Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CNN International: Stormy Daniels Resumes Testimony In Trump Hush Money Trial; IDF Takes Control Of Palestinian Side Of Rafah Crossing; Putin Sworn In For Fifth Term As Russian President; U.S. Soldier Detained In Russia Over Suspected Theft. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired May 07, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:44]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: It is 8:00 p.m. in London, 10:00 p.m. in Tel Aviv, 10:00 p.m. in Moscow as well, 3:00 p.m. here in New York. I'm Jim Sciutto and thanks so much for joining me today on CNN NEWSROOM, and let's get right to the news.

At this hour, we continue to follow developments inside Gaza as Israel now controls the key Rafah crossing with Egypt, as well as the ongoing diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire. We're going to more on that in just a moment.

We do begin in that courthouse just behind me on the 15th floor with one of the most anticipated days of this trial well underway. Stormy Daniels, the woman at the center of Trump's criminal hush money trial, is now on the stand. In over two hours of testimony, she has gone into great detail about her meeting and alleged affair with Donald Trump in 2006, which he still denies.

Now, she is laying out the specifics of the hush money deal when she was paid $130,000 to keep quiet paid by Trump's fixer, Michael Cohen, right before, and this is key, before the 2016 presidential election. Those payments are at the heart of these 34 felony charges of falsifying business records, those charges against Trump.

Less than an hour ago, the judge denied a defense motion for a mistrial. The defense had argued that Stormy Daniels testimony went too far.

Joining me now, Jessica Schneider, with the very latest from the courtroom.

And, Jessica, some quite contentious moments in there, quite detailed testimony from Stormy Daniels and objections from the defense. Tell us what we heard.

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, objections to the from the defense about just how detailed Stormy Daniels was getting. The judge actually warned her a few times to just stick to the questions that were asked and not really to expand upon it as she tended to do during her testimony. And what we've seen after Trump's defense team made that motion for mistrial around 2:00 p.m. It was denied by the judge. But what we've seen in the past hour, now that Stormy Daniels is back

on the witness stand still being questioned by prosecutors, they have been moving things along a bit more. Her answers are a bit shorter, just sticking to the necessary details, if you will. And what Stormy Daniels has been talking about in the past hour or so is really the aftermath of this hush money deal, how in January 2018, "The Wall Street Journal" actually came out with a story about her affair with Donald Trump.

And that's sort of opened the floodgates for, you know, the questions to come in, the media requests for Stormy Daniels. She issued a few denials, but she later said that those denials were actually false. She went on Jimmy Kimmel and then she said eventually she was released from her non-disclosure agreement that she had with the Trump team, and she was able to tell her story. She went on "60 Minutes" where she talked with our Anderson Cooper, told her story. She said that she also wrote a book and she said she wrote that book because she wants her daughter to really understand why she did the thing she did.

And of course, now, just recently, she has a documentary deal that she wasn't paid for, but she says she's getting some of the licensing fees for. So now Stormy Daniels is really getting into more of the present day, how all of this has affected her, how it is shaped her.

Again, Jim, you know, these aren't necessarily details that will go to the core of the prosecutions case, but they are really, as we've seen today, trying to get out Stormy Daniels story in full, maybe to make her an appealing witness to the jury, a credible witness to the jury, so the jury will believe everything that they've heard from Stormy Daniels today, including what we heard before the lunch break, which were perhaps the most detailed and lurid testimony that we've heard from any witness so far, just about the details of her sexual encounter with Donald Trump at that Lake Tahoe golf event, and in the fallout from it.

So we will continue to follow along with what she says --

SCIUTTO: No question.

SCHNEIDER: -- and we'll see how much longer this goes. I mean, I have -- I have a feeling that once Donald Trump's defense team goes into cross-examination, it's going to be no holds barred. They are really going to look to, you know, tear her down and tear down some of her testimony because she gave a lot of it that and it was very detailed.

SCIUTTO: No question. Of course, there are potential pitfalls in that as well.

[15:05:01]

SCHNEIDER: Yeah.

SCIUTTO: Jessica Schneider, thanks so much.

All right. So let's talk about the legal outcomes from today's testimony, Janet Johnson, criminal defense attorney, Joey Jackson, CNN legal analyst, former prosecutor, both joining us.

Joey, first to you, the level of detail we heard this morning was clearly uncomfortable, not just for folks like us watching from outside, but for the judge himself and I understand that the prosecutors have to establish that this relationship is sexual relationship to place. In other words, there was an affair to be covered up by these payments.

Do you believe that the questions from prosecutors and the answers from Stormy Daniels went too far in terms of the details?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, Jim, no one does this quite the same way, right?

Good to be with you and my good friend, Janet Johnson.

The reality is, is that its not about what I believe the prosecutors should have done. It's about what they felt was most appropriate here and what they felt that was most appropriate is to lay a firm foundation to establish that this indeed did occur. What's this? This being the dynamic of an interaction between her and Mr. Trump. He's denied it multiple times. I think either she has an incredibly, you know, imagination is just running wild or she's extraordinarily credible and she's recall -- you know, recalling everything down to the satin pajamas.

And so, the reality is, is that prosecutors felt that she was important because she provides a face to why we're here. What was the impetus and motivation with respect to why there would have been a bribe here, not so much a bribe, but the issue in terms of falsifying records, the issue in terms of falsifying invoices, writing checks, ledgers, et cetera? Why? Because of the fact he wanted to cover this up.

And the only way you do that, Jim, is to establish that it happened number one. Number two, that had happened in the manner in which he said and number three, that would have been so sensational that it would heat clearly wouldn't have wanted this out there.

So, yes, there was a lot there I certainly do believe that defense should have moved for mistrial. They absolutely did. It was denied, but this is the manner in which they felt they should handle it. I would've perhaps potentially handled it a little differently, not been as vivid and colorful, but I don't think it rose to the level of mistrial. It's certainly will rise to the level of an appealable issue should Mr. Trump be convicted.

SCIUTTO: Janet, intent is so key to the case here for the prosecution, and a bar they need to cross to get a conviction. One notable piece from Stormy Daniels testimony was that at the time that this allege relationship to place 2006. She said that Trump was not concerned about it going public, was not then concerned about his family finding out, which is central to the defense's claim here that his true motivation for paying her off, in effect, was to protect his family as opposed to influence the election.

How essential what was that testimony from her to the prosecution's case? What was it, in your view, pivotal?

JANET JOHNSON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It was. I mean, a lot of what happened today was blunting the defense. And even just now, they're getting out a lot of negative things that the defense is going to cross examine on, but she -- I think a lot of the things you said were relevant and they weren't objected to, by the way. So I think you can go as far as you can go to your objected to.

But to say that his wife, one of the things that he said to her is Melania and I don't even share a bedroom. So you don't have to worry about her and that he was not at all concerned about that relationship. And that's key because there was a famous trial of John Edwards, another presidential candidate, and he was acquitted. And essentially that defense was -- yeah, I wanted to pay her off because it was embarrassing to me -- to my family, but I didn't care about the elections.

So they really do have to thread that needle that this happened right before the election. And as Mitt Romney said, you don't pay someone $130,000 because you did not have sex with them.

SCIUTTO: All right. Joey speaking of threading the needle now, I can see that where we are in the cross-examination, the defense is now questioning Stormy Daniels just as the prosecution could conceivably go too far and its questioning and by the way, from the judges perspective, it appears that they did because he said he was uncomfortable in some of the detail was necessary are there dangerous for the defense here in terms of badgering, Stormy Daniels, going too far to the point where a jury sees that as going too far?

JACKSON: Yeah. Jim, I really believe that. I think that you have to be very careful. Obviously, she's a very damaging witness -- use damning with respect to her level of description of the affair with regard to the payment and pay off, with respect to her calling it off, not only the relationship with Mr. Trump, but the actual payment until of course it happened.

But I think you certainly do not want to savage or to degree -- to the degree that she becomes extraordinarily sympathetic. I think the role of the defense here is to speak to the issues of the actual crime.

[15:10:02]

You have no idea with regard to ledgers and how they're kept, do you? You know nothing about invoices, is that right? You have no sense of whether or not Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen coordinated to falsify any records at all. You weren't there. You have no idea with regard to accounting practices, is that right? You don't know how to Trump Organization works, correct?

And so, I think that there are things you can get out from her, Jim, that established that your client is not guilty without going into and revisiting the nature of the affair.

If they do that, right, I think they just blow that up even more. She's clear in her mind that something happened, a lot happened, quite frankly. I think they want to avoid the salacious and get to the issues with respect to the law and distance their client, that is Mr. Trump, from any illegality which she would have no reason to know. If they do that, it's a successful cross-examination without badgering her or making her more sympathetic than she ever would need to be.

SCIUTTO: Now, Janet, though, I imagine each witness has a different function, the witnesses we saw prior to Stormy Daniels, they were intended by the prosecution to show that side of this, why the money was paid, how the money was paid, et cetera, and that she is more of a witness to establish that there was something -- a relationship in effect to hide.

JOHNSON: Exactly. Not every witness has to prove every point. And if they go into those questions, I think she can actually turn back on them and say, well, I'm not claiming to know those things.

And I think that the female attorney is going cross examine her, which is very important because as a female defense attorney, I know that sometimes when your question seeing someone who claims to -- she almost made herself out to be a victim of sexual abuse. I mean, that's how salacious her testimony was.

A woman I think is more able to handle that. I mean, no offense, Joey. You're a male defense attorney, but I think she will be able to maybe question her, not her integrity, but you sign something saying this didn't happen then and then you said, well, that was false when I signed it.

It sort of the old -- were you lying then or are you lying now because you're admitting that you're a liar?

I think they do have to go there to some extent.

SCIUTTO: Listen, we should also acknowledge we have a former president, the current candidate for president in that courtroom with a woman alleging a sexual relationship in quite a great detail. That, of course, has its own potential political consequences.

Janet Johnson, Joey Jackson, thanks so much for your legal expertise. We're going to have more from the trial later in the program.

And still come this hour, we're going to be live in the Middle East with ceasefire talks still ongoing even as Israel now controls both sides of a crucial entry point to Gaza for humanitarian aid. We're going to check in after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:15:56]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

Today, the Rafah crossing in Gaza is now under Israeli control. The crossing, a crucial entry point for aid into Gaza, the U.N. Agency for Palestinian Refugees is now warning this could bring humanitarian efforts across Gaza to a standstill. There was already a crisis there. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the goal of the

military's operation in Rafah is to bring the hostages home and to eliminate Hamas. Ceasefire talks are continuing today in Cairo. How this operation could impact those talks is unclear.

Joining me now to discuss, CNN global affairs analyst Kimberly Dozier.

And I wonder, the Prime Minister Netanyahu, he says that the operation in Gaza serves twin goals of returning those hostages and eliminating Hamas. I wonder what practical effect that has on negotiations given that Hamas is on the other side of the negotiating table.

KIMBERLY DOZIER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: From the Israeli perspective, they didn't get Hamas to blink, to say "yes" to some form of a ceasefire as they did in the past 24 hours until the Israeli Defense Forces announced and leaf flooded that they were about to enter into part of Rafah. So from the Israeli perspective, keeping going with the military operation is one way to try to assure success at the negotiating table. They believed all along that success is dependent on keeping the pressure on.

Also have to remember that Netanyahu's political career hangs in the balance. And there are a number of military commanders who have this battle right now, who will surely resign right afterwards when there are investigations as to how October 7th happened. So they feel the clock is running on them to decimate as much of Hamas as possible and they think that a large number of Hamas leaders are still hiding in tunnels inside Rafah.

SCIUTTO: That does, though, create an issue, does it not? Because Hamas, of course, does not want to be eliminated. They want a ceasefire here.

I just wonder what evidence there is that pressure at this time or pressure at similar times in negotiations have brought about a deal rather than scuttle those negotiations.

DOZIER: Well, look, from Hamas's perspective, the longer they drag all of this out, the more it is damaging --

SCIUTTO: Yeah.

DOZIER: -- their enemy Israel in the public's eye. I think you've also seen Israel actually adapt this campaign due to White House pressure.

But in a sort of under the table way, they didn't proceed with this operation against part of Rafah and they call it a targeted operation until they'd opened the Erez checkpoint in the north about a week ago to let aid in from the north, now that they've denied any aid coming in from Rafah and a nearby Israeli crossing by seizing this territory.

So you do see some sort of a nod to the White House's requests. Also, what's coming out of the White House has changed. Biden had said he didn't want to see any operation inside Rafah. Now, the National Security Council spokesman is saying, we don't want to see a ground operation. And so far, this isn't that and yet you have the Israeli defense minister speaking to his troops in the past day or so saying this operation will continue until the very last hostage is released, and until all of Hamas and the people who carried out October 7 or killed.

So it's sort of discordant messages. And I think though, every side is getting something from it, even Hamas, by delaying a possible ceasefire or Israel by saying no to what Hamas has accepted thus far.

[15:20:01]

SCIUTTO: I know U.S. officials will often say that that is just public messaging from Israeli leaders, that in fact, the negotiations proceed, in fact, Israel has agreed to limitations. That said, this seems to be a significant military operation, at least around Rafah. It's certainly not insignificant to close off the Rafah Crossing.

What does that tell you that Israel moved forward despite U.S. pressure?

DOZIER: Well, all the signals from Israel, from Netanyahu on down for weeks have been that they were going to go forward with this operation. And I believe that a mosque leaders also knew that there was no way that they were going to stop short of somehow going after the remaining leaders in Rafah.

But for the international community, for the world stage, everyone has to show willing, showing up in some manner, shape, or form for these negotiations so that they can look like they're proceeding towards deal and the U.S. is playing that standard negotiating tactic or role of, you got to be positive and optimistic even when it looks impossible, because as you and I both know, having covered peace processes in the past, that is the only way you get to some sort outcome and get some of the hostages, perhaps out.

SCIUTTO: Kim Dozier, I'm sure it's not the last time we discussed this. Thanks so much for joining.

CNN's Jeremy Diamond joins us now from Jerusalem.

And, Jeremy, a very practical question at this point. Are ceasefire talks still underway? And is there any movement there given this military operation is now underway around Rafah?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Those ceasefire negotiations are very much still ongoing despite those military operations in eastern Rafah, an Israeli working level delegation headed to Cairo today to pursue further negotiations over a possible cease-fire agreement Hamas said that it had agreed to a new ceasefire proposal.

We have since learned, of course, Jim, that that proposal is quite different at least in certain key regards to the one that Israel had tacitly agree to, that Egyptian framework that we've been talking about for the better part of the last week and a half. The key difference, of course, being the fact that Hamas is still pushing for this ceasefire agreement to explicitly call for and for Israel to agree to an end of the war, that withdrawal of all Israeli troops from the Gaza strip in the second phase of this agreement.

Meanwhile, though the Israeli military carrying out this quite significant operation in Rafah, taking control of that Rafah border crossing, something that the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier today described as not only a military objective, but also an effort to apply further military pressure on these negotiations.

And so these to your original question here, this military operation and these negotiations, they are happening on different tracks. But they're very much interconnected, at least as far as the Israeli government sees, that they believe that the increase military pressure on Hamas could perhaps shift Hamas's position. We will see whether or not that is the case.

But for now, it's clear that the negotiations are continuing, but they're still quite a bit of ground to make up between these two parties.

SCIUTTO: And Israeli officials, we should note, have made that claim before, not clear that those two things are always connected or that one leads to the other.

Jeremy Diamond in Jerusalem, thanks so much. So how could military action in Rafah, including blocking off that key border crossing impact the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, which has already been an issue?

Joining me now to discuss is Deepmala Mahla, the chief humanitarian officer for CARE.

Thanks so much for joining me.

DEEPMALA MAHLA, CHIEF HUMANITARIAN OFFICER, CARE: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: You previously said that a military operation in Rafah would be an absolute bloodbath with consequences, more devastating than we can imagine -- your words. So now there is a military operation. That border crossing with Europe is now -- rather with Egypt is now cut off. Is it a bloodbath?

MAHLA: It would be a humanitarian catastrophe of monumental proportions. There is no shadow of doubt about it. And thanks for mentioning my words. In the past few months, we have been raising warning, sharing data, sharing the condition of people in the Gaza, the humanitarian needs, the starvation, the disease the deaths of children, women, families. Everything -- everything has been ignored.

And if this military offensive goes ahead, this will be a catastrophe, which I am absolutely certain this era would not be able to explain to the future generations.

SCIUTTO: Okay. So, so the full-on invasion of Rafah has not taken place yet.

[15:25:02] Israeli officials say this is a limited operation. And it should therefore allow both residents to flee if necessary, but also aid to continue coming into Gaza.

Is that true?

MAHLA: When from whatever we are seeing, and whatever we are experiencing, I would be very surprised that how this can be true.

Number one, Rafah, the border crossing is a lifeline -- a lifeline to millions of Gazans to receive aid. The other one is Kerem Shalom. These are two lifelines, Rafah Crossing being the main lifeline. That is choked.

Kerem Shalom is also choked, meaning no aid comes in, no medical supplies coming, no medical evacuations can happen. And then for people to relocate, where? Relocate to where?

We have been told that there are some geographical locations called humanitarian zones. Well, in those places, they are unlivable. There are no basic necessities available, and there is no guarantee the shortening of safety.

And with this number of people fleeing out, it is highly chaotic what we are hearing is every hour, some 200 to 400 people, Gazans, are trying to move from a Rafah to Khan Younis or other areas. It's very chaotic.

There's a palpable sense of panic and fear. You can be -- you are talking to colleagues, you can hear screams and wails of children. It's more chaotic than anyone can imagine.

And it can be stopped. It can be.

SCIUTTO: Okay. So let me ask you a question here. Israeli officials are saying that this military activity will apply pressure to Hamas to agree to a ceasefire deal exchange of hostages. You are saying that this military operation restricts the flow of aid.

Are you saying that Israel is using the flow of aid as a pressure point on Hamas?

MAHLA: I am saying that this military operation certainly obstructs aid. I'm saying that this military operations puts the lives of many civilians to risk and makes the job of aid workers to deliver much more difficult.

A ceasefire is the preliminary condition to deliver aid and now with a border crossings closed, we cannot even bring aid. There has to be a ceasefire now, and hostages have to be released because military operations -- we leave that with Israel.

As humanitarians, our plea and urge has always been from day one, protecting civilians protecting civilian infrastructure, letting aid in and not killing aid workers.

SCIUTTO: Right.

MAHLA: This military operation is not happening in vacuum. It's happening in a place where there are over one million highly vulnerable people, many of them who are sick, many of them who are near starvation, acutely malnourished, majority women and children, with no health infrastructure left, with disease outbreak, with no water, with no electricity. In this situation, we are talking about risk of life to millions.

SCIUTTO: And as you note, there's been risk of life to humanitarian workers themselves as well.

Deepmala Mahla, thank you so much for joining and bringing us some of the impact of this on the people of Gaza.

Still to come this hour, the inauguration again of Russian President Vladimir Putin for a fifth term, a record fifth the term as Russia's leader, or its breaking through initial constitutional limits. What he had to say about relations with the West. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:32:16]

SCIUTTO: We continue going to follow updates in Donald Trump's criminal trial here in Manhattan. You can follow along and left side of your screen.

For now though, to other news, today, Vladimir Putin celebrated the inauguration for his fifth term as president, a term could make him the longest serving Russian leader since Catherine the Great.

CNN senior international correspondent Fred Pleitgen joins us now from Berlin.

Of course, Fred, there were term limits with which Vladimir Putin already busted through now our fifth term, effectively president for life.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Essentially, and one of the interesting things that we heard today is that the patriarch of the Russian orthodox church pretty much said that he believes that Vladimir Putin could serve until the end of his days as the Russian leader. But you're absolutely right, there used to be those term limits in place, those term limits are no more for Vladimir Putin, at least in the near term. In fact, he could remain the Russian leader until 2036. Maybe that's one of the reasons why today, the inauguration seemed all but a formality.

Here's what we saw.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PLEITGEN (voice-over): Vladimir Putin making his own inauguration looks so common place. He takes time to finish a phone call.

ANNOUNCER: Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

PLEITGEN: Before casually making his way to the grand ceremony inside the Kremlin.

Those attending, cheering him on as he ascends to a record fifth term as Russia's leader,

As president of the Russian Federation, I swear to respect and protect the rights and freedoms of people and citizens to respect and protect the Constitution of the Russian Federation, to protect the sovereignty, independence, safety and integrity of the state to loyally serve people -- he swore while once again blaming the West for deteriorating ties with Moscow.

The choice is theirs, he said, whether they intend to continue to try their restrain Russia's development to continue a policy of aggression, continuous pressure on our country for years, or to seek a path to cooperation and peace.

Putin urging the West to halt military support for Ukraine as he himself continues to send hundreds of thousands of his own citizens to fight there. The Russian military unleashing a massive aerial bombing campaign on Chasiv Yar, making small gains here on the eastern front.

It is due to the active use of aviation, the Ukrainian commander says, attack aircraft carrying guided bombs after the upgrade, guided bombs began to hit more accurately than before.

[15:35:03]

Thus, it is much harder to influence them with electronic warfare.

More than ever, Vladimir Putin's presidency is defined by war, greeting his troops as part of the inauguration events.

His position strengthened, his power nearly unchecked after a landslide victory in recent presidential elections, Putin has made clear he does not intend to change course or two back down as he continues to steer his country on a confrontation course with the U.S. and its allies.

His friend, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, proclaiming Putin de facto Russia's leader for life.

God, grant that the end of the century marks the end of your stay in power, he says.

Russia's constitution says Putin could remain in power for another 12 years, but that is just on paper. In today's Russia, Putin makes the rules and stairs this country in the direction he wants.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PLEITGEN (on camera): So there you see, Jim, a pretty big display of Vladimir Putin's pretty much unchecked power in the Russian Federation, but also a message to the West once again today as well, the Russian starting tactical nuclear drills and their Belarusian allies as well. Very close to the border with Ukraine, Jim.

SCIUTTO: And one of the long line of nuclear threats from Putin and other senior Russian leaders, we should note.

Fred Pleitgen, thanks so much.

Another development out of Russia, the White House confirms two new cases of Americans detained in Russia, a U.S. army staff sergeant is one of those Americans. He will remain behind bars until at least July on allegations of theft from a Russian citizen. A Russian official tells CNN those allegations are, quote, not related to politics or espionage, though Russia has a long history of Trumping app or fabricating charges to political ends.

To help us cover it all, former CNN Moscow Bureau chief Jill Dougherty joins us now.

Jill, we should note, Russia has quite a long recent history of hostage diplomacy. If you want to call it that, taking foreigners, particularly Americans as -- well, bait or currency, right, for other exchanges. Tell us about these two new Americans taken and what this means?

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, one of them at least, there's a little bit of information, but it's coming from social media and it looks as if this man is a member of the military, went to Vladivostok had a Russian girlfriend. And what they're saying is he stole something from her and maybe abused her in some fashion. It's a little murky and certainly until the United States officials in Russia talk with him and try to figure out what's going on, we can't really make any determination.

These are where were getting this from the Russian media. But I think, you know, your point is correct that right now, we have a number of Americans including journalists and Paul Whelan, who has been held for a very long time, held by the Russian government, and who knows what they want to do. But I think the point that you were making is this is kind of like a currency. You know, if you hold Americans, you can trade them for something. And I think that's what Vladimir Putin wants to do, which is essentially have people, so that he can trade for people whom he wants.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. For soldiers to WNBA players, we've seen and soldiers in particular hold it particular value. It seems with the Kremlin.

Another story, Ukrainian security services are claiming that they foiled it in assassination plot. And this is notable, involving senior Ukrainian officers suspected of actually being agents of the Russian FSB, the successor to the KGB.

I wonder, could this reveal the Russians have penetrated senior Ukrainian ranks?

DOUGHERTY: That's always been a real concern, because obviously, for the entire Soviet period, they were, you know, members of one country, the Soviet Union. And there was a lot of interaction now, of course, completely different situation, but there was a lot of Russian influenced still and in Ukraine and what the Russians want to do. And I'm not saying that this, you know, we have to see again how this shakes out.

But I think what they want to do is obviously try to penetrate the enemy. And the enemy right now is Ukraine. So they would try to get any person in there that they could, and to, of course, get information and maybe even change the course of battle, try to influence, et cetera.

[15:40:08]

It's really, I think, Jim, you have to look right now at documents that are coming out. You know, Russia is full steam ahead, in every country in Europe and in the United States, trying to influence the political situation, influence economic situation, take advantages of divisions in countries, et cetera. This is really, they consider war, and this is, you know, their form of warfare of doing this.

SCIUTTO: Yeah, war on multiple fronts at one time. Speaking of threats, but also exercises, we now have tactical nuclear drills. As you know, there have been a series of Russian nuclear threats, but also action. As I reported in late 2022, there was concern that Russia was preparing for tactical nuclear strike on Ukraine.

How seriously should these tactical nuclear drills be taken? Rhetoric? Is it rhetorical or is it a genuine threat?

DOUGHERTY: I think they should be taken seriously. You know, when they start in the beginning at the invasion in 2022, Putin was, you know, putting his strategic weapons on high alert. I don't think anybody realistically thinks that Putin wants to start a nuclear war with the United States, I hope.

But when it comes to tactical weapons, smaller ones, very powerful, that can be used in on the battlefield. That's something that there's a possibility that it could happen. So I think part of this is sending a message is no question about that. But there this is the possibility that let's say Russia were really at a state where it was losing the war, there are people who definitely believe that that is a possibility that Putin might do that. It wouldn't -- you know, it would be a place the West in a difficult situation because you would you have to answer that and nobody wants to answer it with nuclear weapons because then that could spin out of control.

Obviously, the West, the United States, already have worked at game plans for what potentially could happen. But I think this is really -- you know, the phrase, of course, playing with fire.

SCIUTTO: No question. And then we should note that Russian nuclear doctrine allows for a nuclear strike in response to a conventional threat. Certainly a dangerous mix.

Jill Dougherty, thanks so much.

Just after the break, the cross-examination of adult film actress Stormy Daniels in Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial continues. We're going to break down the latest developments coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:46:01]

SCIUTTO: Back now to the criminal hush money trial of Donald Trump's still underway on the 15th floor. The court house just behind me. Cross-examination of the adult film actress Stormy Daniels remains underway. Her testimony, of course, central to the case against the former president, establishing that relationship existed and that therefore the president had incentive to hide it by paying her off.

Katelyn Polantz joins me now.

Katelyn, the cross-examination continues here. There have been some tense moments. I think we can say between the defense attorney and Stormy Daniels. Tell us what the defense is trying to establish now with their cross-examination.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Yeah, Jim, what it appears to be doing, what Susan Necheles, the attorney for Donald Trump, as she's cross-examining Stormy Daniels, a very delicate moment on the stand. Susan Necheles is asking her about her financial history and motivation. That is what much of the day is about where the prosecutors are trying to use Stormy Daniels to show to the jury that Donald Trump had a motivation to hide something when he was sending her money through Michael Cohen years ago, when he was running for president.

And now, the defense is trying to highlight Stormy Daniels own motivations here that in in many aspects, Stormy Daniels has made money from claiming to have had sex with Donald Trump over the past several years, that her story had value, especially once he was running for president. And since then, as Stormy Daniels has said, she is now very unhappy with him and wants him to have some sort of fallout here.

So, Jim, all of this is coming together in this defense across examination, but much of it will be subtle suggestions that the defense team is making things where Stormy Daniels is being asked about hiding assets and then denying that she has tried to do that on the stand. But those are the sorts of things that the defense is able to try and suggest, or have the jury think about as they continue to ask her questions about what has happened since her story was buried and then became public about her alleged affair with Donald Trump.

SCIUTTO: Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much.

Our legal panel back with us, Janet Johnson, Joey Jackson.

Janet, the testimony from Stormy Daniels clearly consequential to this case, gets at what essential here. There was an affair, an alleged affair and that that was what Trump prosecutors argue had the intent to cover up with this payment during the election in 2016?

Now, the defense is trying to poke holes in her credibility and, Janet, I wonder if you think they're having some success.

JOHNSON: They definitely are. I mean, just from what I'm following along, what's happening in the courtroom.

They've already gotten two things that the judge will tell the jury at the end of the trial that they can consider and weighing her credibility. One is a bias against Donald Trump. They actually got Stormy Daniels to say she hates him, and she hopes he goes to prison.

I mean, it doesn't really get more biased than that. And that is one of the things that can basically undermine your credibility. The other is prior inconsistent statements. And as we discussed in an earlier segment, there's a lot of them. She denied having sex. She apparently initially told Gloria Allred that there wasn't sex.

There's also the motivation for the money and they're basically telling the jury she's made a lot of money by claiming -- because they're saying it's just a claim to have had sex with Donald Trump. She did push back and she did say it's also cost me a lot of money, but it's been very effective and I don't think they're treating her with kid gloves at all.

SCIUTTO: So, Joey, you have the credibility of the Stormy Daniels against the credibility of Donald Trump. Certainly not shall we say unfettered credibility when you speak of Donald Trump here. But what is the prosecution need to do during redirect following cross- examination to re-establish her credit credibility to the extent that's been damaged here?

[15:50:11]

JACKSON: Yeah, Jim, so that's the whole essence of redirect, right? As you want to rehabilitate your witness.

And I think that there are clear issues with respect to the rehabilitation, like what, did you have a relationship with Donald Trump? Yes. Was there an affair? Yes.

Was that on the dates that were noted by you? Yes. Does the hatred that you might have for him impair the realities here of what took place between you and him? No.

Was there a time that you got a payoff from Donald Trump? Yes. Was that orchestrated by Michael Cohen? Yes.

What am I getting at? I'm getting at that we can talk all day and all night about hatred. We could talk all day and all night about inconsistent statement, but the realities are is that doesn't or should not otherwise undermine the realities and the facts. And that's what prosecutors will do. They will ask the jurors to keep their eye on the prize, the prize of there being an affair between the two, the prize of there being a payoff between the two.

The reality that that was to otherwise influence the election, why would Mr. Trump spent so much money to hide this if there was not some teeth to it? And again, those are all jury questions but the reality is, is that's the focus of the prosecution that notwithstanding credibility, notwithstanding what you say to her, notwithstanding not the kid gloves, keep your eye on the prize. Did it happen? And the jury will have to make those decisions. Ultimately, jury to decide who and what they find more credible.

Janet, I -- Stormy Daniels, I think you can call a star witness of this -- of this case here for the prosecution. Given that she is on the stand today, and I think somewhat earlier than some had expected, are we closer to the end of the prosecutions case than perhaps we expected? Specifically given the prosecution said just yesterday they needed a couple more weeks?

JOHNSON: Well, I think Michael Cohen is going to take quite a lot of time and obviously he's really the pivotal witness. But I want to piggyback also on something that Joe we just said. He's correct. They will rehabilitate her, but as far as the places where they can't rehabilitate her, I think that the prosecution can also embrace this in closing and say, which is what prosecutors always say, we didn't pick Stormy Daniels. You know who picked her? Donald Trump.

And if you find her unsavory, that's the kind of company Donald Trump was keeping. Same with Michael Cohen. If you find him unsavory, he was the lawyer hired by Donald Trump.

So if there are pitfalls, I think they can turn around and turn those on the defense. But as far as the trial going faster, I think it is, but I think Cohen could be two or three solid days of testimony. I think that's going to be very extensive cross-examination based on what we're seeing today. They're going to have a lot of questions.

There's a lot of interviews, there's a lot of books written by all these witnesses. It's going to take awhile.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. And I think if we think the cross of Stormy Daniels was difficult, I can imagine the cross of Michael Cohen would be quite even more so.

Janet Johnson, Joey Jackson, thanks so much for helping us navigate today's testimony and developments.

Still to come this hour, a whale of a tail. We will explain after a short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:55:53]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

Science studying sperm whales in the Caribbean have revealed for the first time that whales maybe communicating with each other via a phonetic alphabet. You heard that right. Whales use bursts of clicking sounds known as codas to communicate. Researchers analyzed nearly 9,000 snippets of codas clicks. That

analysis revealed that sperm whale communication differs in structure depending on the context of the conversation. While scientists do not know what these whale clicks mean, they say that understanding this alphabet may aid future research and a whale behavior. That's remarkable.

Thanks so much for joining me today. I'm Jim Sciutto in New York.

"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next.