Because of negative reports

Witness confirms explosive deal in Trump trial

Things could get tight for Trump in the criminal proceedings against him - he could face several years in prison.(Bild: AP/DailyMail.com/Curtis Means)

A key witness in the trial against Donald Trump over hush money for a porn actress confirmed on Tuesday that he had helped the former US president to remove unpleasant stories before the 2016 US election. The ex-president's defense strategy is thus faltering in court.

David Pecker, the former publisher of the tabloid "National Enquirer", which is close to Trump, said in court in New York on Tuesday that he had taken part in a meeting with Trump and his lawyer Michael Cohen in mid-August 2015.

There, Pecker promised to immediately report all negative rumors about Trump or "about women who want to sell stories" to lawyer Cohen. This would allow Cohen to "eliminate" potentially damaging reports.

It's all about hush money
The indictment accuses Trump of trying to influence the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election by paying 130,000 dollars in hush money to sex actress Daniels. Although the transaction itself was not illegal, Trump falsified business documents when reimbursing the money to his lawyer Cohen in order to conceal its actual purpose, according to the allegations. This is the first criminal trial against an ex-president in US history.

Trump could face several years in prison if convicted, but the sentence could also be suspended. A fine would also be possible. The case could influence the US election campaign. Trump wants to be re-elected president in November. He had pleaded not guilty.

Everything for better electoral success?
By questioning Pecker, the prosecution wants to support its claim that Trump's aim was to protect his election campaign from negative reports in order to have a better chance in the vote in November 2016.

This is intended to counter a possible argument by the defense that Trump's payment to porn star Daniels was merely intended to avert damage to his family, i.e. that it was merely a private payment unrelated to the US election.