Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Trump's First Ongoing Criminal Prosecution; Judge Permits Prosecution to Present National Enquirer-Related Evidence; Judge is Going to Allow Karen McDougal to Testify; Israel War Cabinet Ends Meeting. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired April 15, 2024 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: It lists, I don't know, roughly 20, outlets where people might get news ranging from CNN, to MSNBC, to Fox, to Google, to Newsmax, to Truth Social, Wall Street Journal, and on and on -- is Renato still there? And what I'm wondering is, can that information be used to disqualify somebody, for example --

RENATO STABILE, JURY CONSULTANT AND ATTORNEY: Yes, I'm still there.

TAPPER: OK.

STABILE: Sorry.

TAPPER: Can the defense say, this person gets their information from MSNBC, therefore, I don't trust the -- that they have a fair view of the world and the prosecution is same for Fox. Are they allowed to do that?

STABILE: A hundred percent. Political affiliation, is not a protected class. I mean, race is, gender is, because those are immutable characteristics. You cannot change your race. You cannot change your gender. But political affiliation and political ideology, that's a choice. So, you can strike based on that.

So, if somebody watches Fox and that's where they get their news, and the prosecution doesn't like that, absolutely they can strike them for that reason.

TAPPER: Are the defense and prosecution really interested in impartial jury? I mean, aren't they truly trying to get people in that box who are partial but just to their side, right?

STABILE: Of course, a hundred percent. You want to win the case. The -- I mean, the judge wants a fair and impartial jury, but the parties want the most partial jury they can possibly get. Donald Trump is going to have a very difficult time getting a jury that's going to fully acquit him, I think. Like I said, I think he's going for the hung jury, but that could very well happen. And this case has far- reaching implications and it's just not about finding him guilty or innocent. It's the implications of that in November and jurors may be thinking about that.

TAPPER: All right. Renato Stabile, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

History is underway in New York City. Our teams are inside and outside the Manhattan courtroom with Donald Trump has just become the very first president in the history of the United States to ever face a criminal trial. I'm going to be joined by a lawyer next who's working closely with the Trump legal team. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:35:00]

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR, THE SOURCE AND CNN CHIEF CORRESPONDENT: And welcome back to CNN's special live coverage. I'm Kaitlan Collins outside of the New York courthouse, where Donald Trump's hush money trial has just officially gotten underway, and is now going back and forth between the prosecution, the defense, and the judge, Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing all of this.

CNN's Paula Reid is outside the courthouse here with me. And Paula, the prosecution just got a major win inside of that courtroom as they were arguing that evidence related to the "National Enquirer" and its coordination with the Trump campaign of 2016 should be allowed in as evidence, which Trump's team didn't want. and the judge just said?

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I'll let it in. And specifically, this is evidence about articles that were run in the summer of 2015 about Trump's then opponent, Ted Cruz. Now, Trump's lawyer, Todd Blanche, objected to this, saying, look, this is going to confuse the jury. Running a negative story about Ted Cruz, they argue, is not a crime.

But the judge said he's going to allow this evidence in because, remember, the theory of the case here from the district attorney is that when Michael Cohen was reimbursed for that hush money to Stormy Daniels, that the documents were falsified, right? They wrote down fraudulent reasons for why he was being paid. But the reason that's being charged as a felony is because the district attorney insists that this was all done to interfere with the 2016 election.

And so, the reason that this evidence is critical for the prosecution is they're trying to show that these falsified business records were part of a larger scheme to help Trump's chances in 2016. And the judge here said he's going to allow this in because, "The district attorney's office has demonstrated, there was an understanding that certain things would be done and wouldn't be done at AMI." That is the company that owned the "National Enquirer". He said, I believe this evidence is necessary to complete the narrative of what took place.

So, not great for the Trump team there because, again, this is the larger narrative that the district attorney is using to charge this as a felony.

COLLINS: Yes, and this is notable Jake, because the argument is that the Trump court -- the Trump team, the -- campaign in 2016 was able to approve changes, to suggest changes as they were going after Trump's political opponents in that Republican primary, and that that is actually the bigger picture here. You know, we always call this the hush money case, but what Alvin Bragg, the district attorney's been arguing is that this all has to do with efforts to sway the election and to protect Donald Trump. And they're arguing, help get him elected.

TAPPER: Right. So much of this took place in October, right before the presidential election of 2016.

Let's bring in Will Scharf, he is part of the Trump legal team that is working on his presidential immunity case which is scheduled to be before the U.S. Supreme Court later this month. Will, thanks for joining us. The potential jury is going to be asked about, where they get their news? If they have ever attended a campaign rally, for Mr. Trump, and more. What will Mr. Trump's legal team be looking for to try to at least get one juror who might vote non -- not guilty?

WILL SCHARF (R), TRUMP ATTORNEY AND MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL CANDIDATE: Well, Jake, I think at the end of the day, what we're looking for are fair minded and impartial jurors. Jurors who are going to consider the facts and the law, and jurors who are going to come into this case with an open mind.

I think in light of the wall-to-wall media coverage, in light of all the sensationalism surrounding this trial, and in light of the fact, frankly, that we're at the height of a presidential election, I think it's going to be a very difficult task. And that's why jury selection in this case is expected to take a very long time.

[10:40:00]

TAPPER: So, you said, on Fox yesterday that Mr. Trump, had not done anything wrong. And I'm wondering if that's going to be part of the defense's argument on the merits, not the politics. Whether the defense is going to argue that Donald Trump did not pay hush money to Stormy Daniels. That he did not participate in the falsification of business records to hide those payments weeks before an election.

SCHARF: Well, Jake, I think it's really important to note again that this is not a hush money trial. This is a business records trial. This relates to business records entries, largely from 2017. And yes, I think with respect to those business records, President Trump absolutely did nothing wrong. The truth is a hundred percent on his side. And I think that narrative, that story is going to be borne out as we get deeper and deeper into this trial.

TAPPER: Well, tell me more, because you're right, the hush money is not the alleged violation of law. It's the falsification of business records. But you know, there is a paper trail here, I could show you the checks signed by Donald Trump reimbursing Michael Cohen. Donald Trump himself acknowledged in 2018 that he did authorize payments to Stormy Daniels.

So, what exactly is the argument here in terms of what you're saying when you say he didn't do anything wrong?

SCHARF: Well, first of all, you're making some dangerous assumptions there, Jake. At the height of the -- the core of this case is payments that were made to Michael Cohen that were registered as legal retainer payments. And the jury is going to have to decide whether that was a fair characterization of payments that President Trump was making to one of his lawyers at the time.

Were legal retainer payments an accurate description of the payments being made to Michael Cohen? That's going to be a question for the jury. That's core to this case. And we believe, again, that with respect to those business records entries, with respect to these payments, President Trump did absolutely nothing wrong.

TAPPER: So, we're told that the judge is going to allow Karen McDougal to testify. For our audience that -- who may not know who Karen McDougal is, Karen McDougal is the 1998 Playmate of the Year with whom Donald Trump also had a relationship, although I think longer term, allegedly. And she was paid money by David Pecker of the company that owns American -- the "National Enquirer", it's called American Media, I believe.

And so, I guess the idea here is from the prosecution is that this would establish a record, a pattern of hush money being paid to people to keep quiet so as to not embarrass the president before the presidential election. What is your reaction to the news that Judge Merchan is going to allow Karen McDougal to testify, although not apparently about any explicit details?

SCHARF: Yes, you know, Jake, it's a difficult question to answer because of the gag order that Judge Merchan placed against President Trump that prohibits us from commenting on potential witness testimony. This is the first gag order of its kind ever entered against a political candidate for office, I believe, in American history. We believe it's wildly overbroad and unconstitutional, and that certainly complicates my ability to answer your question directly.

I will say that I think that McDougal's testimony is irrelevant here, and that's why we moved to have it not allowed in into court on. I think, again, what we've seen with Judge Merchan over and over again is rulings like this against this. We've moved to have Judge Mershon recused off of this case due to what we believe are irretrievable conflicts and biases. And that's an issue that's also going to have to play out in the coming weeks.

TAPPER: All right. Will Scharf, thank you so much. Really appreciate your time today.

We are following every single update from inside the courtroom as Donald Trump's hush money trial gets underway and jury selection is about to begin.

We're also following that major breaking news overseas. Israel's war cabinet has just wrapped up an hours-long meeting. We're About how that nation will respond to Iran's brazen aggression. We're going to go live to Tel Aviv ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [10:45:00]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: And welcome back to CNN special coverage. I'm Anderson Cooper in Tel Aviv.

Moments ago, Israel's war cabinet finished meeting on how to respond to Iran's barrage of missiles and drone strikes. They were behind closed doors for more than three hours today. I want to bring in CNN's Chief International Correspondent Clarissa Ward here in Tel Aviv with me. Also joining us, Political and Global Affairs Analyst Barak Ravid.

Barak, I know you've been following closely what this war council has been -- the war cabinet has been, discussing. What are you hearing?

BARAK RAVID, CNN POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST AND FORMER AXIOS MIDDLE EAST CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think that's the third or even fourth meeting of the war cabinet since the Iranian attack to discuss a possible retaliation. I don't know yet whether a decision was made. All I know is that there are more and more signs that Israel is going to retaliate this way or another. There is a possibility that Netanyahu is going to meet the heads of the opposition leaders later on today to brief them. And I think that the next few hours will be really crucial.

COOPER: Barak, you also have some new reporting about a conversation last night between Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Israel's Defense Minister.

RAVID: Yes. Minister Gallant and Secretary Austin spoke last night. It was their third phone call since the Iranian attack. And Gallant, according to a U.S. official and another source both briefed on the call, told Austin that Israel has no other choice but to retaliate to the Iranian strike. And Gallant's explanation was that Israel cannot tolerate a situation where some other country fires a hundred ballistic missiles at Israel and Israel is not responding in any way to be devastating to Israel's deterrence.

[10:50:00]

And another thing that Gallant told Austin was that Israel cannot accept an equation in which any time it acts or targets Iranians in Syria, Iran will retaliate in a direct attack from Iranian soil against Israel.

COOPER: And Clarissa, I mean, Netanyahu, the prime minister here, is obviously facing tremendous domestic political pressure as well.

CLARISSA WARD, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: He's facing domestic political pressure. He's facing international pressure. We've heard the U.S. being very outspoken about the fact that they don't want Israel to escalate any further with whatever retaliation or response may be planned.

We just also heard from Secretary of State Antony Blinken who said that he had spent 36 hours coordinating diplomatic responses to prevent an escalation. He then went on with what seemed to be kind of an implicit warning to Israel's leadership, which is, he said, strength and wisdom need to be different sides of the same coin.

And so, I think you're really seeing a push, at least from Israel's allies to try to find that Goldilocks, that sweet spot. between doing what Israel needs to do to meet its own needs, but also not escalating this and propelling it, you know, into an all-out regional conflagration.

But we've heard the hardliners, particularly here in Israel. They have been pooh-poohing the idea that Benny Gantz put forward yesterday of trying to form a regional coalition, saying these air hollow Western catch phrases. And so, there's a lot of competing influences that that war cabinet will be trying to answer to.

COOPER: Barak, it's also this fascinating situation that we've seen unfold during this attack where you had other Arab states, Jordan, Saudi Arabia involved in whether it's opening up their -- you know, their airspace, but involved in, essentially, trying to thwart this attack. Would a response by Israel to Iran now, would that threaten sort of whatever that cooperation was?

RAVID: I think that a lot of those countries, especially the Saudis, who even intercepted several drones that were fired from Yemen by the Houthis towards Israel during the attack are very concerned that if Israel retaliates, it will be very hard, even impossible, to continue this regional security alliance that we saw in action on Saturday.

And, you know, the Saudis are facing a lot of domestic criticism over the war in Gaza anyway in the last six months. So, now if there's an Israeli retaliation against Iran, I think this could even exacerbate this domestic unrest, not only in Saudi Arabia, but many other countries in the region.

And on the other hand, it shows Israel -- and this is what the Biden administration is trying to tell the Israelis, is that look at the opportunity here. You can turn this crisis into a huge opportunity and a huge strategic win, even if it means that you're not going to retaliate directly against the Iranians on their soil.

COOPER: Yes. Barak Ravid, thank you very much. Clarissa Ward as well.

Kaitlan, back to you.

COLLINS: Yes, Anderson, thank you.

We'll obviously stay on top of everything that is coming out of Israel today. But we are also watching back here in the U.S. Specifically outside this Manhattan courtroom. What is happening inside there?

The jury selection hasn't actually gotten underway yet. They've been inside that courtroom for over an hour now, but they are still going over what this is actually going to look like once they have a jury, once they have those 12 jurors and a few alternates that are going to be here.

Right now, they are arguing about the "Access Hollywood" tape. Of course, the tape that everyone heard. It came out in October 2016 just days before the actual election, before Americans went to cast their votes. And right now, what the judge had already argued and had ruled is that, yes, they can talk about the "Access Hollywood" tape but they are not going to be able to actually play it, and by they I mean prosecutors for that jury.

And right now, they are arguing about what they can say about that "Access Hollywood" tape. Whether or not the prosecution can read parts of the transcript of that tape. The prosecution is also arguing that they want to be able to introduce evidence of how the Trump campaign was responding after the "Access Hollywood" tape came out.

Obviously, it had a massive impact on the Trump campaign and sent them scrambling at the time, worried about the impacts that it would have on their campaign that they had just been running for several months. And that could be very relevant when people like Hope Hicks get on the stand, potentially, in this case. We know she was obviously a top aide to Donald Trump at the time. She may very well be called to testify.

We are watching all of this as this is going on, as we are learning more. We have CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst John Miller here.

[10:55:00]

And John, obviously we've seen that, you know, so much has to go into place for this trial because where we are right now, Donald Trump is going to be here every single day for the next foreseeable future, potentially six to eight weeks. What are the security preparations that go underway for something like this?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, Kaitlan, nothing is normal about this because it has not happened before that a former president of the United States has been on trial in a state criminal courtroom in front of a jury. So, what you've got, essentially, is a three-pronged security package there.

The Secret Service owns Donald Trump from a security standpoint. They're handling him, in terms of close protection. But the NYPD owns the roads and the routes and all of the moving parts that make that work. That's that motorcade you saw this morning where the front of the route is swept out of traffic ahead of him. The back of the route is swept from traffic coming behind. And it appears that he travels in this bubble. It's not a frozen route that a president of the United States, a sitting president would get, but it's about as close as you're going to come for a former president.

And the third piece of that stool of court is the court officers. Once Donald Trump goes into that courthouse, the court officers are in charge of security there. So, you have a lot of practice that went into this between the court officer and the secret service.

COLLINS: All right. John Miller, obviously a lot of things to keep an eye on. We will be watching all of that. Thank you so much, John Miller.

And right now, we are getting brand new information about what is happening behind me, behind closed doors, inside that Manhattan courtroom. Up next, we'll tell you what the judge, what Trump's attorneys, and what prosecutors are saying, as we'll also be joined by an expert in the jury selection process as we are still waiting on that part to get underway.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]