The Orwellian trial of Donald Trump in Manhattan is taking an even more bizarre turn now that the jury has been seated and it's gotten underway. The opening statements went largely as expected, but now the prosecution has begun calling witnesses. The people they are delivering leave much to be desired. The first one to take the stand was David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid. He is scheduled to talk about Trump's supposed "catch and kill" strategy of buying the rights to stories that might paint him in an unfavorable light and then burying them. The prosecutors are trying to portray this strategy as "election interference" in an effort to find something to convict Trump of in the middle of a presidential election. But Mr. Pecker is hardly the bastion of truth and justice that the prosecution hopes to present to the jury. (Associated Press)

A longtime tabloid publisher was expected Tuesday to tell jurors about his efforts to help Donald Trump stifle unflattering stories during the 2016 campaign as testimony resumes in the historic hush money trial of the former president.

David Pecker, the former National Enquirer publisher who prosecutors say worked with Trump and Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, on a so-called “catch-and-kill” strategy to buy up and then spike negative stories during the campaign, testified briefly Monday and will be back on the stand Tuesday in the Manhattan trial.

Also Tuesday, prosecutors are expected to tell a judge that Trump should be held in contempt over a series of posts on his Truth Social platform that they say violated an earlier gag order barring him from attacking witnesses in the case. Trump’s lawyers deny that he broke the order.

Alvin Bragg's people are trying to build a sand castle while the tide is already coming in. I'm not sure who thought it was a good idea to put David Pecker on the stand, but the defense should have a field day with this. First of all, the prosecution is claiming that it was somehow illegal to purchase the rights to a story and then not run it. If that's the case, then Pecker is the person who agreed to bury the story. Why isn't he being put on trial for election interference?

Then there is the question of witness credibility. We're talking about the National Enquirer here. This is the same publication that ran with a front page headline titled "Redneck aliens take over trailer park." CNN even produced a film describing the publication as "the most infamous tabloid in American history." (Actually, I think Weekly World News is the frontrunner in that race, but the National Enquirer is a close second.) And this is the guy they are putting on the stand to describe Trump as being the bad guy in all of this?

Of course, we might have a bit of sympathy for the prosecution here because it's not as if they have a lineup of upright citizens to put before the jury. Their upcoming star witness is Michael Cohen, a person who has literally been put in prison for lying under oath. He's also the man who made the payment to Stormy Daniels, allegedly on Trump's behalf. Yet Cohen is not being charged with election interference.

Once all of the sordid details have been aired, the prosecution will have to convince the jury that Donald Trump somehow broke the law by paying Michael Cohen to secure a deal with Stormy Daniels and recording the payments as "legal fees." What else do you call payments to a lawyer for taking care of a transaction? Of course, this is New York City, so it remains entirely possible that the jurors would convict Trump no matter what happened during the trial. But there are two attorneys on the jury. I can't imagine that they are feeling very comfortable with the idea of falsely convicting someone just so they can stick it to the Bad Orange Man. And it's worth remembering that even if the entire jury won't vote to acquit Trump, it only takes one person to create a deadlock and toss the entire case back to the starting line. I still believe that Donald Trump's chances of receiving a fair trial in Manhattan are quite low, but after seeing these developments, I don't think that number is zero any longer.