Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Americans Divided on Fairness Of Trump Prosecutions; Soon: Trump Heads Back To Court For Hush Money Trial; New York Appeals Court Overturns Weinstein's Sex Crimes Conviction. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired April 26, 2024 - 07:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:31:57]

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Just giving you a look at a familiar scene. Live pictures outside Trump Tower in New York where the former president will soon leave from there to go to court for his criminal hush money trial.

The National Enquirer's former publisher, David Pecker, expected to face more questions during cross-examination today, and then the prosecutors will get their chance to go back at him and redirect.

Stay with CNN all day for special live coverage of that trial.

All right. ByteDance, the Chinese company that owns TikTok, insists it has no plans to sell it and calls reports indicating otherwise untrue. This week, as you know, President Biden signed a law that could lead to a nationwide ban of the app if the company continues to refuse to sell. It's part of a larger foreign aid package for Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan. Lawmakers have security concerns about TikTok's algorithm. Despite the new law, TikTok's CEO says they're not going anywhere.

And an emotional moment caught on camera. Supermodel Gisele Bundchen breaking down in tears during a traffic stop in Florida, telling police she's crying over the fact, she says, that paparazzi had been stalking and following here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GISELE BUNDCHEN, SUPERMODEL: I just want to live my life.

POLICE OFFICER: I'll give you a courtesy today.

BUNDCHEN: Thank you. I was just trying to escape from that guy.

POLICE OFFICER: I understand who you are, and I'll give you a -- there's nothing I can do about that.

BUNDCHEN: Yeah, but they're stalking me.

POLICE OFFICER: OK. Well, then, file a report with Miami Beach because it was coming from Miami Beach, OK? BUNDCHEN: OK.

POLICE OFFICER: So it's --

BUNDCHEN: There's more than (INAUDIBLE).

POLICE OFFICER: OK, so -- I'm sorry. So there's nothing I can do about that. But what do you need? Why are you crying?

BUNDCHEN: Well, (INAUDIBLE). Nothing protects me. I can't do nothing. I just want to live my life.

POLICE OFFICER: I can't -- I can't prevent them from doing their job, which is to take pictures.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: So it's not clear at this point why police actually pulled her over. But you heard there him telling here to file a report with authorities about the paparazzi who she says is stalking and following here -- Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Oh, I feel for her.

So with the first-ever criminal trial of a former U.S. president underway, a new and interesting look now on how Americans feel about this trial of Donald Trump. A new CNN poll finds only 13 percent -- just 13 percent nationwide feel that Donald Trump is being treated the same as any other defendant. And when you look within that number, most Americans, though, are divided over whether he's being treated more harshly or more leniently -- more leniently.

CNN senior political analyst Mark Preston has been going through those numbers. Leniently is a really hard word to say on television, I'm just going to say, Mark.

One question in the presidential election is whether or not voters are going to take this case into consideration when it comes to their vote. Yes, there's a lot we don't know yet and a far way to go. But what you're seeing in the numbers, is the hush money trial impacting how voters feel about him right now?

MARK PRESTON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It certainly is. And it's not only we're seeing it in the hush money trial but we're seeing it in all the other trials that he is going to face -- the federal charges that he faces as well.

[07:35:03]

Let's take a look at these numbers here, Kate. We're actually seeing an increase in support right now for President Trump over the past six months when it comes to these four cases.

Look at the hush money case right there. Almost -- that means 45 percent but it's almost half of Americans right now believe that Donald Trump would be fit for office regardless of what happens in this hush money case.

But go down that list right there and you can see the numbers. It's not a huge jump, Kate, but we're certainly seeing it trending in one way. But not all numbers are created equal and that's why we're a nation divided.

Let's look at the political breakdown on these numbers because it just kind of shows where we are as a nation. Seventy-five percent of Americans -- excuse me, of Republicans now believe that Donald Trump will be fine regardless if he is convicted up in New York. But go down the list again. You are looking at efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The classified documents case. The January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Look at where Republicans are on that. Like, well over 60 percent. Look at where Democrats are on that. They are almost in the single digits on almost every one of them, except for the hush money case, Kate. It really does show the divide.

BOLDUAN: What about in the numbers right now? Again, a snapshot in time. What do the numbers say about when the jury actually reaches a verdict in this case?

PRESTON: Well, again, we shouldn't be too surprised by this, but 56 percent of Americans don't think that it's going to be reached in a fair manner. So you have more than half of Americans don't believe that Donald Trump's going to get a fair trial up in Manhattan. Of course, we've heard him say that over and over and over again.

But, Kate, I want to go back to something that's incredibly interesting because Donald Trump famously said back in 2016 -- in January 2016 in Sioux City, Iowa, that he could go onto Fifth Avenue and -- let me just give you exactly what he said. "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shot somebody, and I wouldn't lose voters."

Well, you know what? This isn't exactly equivalent to that but it's kind of close. Let's take a look at this number right here because this really shows you where Donald Trump is with his supporters. And he truly knows his supporters, Kate. Seventy-six percent of Republicans said that even if Donald Trump is convicted of a crime, they are going to support him. Trump knows his supporters, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Are you getting a sense, though, of -- there's this 24 percent I want to talk about that has to -- talk to me about this 24 percent and --

PRESTON: Sure.

BOLDUAN: -- who these voters are, which this gets to if convicted, they are Trump supporters, but they might --

PRESTON: Right.

BOLDUAN: -- reconsider their vote. Talk to me about this. PRESTON: So the flip side of the 76 percent is that 24 percent. The 24 percent tend to be voters who lean more to the Democratic side. They tend to describe themselves more as moderates. They also tend to be non-white as well, and they also tend to be younger.

Donald Trump really has a really strong hold on his older voters. That 24 percent -- what is problematic for the Trump campaign is that if he were to lose -- that's a significant part of the electorate -- if he were to lose a significant part of that 24 percent then he potentially could lose the election -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: What we haven't seen, so far, is Donald Trump trying to reach out to those Republicans. Those could be those Nikki Haley Republicans. We haven't seen that outreach, definitely, quite yet.

It's good to see you, Mark. Thank you so much -- John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Mark Preston making his overdue debut on the morning edition of CNN --

BOLDUAN: Overdue is exactly right.

BERMAN: -- NEWS CENTRAL. But it is handsome Friday, so a good time to roll him out.

All right. Very shortly, Donald Trump will head back to a New York courtroom for his criminal trial having to do with hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and falsifying documents to cover up those hush money payments.

Back on the stand first thing this morning will be David Pecker. It will be the meat of the cross-examination.

With us now, CNN legal commentator and former Trump White House lawyer, Jim Schultz. And national security attorney, Bradley Moss. Welcome to the handsome Friday edition of CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

I want to read you part of the transcript from yesterday that could be in the jury's minds as they are waking up this morning. This is David Pecker on direct, so this is the prosecutor Josh Steinglass talking to him.

"Were you aware that expenditures by corporations made for the purpose of influencing an election, made in coordination with or at the request of a candidate or a campaign, are unlawful?" David Pecker says, "Yes."

Steinglass says, "Did either you or AMI ever report to the Federal Election Commission that AMI had made a donation (sic) to Karen -- a payment to Karen McDougal?" Pecker says, "We did not."

Steinglass says, "Why did AMI make this purchase of Karen McDougal's story?" Pecker says, "We purchased the story so it wouldn't be published any other organization."

Steinglass asks, "Why did you not want it to be published by any other organization?" Pecker says, "I didn't want -- we didn't want the story to embarrass Mr. Trump or embarrass or hurt the campaign."

Hurt the campaign.

[07:40:00]

Bradley, first to you. Why that focus? How much damage did it do to Trump as we approach cross this morning?

BRADLEY MOSS, NATIONAL SECURITY ATTORNEY, PARTNER, LAW OFFICE OF MARK S. ZAID (via Webex by Cisco): Yeah -- no. That was the meat and bones of the prosecution's case in terms of the idea that this was all tied to the campaign. That this wasn't a personal thing. This wasn't what Rudy Giuliani used to talk about -- oh, it was just to spare his family the embarrassment. No.

The entire criminal agreement between AMI and Donald Trump through Michael Cohen was to assist the campaign. To catch and kill these stories for the purpose of assisting this campaign. David Pecker, himself, knew very well this was a campaign finance violation.

But here is the catch. We're not charging him in New York with a campaign fine -- campaign finance violation. They can't because it's a state issue. They're bringing the falsification of business records. This is why this always would have been better as a federal case, but it's a state case.

So over the course of this trial as we hear from other witnesses, they're going to have to link up that falsification of business records tied to the invoices to the intent to defraud through this campaign finance violation. That's the prosecution's burden.

BERMAN: And we have not yet heard any or seen any documentation yet exactly on the falsification of business records.

Jim, to you. So, David Pecker is still on the stand and it is cross- examination. What do Donald Trump's lawyers need to do this morning?

JAMES SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: I think just continue along the lines of the questioning yesterday. They used the words "standard operating procedure" a ton of times yesterday. They're trying to -- and they also established that this whole business is a dirty business, right? This idea of -- I think they called it checkbook journalism in some of the questioning.

And then they went on to go through that they've done this with other celebrities throughout the time -- you know, the National Enquirer typically does this with celebrities is what they tried to establish. And that this is something -- they did it for Donald Trump, they did it for other celebrities. This is a standard course of business for the National Enquirer to kind of get this information and then use it for leverage for other things.

So I think they're going to continue to try to dirty up the National Enquirer, if you will, through this testimony today and continue along that -- along those lines so the jury is looking at it and saying this is just a dirty business and this is just part of politics. And that kind of feeds into the defense's opening statement and says

yes, this is politics. This is -- this is the way it works. This is nothing -- there's no crime here is what the defense is going to be arguing. And they've got -- they have to really -- they have to really dig into this through cross-examination today on those issues.

BERMAN: And again, we don't have a graph, I think ready for this, but there was that literal path that Jim just laid out there.

"You also had a relationship like this with other politicians, correct?" Pecker says, "Yes." Trump's lawyer said, "Were you aware that many politicians work with the media to try to promote their image, right?" Pecker says, "Yes."

Later, Emil Bove, the defense attorney, says, "Standard operating procedure as you understand it, correct?" Pecker says, "Yes."

So, Bradley Moss, how much does that stick? Do you think the jury will be convinced this is just standard operating procedure or, after three days of David Pecker, do you think they're left with a feeling that something unusual was going on here?

MOSS: Yeah. As much as they're going to try to hit this standard operating procedure line, this was a rather unique set of circumstances in the way they framed this agreement. I don't think anything we've heard so far on cross-examination -- and we'll have to certainly see what comes out today -- has outlined a similar set of facts comparable to what Michael Cohen and Donald Trump set up.

So as this goes through, obviously, they're going to try to dirty up the National Enquirer. It's not like they had a pristine reputation in the first place.

It becomes a question for the jury of do we view this as unique? Was this something distinguishable from the normal standard operating procedures -- the normal way the National Enquirer had operated? That's going to be the defense's job to try to prove that. I don't think they've done it yet.

BERMAN: Jim, very quickly, we also heard testimony and I'm not sure this gets to the law in any which way, but Donald Trump walking in the Rose Garden talking to David Pecker about Karen McDougal. Phone calls with White House staff -- Hope Hicks, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the now- governor or Arkansas -- to David Pecker about Karen McDougal. I mean, there's a lot of pretty tawdry stuff here.

As someone who had worked at the White House adjacent there, how do you feel about that?

SCHULTZ: So, I really think -- look, for the -- for the jurors, I think it's the defense's job here to show -- to say look, this is politics. It's nasty. It's rough and tumble. Of course, these things happen. Of course, staff are going to defend their boss. That's the burden that the -- that's what they're going to have to show.

[07:45:00] It's a burden on the prosecution to prove the case. It's the defense's job to just chip away a little bit to catch a juror or two who might buy into their theory.

BERMAN: Talking to a tabloid to buy a story from a former Playboy playmate just how the framer's intended -- standard operating procedure.

Jim Schultz, Bradley Moss, thanks so much for being with us this morning -- Sara.

SIDNER: All right. A big night in Detroit for round one of the blockbuster NFL Draft, even scoring a "W" for the history books.

CNN's Andy Scholes has the highlights for us.

ANDY SCHOLES, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: Well, Sara, the first round last night was all about offense. The first 14 picks were all on the offensive side of the ball. Five of the top 10 picks were quarterbacks. Six of the top 12. We've never seen that before.

And it all started with the Bears at number one.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGER GOODELL, COMMISSIONER, NFL: With the first pick in the 2024 NFL Draft, the Chicago Bears select Caleb Williams, quarterback, Southern California.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHOLES: And no surprise there. The Bears taking 2022 Heisman Trophy winner Caleb Williams first overall. And Chicago fans hoping they finally have a star quarterback. The Bears have never had a QB throw for 4,000 yards in their 103-year history.

And the future is here in more ways than one. Williams joining the Bears' draft party on stage via hologram. That was pretty cool.

Now, the shocker of the draft coming quickly at pick number eight. The Atlanta Falcons selecting Washington quarterback Michael Penix Jr. No one had Penix to the Falcons at eight, especially since they just signed Kirk Cousins to a four-year, $180 million deal this offseason. So that was certainly a headscratcher.

Here was your top 10 picks. Half of them, again, were quarterbacks for the first time ever. The Vikings traded up to 10 to take Michigan's J.J. McCarthy. Quarterback Bo Nix also went 12th to the Denver Broncos.

Now, the draft is going to continue tonight with rounds two and three. And just look at the crowd they had for night one in Detroit. The NFL says an estimated 275,000 fans showed up, just smashing the attendance record for the event. The previous record was set at the 2018 draft in Nashville with about 200,000 in the crowd. And, Sara, it's just another sign of just how popular the NFL has

become. Hundreds of thousands of people showing up just to hear names read off of a card.

SIDNER: It's pretty cool still. Andy Scholes, great report.

Kate, I just have to tell you, I went to an NFL draft with my husband --

BOLDUAN: You did?

SIDNER: -- and it was really fun.

BOLDUAN: Did it live up?

SIDNER: You know what I loved?

BOLDUAN: What?

SIDNER: When the football players -- these big guys are running out and you see them running out and they jump into the arms, every now and then, of the commissioner because they're so excited.

BOLDUAN: OK. No, this is important. This is important. Do you know that Roger Goodell had back surgery just weeks ago? He had back surgery weeks ago and there's a lot of talk --

SIDNER: And --

BOLDUAN: -- about what are they going to do. I saw some being kindly gentle -- as a woman who just had back surgery as well. But was it J.C. Latham, like, bear-hugged?

SIDNER: Yeah.

BOLDUAN: I gasped when I saw it.

SIDNER: I'm like, be careful with him.

BOLDUAN: And I really hope Roger has a good P.T. today.

SIDNER: That's a good point.

BOLDUAN: OK, we will continue.

SIDNER: We will continue.

BOLDUAN: We'll watch the draft tonight.

All right. Coming up still for us, what happens now that Harvey Weinstein's New York rape conviction was overturned? And the painful chapter that it has reopened for the women who spoke out against him. We have more details on what is all happening there.

And we are also about to get new economic data. Worries about inflation peaked yesterday after the first-quarter GDP report. Is there a reason to worry?

And on this week's all-new episode of "THE WHOLE STORY WITH ANDERSON COOPER," CNN's Donie O'Sullivan looks at how conspiracy theories and online misinformation are already impacting this year's presidential campaign. It all airs Sunday at 8:00 Eastern and Pacific on CNN, of course.

Here is a preview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIAN LIGHTFOOT, TRUMP SUPPORTER: The job of a journalist is to ask the questions, allow the person to speak, and just report the facts -- what was spoken. Would you like for me to pull up the definition of journalist?

DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's OK, but thank you, Julian.

LIGHTFOOT: OK. I have a God-given right to speak my own truth.

O'SULLIVAN: But there are facts, right?

LIGHTFOOT: The facts have shown that the election was stolen. Whether you're willing to look at that and accept that and really show what's going on, that's your issue, not ours. We want the God-given freedom that our Constitution and our Bill of Rights is based on.

O'SULLIVAN: God-given constitutional rights.

LIGHTFOOT: Yes.

O'SULLIVAN: They are two different things, right?

LIGHTFOOT: No, sir, they're not. Read -- R-E-A-D --

O'SULLIVAN: Yeah.

LIGHTFOOT: -- the Constitution. Read it out loud to yourself --

O'SULLIVAN: Uh-huh.

LIGHTFOOT: -- so that you hear what the words of the Constitution say.

O'SULLIVAN: God isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

LIGHTFOOT: Sir (silence).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[07:50:05]

(COMMERCIAL)

BOLDUAN: Also -- this morning, women who accused Harvey Weinstein of horrible things -- they are speaking out, calling the news of Weinstein's new trial in New York disheartening and profoundly unjust.

Ashley Judd, one of the first women to publicly accuse Weinstein of sexual harassment, says learning his conviction was overturned is "an act of institutional betrayal."

Now, the infamous Hollywood producer who was found guilty of two sex crimes four years ago in New York -- on Thursday, the New York Court of Appeals overturned that conviction and ordered a new trial.

[07:55:00]

Let's get over to CNN's Jean Casarez. She has much more on this for us. So, Jean, let's start with why was this conviction overturned?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, Kate, first, let's say the court did not find him innocent at all, and that is an important thing here. It's what the judge allowed in the trial. Prosecutors asked for many things. The judge allowed those things to come in the trial.

And what the highest court of New York said is here's what it did -- that is stripped a defendant of a right. He has a presumption of innocence until the case goes to the jury, and that was gone, the appellate court said, before it went to the jury. And also, a right to a fair trial and his due process rights were violated.

Number one: they said no witnesses are allowed in New York. Now, all across the country, they're called prior bad act witnesses. And in Weinstein's case, four of them took the stand. It was very difficult for them to testify as to sexual crimes they say Weinstein committed against them. Now, this did not go toward the charges. It was mentioned in the indictment. But prosecutors got those four in.

And it is appropriate to show certain things like a pattern of conduct. But the appellate court said you had three accusers. Then, judge, you allowed four more to come in. And there were so many that there was no presumption of innocence when the jury got that case. He was guilty already. That was number one.

Number two: if Weinstein had decided to take the stand, the judge ruled that only would he be cross-examined on all four of those, but he would also be cross-examined on things he did in the workplace. Throwing food in somebody's face. Bullying employees. The court said no relevance. And because of that, the jury was denied to hear his testimony because he stayed silent because he wasn't going to take the stand under those circumstances.

And the difficult thing is, though, that these women that had to take the stand and they gave their stories -- Mirian Haley -- Gloria Allred represented the one victim. There was a conviction and she would have to take the stand again. And Gloria Allred said in a statement that she is -- she will try to take the stand again if there is a retrial.

But obviously, this is difficult and it's a shock to so many. But he's not innocent, the court said. The blame is really on the judge allowing too much into the trial. BOLDUAN: Yeah. We're seeing some of Glora Allred's statement there and what's she saying about what this does.

Jean, it's great to see you. Thank you very much for that -- Sara.

SIDNER: All right. Joining me now to discuss is defense attorney Misty Marris.

First off, you watched this trial extremely closely -- all the details of this trial. Were you surprised? The public was surprised by this. Were you surprised by this?

MISTY MARRIS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY, TRIAL ATTORNEY: So having watched this trial and being a New York practitioner, the prior bad act evidence and when that can come in -- it is a very, very narrow set of circumstances that can come into the trial.

So while I had a feeling he was going to get convicted, I think many lawyers who were watching this had the same impression that they -- there would be a pretty good appellate argument for Harvey Weinstein in New York.

SIDNER: So not a big surprise to you because of all of the issues that were let into and the witnesses let into this case.

I do want to ask you if there is another appellate case that you can kind of compare this to.

MARRIS: The closest is Bill Cosby. Everybody was shocked when that case got overturned but it's the same principle.

Basically, prior bad act evidence, meaning uncharged crimes -- things that don't have to with a case in principle -- can only come in if it's to show a propensity and modus operandi relating to that conduct. It can't come into impugn the defendant's character.

And so, it's a fine line as to whether or not that evidence can actually come in. Witnesses can testify. And in some of these cases -- Bill Cosby and, now, Harvey Weinstein -- appellate courts have found the judges went too far. They let too much in and ultimately, that impacted the rights of the defendant.

Keep in mind, Sara, it's not just Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein. It sets a standard for any other criminal defendant. And that's why the appellate courts are very strict about when this type of evidence can come into the courtroom.

SIDNER: And prosecutors will really have to think through this, but judges will also be paying a lot of attention --

MARRIS: Um-hum.

SIDNER: -- because judges do not like being overturned --

MARRIS: No.

SIDNER: -- for sure.

I do want to ask you about what this means for Harvey Weinstein's time in jail. There is this appellate court ruling, right, that says that this has to be retried. But he also has a case in California where he was convicted of rape and sexual assault there.

What does it mean for him?

MARRIS: So, as far as California, the New York decision is not binding. Now, the challenge to the California case -- it's going to be a very, very similar challenge but it will be governed by California law, so the standard is slightly different.

As of now, New York -- the case needs to be retried in order for a conviction and would have to be starting from ground zero.

SIDNER: Right.

MARRIS: But he's now under California jurisdiction where he was sentenced to 16 years.

SIDNER: So the law there quite different from the law -- or different from the law in New York or maybe not so narrow. But still, it is something that he is going to use for an appeal.

MARRIS: It's a viable challenge in California as well.