Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Deadly Turbulence on Singapore Airlines Jet; Both Sides Rest in Trump Hush Money Trial. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired May 21, 2024 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:41]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: The defense has rested, testimony has wrapped, and Donald Trump, notably, did not take the stand.

I'm Boris Sanchez, alongside Jessica Dean, in the nation's capital.

And, soon, the judge and attorneys for both sides are expected to go back to go over jury instructions in this historic criminal hush money trial of the former president. Earlier today, jurors were dismissed for the week, the judge telling them to be ready for closing arguments next Tuesday.

It comes after the defense's second and final witness, attorney Robert Costello, took the stand for a second day. And, once again, the former adviser to Michael Cohen faced some tough cross-examination.

JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: Prosecutors use Costello's e-mails in an attempt to show he made several efforts to stop Cohen from flipping and assured him that he had a back channel to Trump.

One e-mail dated April 19 of 2018 indicated Trump's former lawyer Rudy Giuliani was joining Trump's team. And Costello wrote to Cohen -- quote -- "I am sure you saw the news that Rudy is joining the Trump legal team. I told you my relationship with Rudy, which could be very, very useful for you."

Costello denied that he was pushing Cohen to retain him because he could provide a back channel to Trump.

CNN's Kara Scannell has been in court throughout this entire trial.

Kara, any reaction from the jury when the defense rested today?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, there was no reaction at that moment when they rested.

But this pattern that you were describing with the prosecutor confronting Robert Costello with an e-mail and then the prosecutor, Susan Hoffinger, would ask Costello, citing words he used yesterday, saying, "It speaks for itself, right?"

There was one moment where Costello said "Not quite." And he went on to try to explain it, and the prosecutor said, that's all right. We will move on. That elicited some laughs in the courtroom. And I saw some smiles across the faces of some of the jurors.

But, for the most part, throughout this trial, now in its sixth week, this jury has been poker-faced. They haven't revealed much about what they have thought of the testimony, and the judge telling them today that they are going home for a week and that they come back next Tuesday for closing arguments. He warned them that that could go all day. It's possible it could even go into Wednesday.

But he said he would expect them to work on Wednesday. This trial is normally not sat on Wednesdays. So he would hope that they would work, and then they could begin deliberations in this historic case -- guys.

SANCHEZ: So, Kara, what can we expect in the next hour?

SCANNELL: So, this afternoon's session is very important. It's going to be in the weeds. It's very legally -- the lawyers are going to argue back and forth about what the judge should explain to the jury about the law in this case.

And this will be the instructions the judge gives the jury about what they need to find in order to decide if former President Donald Trump is guilty or if he is innocent and the prosecution has not met its burden. So these words, these instructions are going to be very important.

And the judge has asked the parties, both the prosecutors and Trump's team, for the past several days and weeks to come together to try to come up with some language they can agree on. And so today is going to be hammering out those areas where they still do not have agreement on some of this language.

Key elements here, this is a case where Trump is charged with falsifying business records to commit or conceal another crime. And the issue here is, what are those other crimes and what will the jury be told about them?

The judge said the other day that he wanted to keep this as simple as possible. He didn't think they needed to overcomplicate it. And he asked the parties to come together and give submissions to him. He got them this morning. He thanked them for it. And we're going to get into the nitty-gritty of that this afternoon before -- and this will be the makeup of what the judge charges the jury with just before they leave the room to begin deliberations next week.

DEAN: All right, Kara Scannell for us, thanks so much for that update.

And CNN senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elie Honig is here with us now.

Elie, now that the defense has rested its case, can you walk us through some of the key moments of what has been an historic trial?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Jessica, as Kara said, we are about to get into some weeds here, but the really important weeds, I think they're interesting weeds. Let's just first take stock of where we are in the trial process. The

defense case is done. They finished with Bob Costello. There was no prosecution rebuttal case. They can put one on, but they chose not to. And we're going to next week move into the endgame, which will consist of closing arguments by the parties, followed by the judge's instructions to the jury, followed finally by the jury deliberations.

Now, what's going to have to happen this afternoon is, the parties are going to get together with the judge, no jury there, and they're going to talk about what those jury instructions will be. This is a really important moment, because it -- it determines how the jury will deliberate.

[13:05:12]

Now, the first thing that the parties are going to do is have the judge define the actual crime. Let me bring you back to the indictment itself, the charges here against Donald Trump, falsifying business records in the first-degree. There are 34 counts, one for each ledger entry, check and invoice in the case.

Now, there are two elements, two components of that crime that the judge is going to instruct the jury on. First of all, the prosecution has to prove that Donald Trump knowingly made or caused a false entry in the business records. Each of those records will be its own count.

And to that extent, the prosecution is going to point to the documents. Here's the checks signed by Donald Trump. Here's the invoices made out to retainer. And the allegation is, those were falsified because they were actually campaign-related fees, not legal fees.

The second element of the crime that the judge is going to instruct the jury is that the intent here was to commit, aid or conceal another crime. This is really important, because we don't quite know, from the prosecution's point of view, what is that other crime?

We should find out this afternoon. The prosecution has alluded to federal campaign finance crimes, state-level campaign finance crimes, and, in passing, tax fraud. I suspect that's going to fall away. So, we should know by the end of today what that other crime is.

A couple of other really important points that always get made during a jury instruction. First of all, the prosecution carries the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the highest standard of proof in our entire legal system, uncontroversial, but important.

The judge also will instruct the jurors when they come back next week that it is up to them to assess the credibility of each individual witness, most importantly, Michael Cohen, also Stormy Daniels, David Pecker, and the defense witness, Robert Costello.

There also will be conversation later today about,what does the judge tell the jury about missing witnesses, important people, Allen Weisselberg, the CFO of the Trump Org, Keith Schiller, the bodyguard who received some important calls from Michael Cohen? Does the judge instruct the jury that you can hold it against either

party or both parties that they were not called as witnesses? And, finally, Jessica and Boris, the judge will instruct the jury that Donald Trump has a right not to testify. They cannot use that against him in any way. That is our Fifth Amendment. Again, that part will be uncontroversial, but really important to the judge's instruction.

So what we're going to see this afternoon is crucial, and it will set the table for next week, when we finally get our jury into that back room to deliberate and then return a verdict.

SANCHEZ: Elie, thanks so much for breaking that down for us. We will see you here at the desk in just a moment.

Let's bring in the rest of our panel now. CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams is with us, also CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger, and CNN political director David Chalian.

Gloria, I want to start with you, because this question of assessing credibility by the jury, specifically of Bob Costello, he wrapped up his testimony today. He was asked about his relationship with Michael Cohen, his relationship with Rudy Giuliani.

And he specifically pushed back on this idea that he was a back channel to Donald Trump.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Mm-hmm.

SANCHEZ: What do you think the defense was trying to get at with his testimony?

BORGER: Well, I -- look, they -- they -- I think, whatever they were trying to get at, they didn't succeed, because he was trying to take down Michael Cohen and say that Michael Cohen was a liar.

But what some of these e-mails showed, in fact, was that Bob Costello was trying to get Michael Cohen's business and was promoting himself as a back channel to Rudy Giuliani, then AKA good friend of Donald Trump and his attorney, and that, stay within us, within the clan. You are loved. We will protect you.

And so he came on the stand to discredit Michael Cohen, but, instead, I think he discredited himself.

DEAN: David, prosecutors question Costello about this pressure campaign on Cohen from Trump out and there -- or from Trump allies back in 2018 about getting everyone on the same page, getting everyone in alignment.

What does it say to you about what was happening at that moment in time?

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Well, it was saying that Trump and his allies were concerned that Michael Cohen was going to flip. And he did. And so I think that that was a real concern at the time. And I think

that's why the defense using this witness was a little bizarre to me, because it takes Michael Cohen and all of his flaws and facts and what have you, however the jury's going to assess that, though, and it reminds them, it seems to me, that this was somebody who was once in Donald Trump's orbit and then flipped and had a story to tell for the prosecution here.

I don't know that that's the reinforcing thing that the defense in this case wanted to put forward to the jury.

SANCHEZ: Elliot you agree with that?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I do.

It's -- you know, it's -- it's -- the prosecution is ultimately -- or doing cases is ultimately an exercise in using a scalpel, not a hatchet. And this whole question of what did Robert Costello actually bring that hadn't already been brought over weeks of testimony, if the question were Michael Cohen's credibility and poking holes in it?

[13:10:16]

And that's largely the purpose of why they called Robert Costello in the first place. That had largely been done over the several days prior. Now, you can make the argument that, through Robert Costello, perhaps you heard about Michael Cohen stealing from the Trump Organization or -- does that really add much to week -- two weeks of testimony about this witness' credibility?

So it invites the question of what the defense actually gained from putting this witness on the stand. And I would make the argument that they actually lost a little bit, because they, number one, got under the judge's skin, and, number two, in front of the presence of the jury, actually saw a witness disrespecting the judge.

So, in many respects, it just -- it wasn't a net positive for the defense to call this witness, I think.

DEAN: Yes.

And, Elie, it does come back really to credibility, right? Who do you -- who do these jurors believe? Who do they think is telling the truth? Who is the most credible, right?

HONIG: Yes.

DEAN: And so -- and so I'm curious what you think about Costello and how he kind of falls in to that lineup of witnesses?

HONIG: Not -- not credible. I think Bob Costello was not a credible witness, for the reasons Elliot said.

I mean, first of all, he has motive. Second of all, his conduct that they brought out was really not good conduct. I mean, he's trying to keep Michael Cohen from coming into the government and cooperating. Third of all, they contradicted Bob Costello with his own e-mails. I found him to be not at all a credible witness.

And thinking back to all of the witnesses in this case, I think the total number was 22 different witnesses. I really think, in my view, at least -- interested maybe what other people think -- I only think there was two witnesses that I -- that I found with substantial credibility issues, Costello, as I just said, and, of course, Michael Cohen.

Whether one fully believes him or not, the guy has serious credibility issues. Maybe Stormy Daniels, but I didn't find anything too outrageous about what she said. But I think the jury is going to be focused on really Michael Cohen, above -- above and beyond all else, because, let's be real, Bob Costello was a terrible way to end this.

You leave a bad taste in the jury's mouth. But Michael Cohen's testimony is a hundred times more important to this case than Bob Costello's testimony. The guy -- I won't even rehash it. We know. He lied to everyone. He made a bunch of money off this. It turns out he stole from the Trump Org.

So the question is, can they live with it? Can they live with it, based on the other evidence?

WILLIAMS: It's important just to clarify, just for the non-former prosecutors in the crowd, what we mean when we say credibility issues.

HONIG: Yes.

WILLIAMS: Every witness has credibility issues. And even do you remember the thing you saw when you said you saw the robber running down the street is itself a question about the witnesses' credibility, because you're poking holes in what they saw and can testify to at the time.

Anything like a prior conviction, prior instances of lying on the stand, prior instances of lying to your wife can be credibility issues. They're not insurmountable. People are convicted all the time over the testimony of witnesses who have credibility issues.

But it's not this binary Michael Cohen's credible and Costello is not. It's every -- we're human and have a jumble of things in our backgrounds that could be used to poke at holes in what we say under oath.

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: Can I just say, if it were up to the attorneys, to Donald Trump's attorneys alone, about whether they were going to make their witness Bob Costello at the end of the trial, I think, if you took a poll of his attorneys, the answer would be, no, we don't want to do this.

WILLIAMS: You think it was directed by...

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

BORGER: There's one person left.

And I think it was directed by the client, Donald Trump. And Costello has appeared on FOX News dumping all over Michael Cohen. The president is known to watch some television. And I think it was his idea all the way.

I can't prove that 100 percent. But those lawyers are too good, I think, to say, oh, yes, this is a great idea.

WILLIAMS: But, you know, it's -- it's -- we might -- we can chuckle about Donald Trump and his Donald Trumpiness.

At the end of the day, it is the client's decision...

BORGER: Of course.

WILLIAMS: ... about how to proceed in any litigation.

Now, reasonable attorneys will advise a client to say, that is a bad idea and against your own legal interest to proceed in that way. But it really is his decision.

SANCHEZ: And perhaps they did that if Trump actually did want to testify. He said publicly things that would indicate that he was eager to, maybe not as much behind closed doors.

Do you think this was a compromise between he and his attorneys...

(CROSSTALK)

CHALIAN: Donald Trump has a history of saying through...

(LAUGHTER)

CHALIAN: ... many of his litigation efforts here that he is eager to testify.

SANCHEZ: Right.

CHALIAN: And he hasn't testified all that much.

SANCHEZ: Right.

CHALIAN: So I'm a little dubious about taking Trump at his word that he really wanted to testify in this case.

But there's no doubt we have seen -- and it's not just in this example. We have seen time and again where the Trump legal team and the client are not on the same page. And there needs -- and there's some massaging there that goes on.

And, as Elliot just pointed out, the client, at the end of the day, is the one that's going to win that battle.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

[13:15:00]

DEAN: They're paying the fees.

SANCHEZ: They are.

(CROSSTALK)

CHALIAN: Well, there are questions about that too.

(CROSSTALK)

DEAN: Well, yes.

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

DEAN: Fair. Fair. Fair.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: ... there.

DEAN: In theory.

SANCHEZ: That is a conversation perhaps for another panel.

David, Gloria, Elliot, Elie, appreciate the perspective. Thank you all for being with us.

We're going to stay on top of this trial and bring you updates as they happen.

Still ahead this hour on CNN NEWS CENTRAL: As both sides rest, we're going to talk to a former attorney for Donald Trump about the defense's decision to call just two witnesses.

DEAN: Plus: One person is dead, dozens more injured, some critically, after a flight from London to Singapore hit severe turbulence. We have got new details about how it happened, as video from inside the plane reveals the chaos.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:20:03]

DEAN: A Singapore Airlines flight hit such severe turbulence today, a 73-year-old British man with a heart condition died on board that plane. More than 70 people were hurt, six of them critically. That's according to hospital officials.

And images show the ceiling of the cabin, you see there, broken open, food strung on the floor, oxygen masks deployed. SANCHEZ: A 28-year-old passenger told Reuters -- quote -- "Some

people hit their heads on the baggage cabins overhead and dented it. They hit the places where lights and masks are and broke straight through it."

The Boeing 777 was heading from London to Singapore when the turbulence hit.

CNN's Gabe Cohen joins us now with the details.

Gabe, the turbulence hit just as people were starting to eat breakfast.

GABE COHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right.

This was near the end of the flight. The plane was making its way over Myanmar, where we know there were some thunderstorms in the area. We don't know if that was the cause at this point. But we do have some flight data from the plane that indicates -- it shows it was making these really violent, sudden maneuvers as this was flying out.

We see the plane drop, and then suddenly climb, and then drop again, and then climb again, all of that within about 90 seconds or so. And then you can see the plane start to reroute and make its way toward Bangkok, where it made that emergency landing.

And then there are those images that we're now seeing that you mentioned that show the significant damage inside the cabin of the plane, parts of the ceiling and the luggage compartments that collapsed, objects that were thrown about the cabin, of course, the passengers who flew out of their seats, as you described before.

We have also seen medics carrying passengers out on stretchers. This was not just a violent scene, but quite an emotional scene, according to the testimony from the head of Bangkok's airport.

Let's take a listen. Here's a little bit of what he told us about what happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KITTIPONG KITTIKACHORN, DIRECTOR, SUVARNABHUMI AIRPORT (through translator): The plane landed at the airport, and the medical team was sent to the scene. Many injuries occurred,so the airport had to issue an emergency plan.

All our teams went to help and also found one man had died. This kind of incident rarely happens where there is death after a plane has hit with severe turbulence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: And so now, guys, there's an investigation under way.

Of course, it is being led at this point by the Singapore Ministry of Transport, presumably because this was a Singapore Airlines flight. We also know, as you mentioned, this was a Boeing plane, a 777. Boeing has been under the microscope, of course, because of safety issues in recent months.

To be clear, at this point, there is no indication that this was any sort of Boeing issue, but the company has already said they're in touch with the airline and they're ready to assist in any way needed.

DEAN: It is such a sobering reminder, just 90 seconds causing that much damage, that many injuries.

COHEN: Yes. And imagine what people went through during those 90 seconds.

DEAN: Totally. And it must have felt like forever that it was happening.

But we know this one gentleman died as a result and that many others were injured. Do we know the extent of the other injuries as well?

COHEN: Yes, so 71 people were injured, including at least one American who was on the plane.

Six of those injuries were considered critical injuries, according to the hospital where they were taken. There's reports of broken bones. You mentioned head injuries, we know a lot of cuts and bruises. We will certainly know more in the coming hours about the extent of those injuries.

And, look, to be clear, turbulence is really common. It's the number one cause of injuries on flights. But this type of these severe injuries are extremely rare.

DEAN: Yes.

COHEN: There has only been one other person killed because of turbulence on a commercial flight since 2016, that according to the International Civil Aviation Organization.

So, there are going to be a lot of questions as to why this -- in this case, there was such an extreme impact.

DEAN: Mm-hmm.

SANCHEZ: And, Gabe Cohen, thanks so much for those details.

We want to turn now to Miles O'Brien. He's a CNN aviation analyst. He's now the science correspondent for "PBS NewsHour" as well.

Miles, thanks so much for being with us.

What do you think happened here, and what could have caused this turbulence to seemingly come from out of nowhere?

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: Well, Boris, we could be talking about what is known as clear air turbulence. And it's an insidious thing because, as the name implies, it's

invisible. What we're talking about is aircraft flying up in what we call the jet stream. These are rivers of air that can flow at hundreds of miles per hour. And, frequently, what happens is, there's -- it's kind of like a layer cake.

And one layer is going in one direction, and the other layer is going in another direction. And as the aircraft flies through it, there's a significant drop in lift, which causes what we call turbulence. The problem is, there's no sensor on the aircraft or any weather forecasting that can predict this.

We do know, if we see cumulus clouds and thunderstorms, pilots will thread their way around it. But unless you get what's known as a PIREP, a pilot report, from somebody ahead of you, saying, hey, there's turbulence here, don't fly at this altitude, you don't have much warning in many cases.

[13:25:07]

DEAN: And, obviously, everyone's instructed when they get on a plane to buckle their seat belts. The seat belt sign is on. That's a very familiar refrain.

There's a reason for that, as we see right now. But is there anything else a person can do to help protect themselves should they encounter violent turbulence like this?

O'BRIEN: Well, that's right there at the top of the list.

When you're in your seat, please, by all means, buckle up. The individuals who are seated, just sitting there watching a movie and who weren't buckled in were making an assumption that they were on their couch in their living room. And you are, after all, five or six miles above the planet in a (AUDIO GAP) metal tube approaching the speed of sound.

You have to respect the technology and physics of where you are and at least buckle your seat belt. Other than that, try to watch out for those signs when the pilot puts on that "Buckle your seat belt" sign. Do your best not to get up and -- but, sometimes, nature calls, especially on a 12-hour flight.

Statistically -- you got to go when you got to go, there's no question. But, statistically, it's kind of like worrying about getting hit by lightning. But you can at least increase your chances of getting through this by staying buckled in your seat.

SANCHEZ: That's such important context. You're in a metal tube...

DEAN: It is.

SANCHEZ: ... five to six miles above the Earth going at the speed of sound. Important to keep your seat belt on.

Miles, what happens next in the investigation? O'BRIEN: Well, the first thing they're going to do is, they're going

to check this aircraft out very thoroughly.

Any time an aircraft like this goes through what we call severe turbulence, which clearly this was, they need to make sure there hasn't been significant fatigue to the structure. It's possible the aircraft will be a total loss in this case, if it was enough stress on it.

Marching forward, I think the industry has to push for technological solutions, better forecasting, better ways of identifying this. It should be noted that there is a climate change component to this. Scientists have been looking at this issue of clear air turbulence over the past decade or so, and the numbers of incidences of severe turbulence over the North Atlantic are up 55 percent.

And this has something to do with the jet stream flows changing, causing more wind shear, which is what causes that turbulence. So it's a difficult thing to predict for, but I think more study needs to be done, clearly.

DEAN: All right, Miles O'Brien, always great to have you on. Thanks so much.

Former President Donald Trump didn't testify in his criminal trial, but he -- should he have? We're going to talk to one of his former attorneys, as both sides rest their cases.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)