Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Defense: "There's Nothing Wrong With Trying To Influence An Election"; Trump Lawyer To Jury: Michael Cohen Is An Admitted Liar; Any Minute: Trial Resumes After Opening Statements In Hush Money Case. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired April 22, 2024 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:29:56]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: 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. Obviously, what David Pecker will testify to may counter -- contradict that, that it may show -- David Pecker may be able to say right then in that meeting that Donald Trump talked about this as being something he wanted to stop before the election.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And this is why David Pecker is so critical to kick off the prosecution's case because he will show that this wasn't just a woman who came forward with allegations after the Access Hollywood tape, someone needed to do something. This is all part of a plan and something that they had already done with at least one other woman. And, of course, also with this doorman who falsely alleged that Trump had fathered a child out of wedlock. They had already paid people to keep quiet about unfavorable stories.

COOPER: Trump's attorney is saying I have a spoiler alert. There's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It's called democracy.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: I mean, that's an interesting argument that they're going to be trying to push back on and trying to make here saying that there's nothing wrong with that. Because it's not that Trump was going out and just campaigning and you know, criticizing Stormy Daniels or Michael Cohen at the time, you know these are payments that are being made behind closed doors that Trump was lying about for months about his knowledge of them.

I mean, no one will ever forget who covered the White House when Donald Trump was on Air Force One. And a reporter who now works at the Wall Street Journal asked him, you know, did you know about these payments, this $130,000? And he said, no, you'll have to ask Michael Cohen. Of course, we now have later learned he did know because he signed trucks reimbursing him for it.

COOPER: Trump's attorney says entering into a nondisclosure agreement is perfectly legal. You will learn that companies do that all the time with some regularity. REID: Yes, but the companies are not running for the presidency. They're not subject to federal campaign regulation. So, the argument the prosecutors will make here is that this hush money was done in an effort to help Trump's chances in the 2016 election. And that is what makes it different.

COLLINS: That's the question, of course, is whether or not they're going to be successful. And I do think Paula makes a good point that that is why David Pecker is going to be the first -- is expected to be the first witness here to undermine essentially part of what Trump's team was arguing in their opening statements. They had a pretty good idea of what the prosecution was going to argue.

They knew what they were going to essentially say here. I should note, you know, obviously, the opening statement for the prosecution went about 46 minutes. Todd Blanche is expected to be less than half of that before they actually get into David Pecker. But then they will have the chance to cross-examine him and ask him about Trump's involvement.

COOPER: Trump's attorney said his client "fought back to protect his family, his reputation, and his brand. That is not a crime." The state is saying that this was to influence the election. He's saying this was about protecting his family, his reputation, and his brand.

COLLINS: Which is essentially the John Edwards argument and what his defense was, which was it was to protect my family, it was not to influence the election. The question is whether or not Donald Trump will be able -- whether Trump's defense team will be able to successfully make that argument as they're looking at the other stories of Karen McDougal, the other allegations. Because it wasn't just the Stormy -- the Stormy Daniels' story there. There are the multiple stories that are -- the catch and kill efforts here that David Pecker, National Enquirer were going after.

COOPER: It will also be interesting to see how aggressive the Trump's attorneys are with David Pecker. Because, obviously, David Pecker knows a lot of the background and a lot of the secrets of Donald Trump.

REID: Yes. You got to be careful there, right? Go gently. And he's also someone who's been a big Trump supporter for a long time. He was a huge fan of Trump.

COOPER: Trump's attorney says the Daniels false allegations of an affair with Trump was sinister and an attempt to embarrass President Trump, to embarrass his family. Let's go back to Jake in D.C.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Anderson, thanks so much. So, Trump's attorney, as Anderson just pointed out, says that Dan -- Stormy Daniels' false allegation of an affair with Trump was "sinister and an attempt to embarrass President Trump, to embarrass his family." So, it's interesting here, Elie, they don't actually have to disprove that there was an encounter between Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Right. TAPPER: But they are seeking to say that the entire story is not true.

HONIG: Right. So, it doesn't matter whether Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels actually had a sexual dalliance in 2006 or not. What matters is that Stormy Daniels came forward with this. And here we see the competing narratives.

TAPPER: Wait, now. I know we just --

HONIG: Yes, sure.

TAPPER: Because the judge just called the lawyers to the bench right after Trump's attorney said that the lawyers had negotiated the nondisclosure agreement and payment.

HONIG: So, that's interesting. And that happens sometimes. What usually predicates this is something the defense lawyer said raised an objection, either the judge himself or perhaps the D.A. at some objection. And usually, you're not going to hash out an objection like that in front of the jury because you could be talking about things that won't come in it --

TAPPER: Yes. Because the prosecutors objected --

HONIG: Here we go.

TAPPER: And Merchan sustained it.

HONIG: Right.

TAPPER: So, the prosecutor's point stands. Why would Merchan sustain that objection?

HONIG: So, he would just be in it if the defendant -- the defense lawyer was getting into an argument. Meaning, taking a fact and then saying, here's what this means, jury. You're not supposed to do that in opening. That's why we don't actually technically call them opening arguments.

[11:35:12]

TAPPER: Right. Although the Trump's attorney, Mr. Blanche, just said there is nothing illegal about entering into a nondisclosure agreement period.

HONIG: So, that's argumentative, right? Because the prosecution argues that while the -- maybe the hush money payment itself was not illegal, but the way they did, this one is illegal.

TAPPER: And this is about the NDA though.

HONIG: Right. So, the NDA, which was what they were paying Stormy Daniels for? They gave her -- Michael Cohen gave her $130,000. That nondisclosure agreement is what she gave them in exchange.

TAPPER: Right. LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: She's also -- there's also some for reporting, though, that Todd Blanche set -- made a comment to allude to the fact that the allegations by Daniels was almost to extort President Trump. That's what led to the sustaining of the objections because it is -- it's the allegation is going beyond the scope.

HONIG: Right.

TAPPER: And Todd Blanche's point is just because they entered into a nondisclosure agreement, doesn't mean that he -- Donald Trump, did anything wrong or that anything even happened --

HONIG: Exactly.

TAPPER: Which the jury will have to weigh whether they may believe that.

HONIG: Exactly. And I think what may have caught the judge's attention there and the D.A. was the calling it extortion. That's going to be very debatable. That's argument.

TAPPER: That's why -- you know -- and Jim Trusty is joining us here. I -- the -- I assume Mr. Blanche -- you're a former Trump attorney. Mr. Blanche is conducting the trial the way that you would expect him to.

JIM TRUSTY, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: Yes. I mean, I think both sides had to focus on Michael Cohen. And the prosecution emphasized heavily that they don't view this as a case that rises or falls on Cohen's credibility. And that's a smart thing.

Cohen has demonstrably bad credibility, whether it comes to bias against Trump or convictions for lying to law enforcement or being a failed cooperator. And no surprise that Todd Blanche would then turn around and say this thing is all about Michael Cohen, and that his credibility is the key and that you can't -- you can't call it corroboration just because there's a paper trail. What matters is Cohen's interpretation of President Trump's intent at the time of these agreements.

TAPPER: Right. And here, we have Todd Blanche, Trump's attorney saying what we also heard from the prosecution, which is you're going to hear a lot about Michael Cohen. They're -- both sides are saying that. Trump's attorney talking about how Michael Cohen wanted a job in the Trump administration after the 2016 election, didn't get one. Trying to create the idea in the minds of the jurors that this is sour grapes.

TRUSTY: Yes. I mean, look, you've got such a fertile battlefield if you want to go after the credibility of Michael Cohen. I think any lawyer would kind of salivate at the idea of having a chance to cross- examine him. And some of its bias. Some of its -- comes from sour grapes. Some of it comes from the failed relationship that he had with President Trump. But --

TAPPER: Yes. TRUSTY: You know, the convictions and the failure as a cooperator are big moments in terms of judging him.

TAPPER: And Todd Blanche says unbeknownst to President Trump and all the years that Cohen worked for him, Cohen was also a criminal. Now, this, I suspect, Karen and Elie, is a reference to the thing having to do with the medallion cabs. Is that -- is that right?

HONIG: Coming in a lot of things. I mean, Michael Cohen ended up in admitting to the -- a bank fraud, multimillion dollars relating to -- he used to be a lawyer that dealt with cab medallions in New York City. He pled guilty to four million dollars worth of tax fraud.

But what's interesting and where this is going to get really contentious, this allegation by Todd Blanche is, how about the crimes relating to this, the campaign finance that Michael Cohen pled guilty to? How about the lying to Congress about Donald Trump's effort to build in Moscow? Michael Cohen and the prosecution are going to say he did that with and for and at the direction of Donald Trump. It sounds like Trump's saying, well, he got duped by his own lawyer --

TAPPER: Right.

HONIG: While looking for the jury.

TAPPER: Mr. Blanche, saying just now, Karen, that Michael Cohen is a "convicted perjurer," which we've already discussed earlier about his lying to Congress. And an admitted liar. And in -- and in 2018, he got caught.

So, Karen, what they're trying to do here, the Trump lawyers are saying, oh, my God, Donald Trump had no idea that Michael Cohen was such a bad actor. And it's not just stuff related to things he did for Donald Trump, which is the lying to Congress and such, but also things he was doing that Donald Trump didn't know anything about. Trump's attorney is saying that Cohen is "obsessed with President Trump, even to this day," noting that Michael Cohen has a podcast and does other political commentary, especially on MSNBC criticizing Donald Trump.

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. so, you're getting a preview, if you will. This is almost like an argument. What's -- he saying I expect the evidence will show. And he's giving his arguments in the opening statement. And that's how he's doing it, right?

He's saying I expect that through my cross-examination of Michael Cohen, you are going to see that he's obsessed with President Trump even to this day, right, noting his podcast, etcetera. And that's how -- that's how Todd Blanche is going to do it. I think you're going to see a very vigorous cross-examination of Michael Cohen.

TAPPER: And this is -- this is why the prosecution said don't -- you're not only going to have to rely on Michael Cohen. There's also going to be evidence that backs up everything he says. Trump's attorney reading the jury a post from Cohen last night calling Trump a despicable human being and saying he wants to see him. I -- the things cut off there, so I can't read it, but he wants to see accountability. (INAUDIBLE)

[11:40:06]

COATES: Well, you know, this is exactly why they want to have the argument, don't just take our word for it or his word for it. Corroboration will be key for any rehabilitation of credibility. It's also going to be key for the actual jurors to see it for themselves, to line it up.

What was the work that you invoiced for? What was the work that was or was not done? Where's the check? How do I have the receipts is all part of these things?

The jury needs to have things said to them multiple times. I mean, the idea of repetition is why sermons work, right, why great speeches work. You want to have it drilled into the actual minds of the jurors. So, this happens again and again, again, which is why you show the pattern of behavior as well. This is not a one-off. It is a pattern, and it happens.

TAPPER: So, the lawyers have been called to the bench because the district attorney, the prosecutor objected to two statements from Trump's lawyers -- from Todd Blanche about Michael Cohen lying. Judge Merchan sustained the objections. I guess, Karen, you were suggesting that you found -- you were finding it argumentative a bit what they were saying.

AGNIFILO: Exactly.

TAPPER: And it sounds like Judge Merchan agrees with it.

AGNIFILO: Exactly. Save it for your submission. Save it -- look, see if the evidence does show these things, right? Because --

TAPPER: Right. Because there are rules about what is supposed to happen in the opening argument.

AGNIFILO: The opening is just supposed to be a preview of what they expect the evidence to show. You're not supposed to make arguments. And traditionally, lawyers don't typically object during openings or summations.

You kind of sit back and let them make their argument unless something is really egregious. So, the fact that we've seen a bunch of a -- bunch of -- and I think, worth three objections so far from the D.A.'s office in a 20-minute opening, that's a lot. You could see tensions are already high in that courtroom.

TAPPER: So --

COATES: And the damage is done, by the way. The jury -- I mean the jury is hearing parts of the statements that are being made. And of course, you can have the objections happen. But this defense counsel is well aware of the fact that although his words are not evidence, they are probably landing in ways that are making people think, aha, why are they objecting? What don't they want me to hear? And what about Michael Cohen?

TAPPER: So, Jim, do you -- do you -- are you surprised at either the degree to which the district attorney is objecting to comments that the defense is making their opening statement or are you surprised by them going up to the line in terms of how argumentative the defense attorney is, or both?

TRUSTY: Yes. More of the former. I mean, I do think it's just kind of an unwritten rule that unless it really hurts you, you don't object during the other side's opening statement. And everyone knows the opening statement, you try to pack in words that are at least argumentative words or phrases, even if it's not truly an argument. But look, I mean, they're -- he's landing blows against a really easy target. I mean, Cohen has been --

TAPPER: Yes. Trump's attorney --

TRUSTY: Convicted of dishonesty. That's a huge starting point in any criminal trial.

TAPPER: Trump's attorney right now continuing his opening statement, Elie.

TRUSTY: Yes.

HONIG: I agree with what Jim is saying. It is rare to object during the other side's opening. I don't know that I ever get it because you want to look calm in front of the jury. You want to look unbothered.

But I think what's happening here is, both the D.A. and the judge want to establish discipline early. They don't want it -- once you start letting things slide, even if they're sort of small technical violations, you might otherwise overlook. I think they want to snuff it out right in the beginning here.

COATES: Yes. And they're being sustained. The judge is agreeing. Remember, this is -- this is a judge, first of all, go back a little bit. This is the same judge who Trump had been criticizing for how long, that people wondered whether or not it would serve him to his benefit or detriment if you continued to do so.

This judge is probably not thinking about those personal attacks on himself or his daughter. He's always thinking about the idea of I have to control my courtroom, I have to make people know that you have -- even had Cohen on the stand yet. You have to actually impeach him with these other information. You can't just get ahead of the cart and say, all right, jury, this is enough. You have to prove it during the trial.

TAPPER: So, Trump's attorney, Mr. Blanche, is telling the jury that they will learn that Michael Cohen "has pled guilty to lying under oath." We talked about that earlier, Dana. And that's a reference, of course, to Michael Cohen saying to Congress that he only talked with Donald Trump about three times about the ill-fated Moscow-Trump Tower plan when actually the real time was about 10. He later admitted that and pleaded guilty to this violation of not telling the truth to a body of government.

DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. And then has since on that another issue said, well, he was again, still trying to protect Donald Trump. But it's an early reminder and it signals how critical Michael Cohen is going to be to this. Right off the bat, you're seeing the prosecution lay out his involvement and say you're going to not just hear what he said but you're going to see what he did. You're going to see the documents.

And immediately the defense is saying that he is absolutely not the person used to relying on another update, Cohen's "entire financial livelihood depends on President Trump's destruction." That's the defense attorney. And -- you know, saying it is -- it is actually true that what Michael Cohen is doing now to make money is podcasts and other things.

[11:45:00]

TAPPER: And Todd Blanche, Trump's attorney, is saying the jury they can't make a serious decision about Donald Trump based on Cohen's testimony. And so far, in the opening statement by the defense, Jamie Gangel, Todd Blanche is basically said Michael Cohen has sour grapes because he wasn't picked to join the Trump administration in 2016. That Michael Cohen was a criminal unbeknownst to Donald Trump, who had no idea he would engage in such devious activities.

And third, that his entire financial responsibility right now -- he has everything to gain by destroying Donald Trump. That's where his podcast is. That's where -- that's why he's called to go on MSNBC, etcetera because of his opposition to Trump.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: I would add one more thing. Michael Cohen went to jail, you know, in this case. That was not pleasant. I'm not saying that this is revenge.

Two things can be true at the same time. He can tell the truth when he gets on the stand. But you know, he is -- he's not happy with Donald Trump.

I do want to say one thing. And this is really, for the lawyers. Sometimes, you have -- and you've all talked about having a witness that you have to rehabilitate when they get on the stand. I think it's also true that Michael Cohen, along with the documents, but just his personality, he may actually be a very good witness, especially with these jurors. I mean, wait and see. But it's --

TAPPER: So, Todd --

GANGEL: He communicates well.

TAPPER: Todd Blanche just said that Stormy Daniels has "made a life off of her story, even though she once publicly denied an affair in writing." So, what we have here, Laura, is once again, they're trying to go after the witnesses against Donald Trump, which is what any defense attorney would do. You're going to hear negative things from Stormy Daniels. She's made

her whole career off of this. You're going to hear negative things about Donald Trump -- from Michael Cohen. He's also making his whole career out of this.

It will be -- it will be interesting what they say about David Pecker. But walk us through the objections that the district attorney has made.

COATES: Yes.

TAPPER: Although I wanted just like leading up to the 2016 election, Trump's attorney said Stormy Daniels saw her chance.

COATES: Yes.

TAPPER: Again, the idea that she's -- this was all just a predator named Stormy Daniels going after innocent Donald Trump.

COATES: Now, keep in mind, of course, that again, the allegation of the affair is what they're focusing on and the fallout from it leads to the payment. But looking at the objections, you're just taking notes on it. You just mentioned three key players here. One was Stormy Daniels.

TAPPER: I just to interrupt.

COATES: Here we go.

TAPPER: I'm sorry. Todd Blanche, noting that Stormy Daniels owes Trump about $600,000 as a result of her failed legal attempts against him. Is anywhere -- anyone here who want to give us an update on what that's about? Jim, are you -- are you well versed in the $600,000 Stormy Daniels owes Donald Trump?

TRUSTY: I do -- no. I thought it might have been like, a defamation- related.

TAPPER: Right.

TRUSTY: So, if I remember correctly. But you know, I got to tell you -- I mean, you just said any defense attorney would do this thing. I would have been much more subtle about any criticism of Stormy Daniels.

TAPPER: Oh, really?

TRUSTY: Yes. I don't think that's the battleground you want. You don't want to start looking like you're just attacking everybody that's going to show up including Pecker. I think you say look, NDAs are not illegal. This is a political campaign led by Michael Cohen, who's still on TV every night.

TAPPER: Yes.

TRUSTY: And you keep all the focus -- TAPPER: Let's make it on Michael Cohen.

TRUSTY: Yes, the focus is entirely Cohen. And if -- you might say something subtle like you're going to learn there are some motivations that would make Stormy Daniels a suspect witness too. But you don't -- you don't delve into fighting the women that are part of this. It doesn't matter legally.

TAPPER: So, Todd Blanche obviously launching a much more aggressive assaults. And he just said to the jury that Stormy Daniels "has no idea about the business records at issue in this case." And he said Stormy Daniels' testimony while salacious, does not matter, Anderson.

COOPER: Jake, thanks very much. Back here with Kaitlan Collins and Paula Reid in New York. Just to pick up on that going after Stormy Daniels, here's another update. It's not a scheme unless a scheme means something that doesn't matter. That's not illegal, Blanche says, of the catch-and-kill agreement with Pecker. And there is nothing illegal about the catch-and-kill agreement as sleazy as it may be.

REID: Exactly. The argument the way this case is being framed by the prosecution is that this was an effort to help Trump's chances of taking the White House. And they allege the documents were falsified to cover up what this really was in an effort to help his chances in 2016. And that is the crime.

So, here you see defense attorneys reminding people what we know -- what we said on air, which is again an affair, not a crime. Hush money payments, NDAs not crimes. Also, as our colleagues were noting in D.C., going after Stormy Daniels is an interesting tack here.

COOPER: And the defense attorney is saying -- tells the jury to listen to David Pecker's testimony. He's the head of AMI, which owns the National Enquirer. Listen to David Pecker's testimony over the next couple of days. Encouraging the jurors to listen to Pecker's motivation to sell magazines.

COLLINS: He's making very clear where he'll go with David Pecker when they have the chance to cross-examine him. One thing he -- when he was talking about Stormy Daniels, it seems very clear Trump's legal team does expect Stormy Daniels to testify. That's what I read. That's what my analysis is of what Todd Blanche was saying.

[11:50:10]

They're saying that maybe it's going to be salacious, but it doesn't ultimately matter here because she doesn't know about the heart of the allegations here, which is about how these payments were categorized in Donald Trump's records and his financial records here. And so, that is something that's notable. But saying to listen to what Pecker's testimony was for selling magazines, I mean, anyone who's ever picked up a copy of the National Enquirer would know that.

It's interesting, though, to kind of turn David Pecker against that because, for decades, Donald Trump used David Pecker to his advantage. I mean, this was not just about the campaign. This was a relationship that dated back to when he ran the Trump Style magazine before he got to National Enquirer. But he was at National Enquirer when the apprentice became a popular television show. And that is when women and their stories of Donald Trump started coming forward.

COOPER: And the defense has now finished opening statements. So, this is again a critical juncture. We're going to get a quick break. We're going to wait for the first witness, which we believe is David Pecker. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:55:52]

COOPER: And welcome back to CNN's special live coverage of Donald Trump's hush money trial. Moments ago, Trump walking out of the courtroom after opening statements from both the prosecution and the defense. The first witness is -- well, due on the stand after the court comes back from a brief recess. We're back with Paula Reid and Kaitlan Collins.

The question is, will there actually -- will the witness actually be called? Because they're -- we learned earlier today that they're going to stop at 12:30 because one of the jurors has a dentist appointment, which again, I just find amazing that they're stopping.

REID: I agree with you completely. One of the alternatives has a dentist appointment. We're only --

COOPER: With the all -- it's an alternate juror, yes.

REID: Yes, it's an alternate.

COOPER: OK.

REID: An alternate juror but --

COLLINS: But who has to be there --

COOPER: Right.

REID: Exactly. And the juror noted -- the judge rather noted, we want all our alternates, right?

COOPER: Right.

REID: We want everybody to do what they have to do and return here to do this incredibly important task. They were only supposed to go today until 2:00 because of Passover. But now they're only going to 12:30. So, that gives us 30 minutes, potentially to hear from the first witness, as expected to be David Pecker's.

It's unclear if the judge is going to be like sure, bring him in, swear him in, let's get started, or you know, let's just wrap and start clean tomorrow. Again, tomorrow, the court also starts late because Trump -- the former president, Trump, they're going to assess whether he has violated the gag order that's in place here. COLLINS: But I think it's important to remind everyone who we may be about to hear from and who is going to be this first witness. Because David Pecker is not a household name for a lot of people, but he's someone who has known Donald Trump for decades.

You saw the prosecution start their opening statement by referencing David Pecker and the meeting that he had in August 2015 when Donald Trump became a Republican presidential candidate and the efforts that he went to help Trump with that campaign. Whether it was what we're talking about what's at the heart of this or publishing embarrassing stories about Trump's political opponents, the other Republicans who are also running for the nomination.

COOPER: Which we saw -- we saw negative stories in the National Enquirer about Ted Cruz, about Ben Carson.

COLLINS: Ted Cruz had to come out and publicly address it because the allegations were so ugly. And obviously, a lot of negative stories about Hillary Clinton during the course of the campaign. The reason they're bringing him, and he is expected to be the first witness, we'll see if he actually gets sworn in today is because of the meetings though, that he had with Donald Trump about suppressing negative stories.

A lot of the names that we're hearing today, Karen McDougal, Stormy Daniels, the doorman, which was an unfounded accusation was because David Pecker found out about it first and told Michael Cohen and Donald Trump.

COOPER: Yes. I want to bring in former Trump adviser David Urban. David, I understand you saw Melania Trump this weekend. She made her first solo appearance in a very long time at a I think it was Log Cabin Republicans event at Mar-a-Lago. How did she seem?

DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Anderson, she was completely upbeat, very professional, unfazed, you know, like nothing else was going on in the world other than that event.

COOPER: She's not built -- been in court with her husband, obviously, the trial -- you know, his alleged an affair that he had with a porn star. She stayed very far away. Do you have any sense of what she thinks of this case, which is far more personal than any of the others he's facing?

URBAN: Yes. Anderson, my general sense of this of -- how I think a lot of people feel who are close to the president and feel strong about him. Look, she obviously -- in my opinion, you know, I didn't discuss this with her. But she -- I think she thinks it probably feels as outrageous.

This case is outrageous. It's an old case that the Department of Justice took a pass on, that Alvin Bragg who's a district attorney who ran saying that I'm the best-suited person to take on Donald Trump and take him out. And he was elected as a -- as a basis of his platform.

I think that you know, it generates sympathy for the former president amongst people who don't even like him. I've heard some people say, listen, I'm not -- I wasn't voting for Trump. Now, I consider voting for the guy because all this law (INAUDIBLE) going on.

It -- really, I think has backfired to a certain extent in the political -- in the political realm. I'm not talking to legal. I have no doubt that you know, this jury in New York is going to find him guilty, and there'll be an appeal at some point. But in the political realm, I think the case may backfire because it's creating a sympathetic character on Donald Trump.