Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Prosecution: "It Was Election Fraud, Pure And Simple"; Prosecutor: "Cohen's Testimony Will Be Backed Up" By Evidence; Trump Lawyer To Jury: "None Of This Was A Crime". Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired April 22, 2024 - 11:00   ET

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

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: They did not want the story to come out. And there was essentially a disagreement over how to actually get the payment done. Michael Cohen was saying, well, I can't do it because of the Jewish holidays. I can't do it because Trump's out on the campaign trail. And now what prosecutors are saying there is exactly what I was just noting, that Cohen's hope was to delay the payment until after the election and then ultimately not pay Stormy Daniels at all.

Well, Stormy Daniels's team seemed to understand that. That was at least their belief of this. And she was considering going public in the media. Then Michael Cohen said, OK, well, I'm just going to pay it myself. And that's when he drew down that home equity line and was able to pay her the $130,000.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: The prosecutors now saying that Trump didn't want to write a check himself to make the $130,000 payment. So he asked Cohen and Allen Weisselberg, the chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, to find a way. Prosecutor now says at Trump's request, Cohen agreed to use his own money to keep Stormy Daniels quiet. That's, quote, two weeks before the 2018 election.

We also understand later on, Michael Cohen began to worry that he was not going to get paid back. And that became part of the reasoning. In fact, the prosecutor saying that it was election fraud, pure and simple. That is what the argument they are making is.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: And that's the crux of this case, that this wasn't just an affair that he was worried his wife would find out about. I mean I think that defense attorneys could also at some point argue that it really wasn't keeping any material information from the general electorate that Trump was an adulterer, right? His second wife was his mistress.

Instead, here, what you have prosecutors focusing on is they say this was part of a conspiracy to suppress negative stories ahead of the election. Now we're getting more in, prosecutors saying, we'll never know. And it doesn't matter if this can move fast, prosecutor, you will see an evidence in the defendant's own words, words making crystal clear that he was concerned about this story getting out.

COLLINS: Well, and I think what the overarching argument and what is very clear, what the prosecutors want the jury to understand is they are tying every single thing back to the election and what it meant for Trump's chances in the 2016 election. From the negative stories about Ted Cruz and Ben Carson and Marco Rubio to what's happening here, they're now noting, the prosecutors are, that Trump invited David Pecker to Trump Tower after the election to thank him for his help in suppressing those stories. They were brought to the Oval Office.

So what's fascinating here is keep in mind David Pecker, Michael Cohen and Donald Trump, none of them speak anymore. These are three people who have known each other for decades. None of them speak anymore. And it kind of just speaks to what has happened with all of this.

COOPER: And some of the checks that were written to Michael Cohen, part of the reimbursements were actually written, were actually signed in the White House itself.

COLLINS: In the Oval Office. There's also a meeting where Michael Cohen was there in the Oval Office meeting with Donald Trump, allegedly to discuss being reimbursed because Trump had kind of faltered at the idea of reimbursing him, saying Michael Cohen has plenty of money before. That is something that it's almost guaranteed prosecutors will ask Michael Cohen about when he takes the stand.

COOPER: And again, David Pecker expected to be the first witness. He will be testifying about what occurred in this critical meeting, really at the start of the campaign. Here's another quick update. Trump invited Pecker, National Enquirer Editor Dylan Howard, to the White House. Dylan Howard was a top executive in the AMI organization.

REID: And it's why David Pecker is really the ideal witness for prosecutors to kick off their case, to lay the groundwork that this was an alleged conspiracy that began years before, a little over a year before the election. And this was a concerted effort to protect former president, then candidate Trump.

COOPER: The defendant hosted, according to the prosecutor, hosted a thank you dinner to thank Pecker and AMI for their contributions to his campaign.

COLLINS: Also, can I just mention this part that's also really fascinating and it speaks to, this isn't just testimony. It's going to look at text messages, phone records. And they also note, the prosecutor is telling the jury right now, on election night in 2016, as were getting closer to calling the race for Donald Trump, the lawyer for Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, his name is Keith Davidson. He'll be a name that's brought up, texted Dylan Howard, who is the editor in chief of the National Enquirer, and asked, what have we done?

Basically saying, well, these two people who were deeply involved in this effort, they believe that their efforts helped Donald Trump get elected.

COOPER: And the prosecutor saying that after the election, it was time to sort out how Trump would reimburse Cohen.

REID: And that's where the problems really begin, because the prosecution alleges that in 34 different instances, business records were falsified to try to cover up the fact that this was a reimbursement for a hush money payment to conceal an affair and that instead that these were billed as a part of a retainer agreement, so for Michael Cohen's legal services.

Now, Michael Cohen was Trump's longtime lawyer and consigliere. They will again argue that he was doing legal work for him at that time. But that is the crux of the case. That's the paper trail that we're talking about, how he got that money.

COOPER: Neither Trump nor Trump Organization could write a check to Cohen with a line item description, reimbursement for porn star payoff, the prosecutor says.

[11:05:02]

COLLINS: They're basically pushing back on what they know Trump's team is going to argue, which is that this was a legal retainer. These were just legal fees. They're saying, well, yes, they had to say that because they couldn't just write this in Trump's expenses. That is -- they're going ahead and kind of, you can see what the prosecutors are doing with these arguments is preparing for what they know. Todd Blanche is going to get up there and say, when he makes his opening statement.

COOPER: The prosecutor is saying that they agreed to cook the books. And again, the testimony has been that David Pecker and AMI didn't want to -- they thought the $130,000 for the Stormy Daniels story, it was too much. And they are the ones who informed the Trump organization, Michael Cohen, about the allegations. And Michael Cohen then took it from there.

COLLINS: David Pecker is -- that's why he's going to be the first witnesses. He's the reason that they knew about a lot of these negative stories that came out. They ran a lot of negative stories about Hillary Clinton, about his -- the other Republicans who are running against him. And now the prosecutor is walking the jury through the $430,000 payment that Trump did ultimately make to Michael Cohen.

This is important because people may look at that and say, well, that's not $130,000. Why is it so expensive? It's because as they were negotiating, as they were just talking about how Trump would actually reimburse Michael Cohen once Donald Trump had been elected. Michael Cohen was worried about the income tax hit that he was going to take here.

And he also wanted, I believe it was $60,000 that Michael Cohen wanted, essentially to be paid for his own services here. So that's why it won't be a check just for $130,000. It's a larger number because essentially Michael Cohen and his attorney, Lanny Davis, were arguing that he needed to be paid them.

COOPER: The prosecutor says the jurors will see that Donald Trump was a very frugal businessman who believed in pinching pennies. REID: We want to remind people where this information that you're seeing on the side of your screen is coming from. There are no cameras inside the court for this historic trial. So we are relying on a team of our colleagues, we have three reporters inside the courthouse who are feeding these live updates to us. So we're getting quotes, we're getting minute by minute updates for exactly what's going on inside.

COLLINS: Well, and that latest, you know, that quote from Matthew Colangelo, the prosecutor that Trump was a frugal businessman. They're saying he's not just paying $130,000, ultimately $430,000 for no reason. That Trump is not someone who likes to part ways with his money. That has always been his reputation. But they clearly are trying to establish that for the jury so that they can understand Donald Trump is not someone who just pays people six figures without knowing exactly where it's going.

COOPER: Do we expect Storm Daniels or Karen McDougal to actually testify?

REID: It's possible. Their testimony is not essential in this case, right, because there's paperwork that can support the value that they would add Stormy Daniels probably more likely than Karen McDougal. We know that she spoke with prosecutors in recent weeks. So certainly possible, but not one of like the big three witnesses that we absolutely expect will testify.

COOPER: Who are the other big witnesses?

REID: I would say, and Kaitlan, you can weigh in, too. But I would say it would probably be David Pecker, Michael Cohen.

COOPER: Here's another update. Prosecutor says when it came time to pay Cohen back, you'll see he didn't negotiate the price down. He doubled it. And he doubled it so they could disguise it as income to, which was to your point Kaitlan.

COLLINS: Exactly, that he doesn't part easily with his money and what he was paying Michael Cohen for, why it was that larger number. When it comes to the witnesses, obviously we expect to hear from Michael Cohen. I do think they'll ultimately bring Stormy Daniels up just simply for the nature of the fact that she was directly at the heart of this. But you just mentioned that Oval Office meeting that Donald Trump had with Michael Cohen. They could also bring Trump's scheduler inside the White House who sat right outside the Oval Office and coordinated all of his meetings.

COOPER: Also, Hope Hicks as well.

REID: That's who is going to be my number three because she was involved in these conversations with Michael Cohen in the days following the Access Hollywood tape. So, yes, I think she's probably one of the other most significant people the prosecution needs to tie its story together.

COOPER: All right, we continue to get updates from inside the courthouse. Let's go back to Jake. JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks, Anderson. So some really interesting points made by the panel up in New York and also by the prosecutor, the assistant district attorney. When it comes to the degree to which Donald Trump and those involved in the situation seem to hold what American media did.

We're being told the prosecutor just said that Trump and Cohen and Weisselberg agreed that Cohen would be paid back in monthly installments by sending fake invoices to the Trump Organization each month. This is part of the alleged conspiracy that paying Michael Cohen back would be purposefully disguised. That's part of the business fraud that is being alleged here, the actual crimes.

But two things I want to bring up, Elie. One is the degree to which they're saying this was done to help Trump get elected. And it was acknowledged as that by them. The prosecutor saying through the payments the defendant intended that nobody learn about the Stormy Daniels payoff. And we have some -- the two examples, we have Donald Trump not only thanking Pecker and National Enquirer Editor Dylan Howard. Not only thanking them, but actually having them to the White House --

[11:10:00]

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

TAPPER: -- to thank them. Quote, the defendant hosted a thank you dinner to thank Pecker and American media for their contributions to the campaign. And then also on election night, the attorney for Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, both women that Donald Trump allegedly had encounters with, the attorney, Keith Davidson, texting Dylan Howard, the editor of the National Enquirer, saying, what have we done? Judge Merchan closely watching the prosecutor as he is delivering his opening statement.

HONIG: So that's powerful evidence for the prosecution. When you're getting inside someone's mind, you may not have an example. You're not going to have Donald Trump on tape saying, I want to do this so we can steal the election, but you can look at conduct like this. Well, why would he have these people over? Why would he have a thank you dinner after he won the election, if not to acknowledge that they helped him win the election?

And there's a lot of evidence here flying during the opening argument about payments, transactions. It's important people understand. There's essentially two sets of payments and transactions. First, shortly before the election, Michael Cohen pays Stormy Daniels $130,000. Essentially, speaking of Michael Cohen, you will, in fact, hear a lot about Michael Cohen.

TAPPER: A lot about Michael Cohen, the prosecutor saying, yes.

HONIG: Michael Cohen makes the initial payment essentially out of his pocket. He takes a mortgage on his house, pays her $130,000.

TAPPER: And we should just note, the prosecutor is acknowledging, trying to get ahead of the defense, saying, the defense will go to great lengths to get you to reject Michael Cohen's testimony precisely because it is so damning.

HONIG: And this is what happens because the prosecutor is trying to pull the sting. They want to tell the jury straight up, this is a guy who's done some bad things. He's taken accountability. He's accepted responsibility. And this is why you should trust him. The second set of transactions is the repayment of Michael Cohen after the election. And that is the invoices and the ledger entries and the checks that form the basis for the crime.

TAPPER: And this is just what you just said. The prosecutor acknowledges that the jury will hear that Michael Cohen, like other witnesses who will testify trial, has made mistakes in the past.

HONIG: There's a way of doing this, very common.

TAPPER: Yes. And then, Tim, they're trying to head off at the pass what they know the defense is going to say about Michael Cohen.

TIM PARLATORE, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: This is the classic prosecutor strategy when you're dealing with a cooperating witness. I mean, very rarely do you have a cooperating witness who has a clean history. You know, the only reason that they're involved to have information about criminal activities, because they were involved in criminal activity.

TAPPER: Right.

PARLATORE: So, you know, this is, you know, the regular script of how you deal with softening them up before you bring out a cooperator who's going to be cross examined on all these things. And I think that it is important, you know, really, that this whole case is going to be rising and falling on the credibility of somebody like that. One of the interesting things here is he doesn't have a cooperation agreement.

TAPPER: Michael Cohen?

PARLATORE: Like a normal cooperating witness. He, when he had the opportunity to get a cooperating -- cooperation agreement with the Feds, he had nothing to provide against Donald Trump or anybody else. And so he didn't get a cooperation agreement. He went to jail. And then after he got out of jail, after he didn't get a pardon from Donald Trump, now he's, you know, telling this story when he had the most motivation to do it before he went to jail.

And so I think that is a theme that the defense is going to really bring out, that --

TAPPER: Yes.

PARLATORE: -- when he could have gotten himself out of jail, he didn't say these things. It's only after he didn't get the pardon he wanted.

TAPPER: And the prosecutor is telling the jury right now, you're going to need to keep an open mind and carefully evaluate all the evidence that corroborates Michael Cohen's testimony. In other words, Karen, whether or not you believe him, there is evidence that backs up what he's saying.

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. So legally, because David Pecker and Michael Cohen, they're all --

TAPPER: And just -- sorry to interrupt, but Cohen's testimony will be backed up by other witnesses and an extensive paper trail, including bank records, phone logs, business documents.

AGNIFILO: So the law requires the prosecutor to actually corroborate conspirator statements. OK. So David Pecker, they said, is a conspirator. Michael Cohen is a conspirator. They have to corroborate them. And in addition to the fact that he also, as Elie pointed out, has pled guilty to lying as well, under this 1,001 crime.

So they're going to corroborate every little thing he says so that when inevitably the defense gets up and says, you can't believe him, he's a liar, he's a convicted liar. And as Tim said, he changed his story. They could say, you don't have to -- he provided the color --

TAPPER: Yes. And Trump --

AGNIFILO: -- he provided the background.

TAPPER: -- Trump is still sitting back in his chair, we're told, not reacting to most of what the prosecutor is alleging. He's passing notes to his attorney. So behaving himself, as it were.

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: For now. You know, notice how often you're hearing these three names in the same sentence, Cohen, Weisselberg and Trump. Well, one of these three is, one is unlike the other. Two of them have already had at least convictions, right? And based on behavior that they're going to bring up in some capacity here.

So this is going to be really a chance for the prosecution, although they're laying out this case quite methodically. Remember, the jurors are going to be taking notes. They now have expectations. You're telling me I'm going to see handwritten accounting from Allen Weisselberg. You're telling me I'm going to see receipts from Michael Cohen. You're telling me I'm going to have proof somehow of everything that Pecker has done.

[11:15:01]

They now have to match up what they introduced as admissible evidence to what this jury will do. At the very end of it, they'll have to come back together, the closing, and say, I told you I was going to tell you it was all these things. Here's what I told you. If they fall short, that's reasonable doubt.

TAPPER: And here's a fresh photo from court. Donald Trump, eyes open, Dana Bash, paying attention to what's going on. And like I said, we're told that he's not really reacting much and he is passing notes to his attorney. DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And that's what I wanted to focus on, the latest update that we see on our screen, that he is trying to stay stoic. He's trying to not make, frankly, the mistakes that he made in other experiences that he had.

We just have an update.

TAPPER: Colangelo, the assistant district Attorney Matthew Colangelo has finished his opening statement. I'm not exactly sure what the time is, but he said it was going to be about 45 minutes. It feels roughly accurate. Jamie?

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Can I just underscore something that Tim said about what this case rises and falls on? To your point and to Karen's point, it's not going to rise and fall on Michael Cohen because they have all of these other documents. And Laura, earlier today you were talking about how jurors have to judge things in some ways based on common sense.

They look what are -- they listen to credibility. When you have all of these documents, we haven't seen them yet. But Lanny Davis came on CNN last week and talked about that there was going to be all of this, black and white --

TAPPER: Including audio recordings like Michael Cohen did of Donald Trump. Yes.

GANGEL: So we don't know what we don't know yet about that. But this is going to go beyond Michael Cohen.

TAPPER: So the defense is speaking now, we're told. And Tim Parlatore, what can you tell us about the attorney that's representing Donald Trump in court? What's the name of the attorney?

PARLATORE: Todd Blanche.

TAPPER: Todd Blanche.

PARLATORE: Todd Blanche is somebody who came in, you know, partway through the time that I was representing him. He originally represented Boris Epshteyn. I think he still does.

TAPPER: Todd Blanche saying, President Trump is innocent. President Trump did not commit any crimes.

PARLATORE: I would say the same thing --

TAPPER: Right.

PARLATORE: You know, so he's a former DOJ attorney. He's been a white collar defense attorney for a while, hasn't tried many cases in the defense. So this will be interesting to see how he does in this role.

TAPPER: And Elie Honig, you know him?

HONIG: Yes. So Todd Blanche and I worked at the U.S. attorney's office at the same time for five six years and Alvin Bragg --

TAPPER: Southern District of New York.

HONIG: Southern District of New York, federal prosecutors across the street, Todd, was chiefly, he was the chief of the violent crimes and gang sections. So he did murder, guns, drug type cases. He is very experienced in the courtroom. He knows what he's doing. The most important thing that you should understand is he breaks the mold of what you think of when you think over the last six, eight years of Donald Trump attorneys. This guy is not a Rudy Giuliani, he's not a Jenna Ellis, he's not a Sidney Powell.

TAPPER: No offense to you, Tim. He's exempting you. You are one of the more professional ones.

PARLATORE: Thank you, sir.

TAPPER: And Trump's lawyer, Mr. Blanche is --

HONIG: Tim is in the middle somewhere.

TAPPER: He's saying that Donald Trump is, quote, larger than life. But, quote, he's also here in this courtroom doing what any of us would do defending himself.

HONIG: And what Blanche is doing here is reminding the jury, first of all, the stakes. Second of all, of the burden of proof, right? They don't have to prove anything. It's all on the other side of the courtroom. It's one of the, I guess, few luxuries that you have as a defense lawyer. Todd Blanche is not going to pound the podium. He's going to be firm, but he's calm and he's a tactician and so is his counsel, Susan Necheles.

TAPPER: And, Karen, your take on this so far -- is this the defense you pretty much expected?

AGNIFILO: Absolutely. He came out, though, fighting. So he's innocent, right? Because, you know, that's not -- it's not a binary choice. The jury doesn't pick guilt or innocence. They pick guilt or not guilt.

TAPPER: And Todd Blanche just noted that they're going to call Mr. Trump President Trump out of respect, because he respects, quote, a title that he has earned because he was our 45th president. Again, kind of a reminder that this isn't just a regular defendant.

AGNIFILO: And, well, you're going to hear the prosecution call him defendant Trump, so.

TAPPER: Right. Or just the defendant.

AGNIFILO: Yes, exactly.

PARLATORE: Or former president, which drives him crazy.

TAPPER: Former president?

PARLATORE: Yes.

TAPPER: OK. But you were saying that this is pretty much the defense you expected?

AGNIFILO: Yes, but he's really, he's coming out and saying he's innocent. He's saying he had nothing to do with this. He is innocent. He's not just technically not guilty, right? And that's the defense sometimes what -- that they will say is the prosecutor didn't prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's more of a technical thing. He's actually emphatically saying he's innocent. And that's -- I think that's really interesting because the jury's going to expect then for him to back that up, show me that he's innocent.

TAPPER: So deep in the fever swamps of MAGA, there are theories that I won't even introduce in our panel here about why Stormy Daniels was paid money and it has to do with someone else being involved with her, not Donald Trump. Are they going to have to introduce a countervailing narrative to back that up?

[11:20:01]

AGNIFILO: So there will be an instruction by the judge that says you can't hold anything against the defendant if he chooses not to testify. There's already been an instruction in the beginning where he said that defense doesn't have to present any evidence. So they will say that. But look, jurors are human beings, and they're going to say, look, you said you were innocent. If I was innocent, I'd be jumping up and down. I would say that I'm innocent. I would get on the stand. I had nothing to hide. So I do think that it's human nature, even though they're not supposed to, to want them to back it up.

COATES: I mean, one, when it comes to the pleading of the Fifth Amendment, he has said that in so many words about those who are innocent would not actually plead that. He is not going to necessarily have that moment here. But important to consider the fact that whether there was an actual affair or not does not matter for the purpose of the prosecution, right?

Whether it's true does not matter. What matters is whether he believed it would be a problem to his campaign. And that's the follow up that's going be concerned here. Remember, one thing the judge said last week is he did not want to have a trial within a trial. That includes things with respect to prior bad acts might be litigated, but also that issue. And so the prosecution will focus. And you see this issue here, that the story the prosecution told is not true, heeply (ph) is the defense, and they'll find plenty of reasonable doubt.

Well, if it's reasonable doubt with respect to whether the affair occurred, that's not enough to get you up under the 34 counts of falsified business records. It's only if they can -- they have some seed of reasonable doubt to suggest that you didn't actually falsify the records. You didn't have an intent to try to commit some other crime around campaign finance. That's what matters, not whether there actually was an affair.

TAPPER: But he's leaning on the reasonable doubt argument, Dana, which suggests that they acknowledge. And Blanche has just said that what prosecutors told what appears to be a very clean, nice story, it is not. It is not simple as the people just described. So he's leaning on the idea that, like, this narrative introduced by the prosecution might sound nice, but there's a lot of reason to doubt it. And he's leaning into the idea that, like any doubt means you have to find him not guilty.

BASH: Which is the law. That is what the jury is supposed to abide by. That if there's any doubt in their mind that the charges against Donald Trump are not accurate, then they should not convict him. Oh, there's another update, Blanche is now walking through the checks that were cut from Michael Cohen in 2017 after he became Trump's personal attorney. Well, it sounds like they're trying to coming up on the past.

TAPPER: Well, just show that there's still a lot of payments, a lot of payments --

BASH: Exactly.

TAPPER: And how -- right? I mean, that's the idea, Elie. Like, you look at all these checks that we paid to Michael Cohen. Why would these three be fishy? The Trump attorney, Todd Blanche, is saying the 34 counts, ladies and gentlemen, are really just pieces of paper.

HONIG: So this is part of the branding battle that we're seeing here. Trump's team is arguing this is ancient paperwork violation. We just heard the DA argue this is an attempt to steal the 2016 election. The focus will be on those reimbursements, the checks, the ledger entries that were used by Donald Trump to repay Michael Cohen. And I think what we're going to hear out of the defense team here is Michael Cohen and Allen Weisselberg were the ones who said to set it up that way. Donald Trump is fairly clueless.

In fact, the tape we've been talking about where Cohen recorded Trump, Trump just says something like, we'll pay cash. And Cohen goes, no, no, I got it. And so what I think we're going to hear out of the defense is this whole scheme, the setup, the checks, the reimbursement that came from Michael Cohen.

TAPPER: And Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche, is saying to the jury, none of this, Anderson Cooper, none of this was a crime.

COOPER: Yes, we expect Todd Blanche's opening statement to be shorter. We believe it was supposed to be about in the 20 minutes range whereas the prosecution was supposed to be about 40 minutes or so.

REID: Yes, about half the length. And just a reminder that we're getting this --

COOPER: And he's acknowledging, by the way, that Stormy Daniels did, in fact, sign an NDA in October 2016 in exchange for $130,000. There was an agreement here that she did sign this NDA. He's acknowledging the deal.

REID: And I'm sure he'll remind the jurors that it's not a crime to enter into a non-disclosure agreement with anyone. Now, here, I think what you're going to hear is just a few moments ago, they were talking about how the prosecution laid out a simple story. They're going to argue that this is not simple and complexity is something that they are going to seize on. The way this has been charged, these 34 counts, each one representing a different document. And the fact that this has been sort of attached to a federal crime, election interference, they're going to seize on that, the defense attorneys, to try to undercut the legitimacy of this case.

They're going to try to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of the jurors. And just to remind --

COOPER: And also not just about the case itself but also about some of the witnesses in this case, particularly Michael Cohen. I mean they are going to go after the credibility of Michael Cohen.

REID: Yes. And they have a lot to work with there, right? He has pleaded guilty to lying in the course of this investigation, false statements to Congress. He has a pretty long rap sheet when it comes to not only not being honest but also having a vendetta against former President Trump, right?

He's written two books, one called "Revenge." He has a podcast who is constantly attacking Trump. All of that will be laid bare during his testimony. But these updates are coming from her colleagues inside the courtroom because there are no cameras inside court. So they're providing us these real time updates that you see on the side of your screen.

[11:25:18]

COOPER: The thing about Michael Cohen, though, that's interesting, and again, the Trump attorney is saying, ask yourself, would a frugal businessman who pinches pennies repay $130,000 debt to the tune of $420,000?

COLLINS: He's trying to argue that it wasn't paying Michael Cohen back for the $130,000, that this was not just a reimbursement, that he was paying Michael Cohen for legal fees. That's been their argument because it was marked as a legal retainer in that.

Of course, Rudy Giuliani himself said at the time that Michael Cohen wasn't doing legal work for Trump. The other thing that's interesting about what Trump's attorney is trying to do in these -- in this opening argument is, you know, he said he's going to call Trump President Trump because he said held that title, he deserves that honor.

But he also said, he's just like you, he's a husband, he's a businessman. He's kind of trying to make him more relatable to the jury. I think it's going to be a hurdle to describe it as relatable to pay a former porn star $130,000. But that is clearly what -- part of what Todd Blanche's opening tactic here with the jury is going to be is saying that none of this amounts to a crime. He was just simply paying him back. And so, obviously, you know, he's taking what the prosecution was arguing in their opening statement, saying that Trump was so frugal, he doesn't part with his money easily to say, well, if that's the case, then why would he have given Michael Cohen 300,000 more dollars than what he --

COOPER: It's also interesting that for them to go after Michael Cohen, obviously they have to do that for their case. But if the argument is Michael Cohen who was sleazy, he's unreliable, he's untrustworthy, this is a person who was at the right hand of Donald Trump for many, many years, who worked very closely. This is the kind of person that Donald Trump wanted in his orbit.

REID: Yes, that's the flip side of it. The other side of their argument, which is that 400 somewhat thousand dollars that was paid for legal services. He was someone that we entrusted to help us navigate legal questions. But on the other side, you can't trust anything he says, and he hates Trump. Now, it's a complicated story between Michael Cohen and Donald Trump. And that's something about the prosecution and the defense will have to grapple with.

COOPER: In terms of what we should expect today. Again, for viewers who are just joining us, we do expect David Pecker. I mean, it seems like they are moving pretty quickly. We've already heard opening statements from the prosecution. We're now in the opening statements from the defense. As soon as this is done, first witness should be called.

COLLINS: Yes. And prosecutors will go first in questioning that witness.

COOPER: Trump had nothing to do with the invoice as his attorney, with the check being generated or with the entry of the ledger.

COLLINS: And that is really going to be what, from what we've gathered from our sources, is going to be the heart of Trump's defense, which is, one, you can't trust Michael Cohen. And two, Michael Cohen was doing this on his own, that the people who were involved in actually making these payments and putting these down in the business ledger, that was all of the people who worked for Donald Trump, that it wasn't Trump himself that was doing that. So they'll emphasize his role as his attorney.

They'll emphasize Allen Weisselberg's role and say that essentially it wasn't Trump's not. David Pecker, though the first witness may very well contradict that and undermine what this opening arguments.

COOPER: Essentially, their argument is, look, Donald Trump is running this company. He's not going to be bothered with what's, you know, who's writing what.

REID: Yes.

COLLINS: But David Pecker is going to get on the stand and say, yes, in August 2015, there was a meeting between Trump, myself, and Michael Cohen. And here's what Trump said in that meeting. That's what they're going to ask him about.

COOPER: We should also point out David Pecker has made a deal. Trump's attorney says he expects a Trump organization accountant to testify at the trial. David Pecker is, has made a deal to avoid prosecution.

REID: So previously AMI, the company that owned the National Enquirer, they had a non-prosecution agreement with the Justice Department as part of that, you know, Michael Cohen, you know, he was -- he pleaded guilty. He was convicted. But Pecker cooperated. So he did not have to plead guilty. He was not formally charged. So, yes, he has struck a deal for himself to cooperate --

COOPER: And his testimony is part of that, I assume.

REID: Yes, exactly. His cooperation, providing details about exactly what happened in and around the payment specifically to Karen McDougal.

COLLINS: Well, and the reason it's notable that update there, that the attorney is going to testify, the accountant is going to testify at the trial is because she's the one who actually wrote the books. The problem that they're going to have with that, though, is Trump's name is on the checks. And he signed these checks. And so as much as they are trying to distance himself from these payments, he did actually sign them. And --

COOPER: And some of them were signed again in the White House?

COLLINS: And as we know, Michael -- Donald Trump is very reluctant to pay attorneys even when they do actual legal work for him. We've seen that play out in the last year with Rudy Giuliani, who had to go to Mar-a-Lago and beg Trump to help him with his own legal fees, and Trump told him no. And so there is a moment here where that will be something -- whether or not that's something the prosecution is able to successfully bring up.

[11:29:56]

COOPER: Todd Blanche is saying that the reality is Mr. Trump is not on the hook, is not criminally responsible for something Mr. Cohen may have done years after the fact remains to be seen.