decisions. The willingness expressed by Pecker to publish such a story underscores the tabloid's role in shaping public narratives and the ethical considerations that come into play when dealing with sensitive and potentially damaging information.
