Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Tabloid Publisher David Pecker Testifies In Trump Hush Money Trial; Columbia University Goes Virtual Amid Pro-Palestinian Protests. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired April 22, 2024 - 13:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:33:35]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Welcome back to our special coverage of Donald Trump's historic Manhattan criminal trial. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington, and Erin Burnett is just outside the courthouse in New York.

Last hour, a court wrapped up for the day after some truncated testimony from the first witness, David Pecker. He's the publisher of the National Enquirer and a longtime friend of Trump's who helped orchestrate several catch and kill deals to bury damaging stories about Trump during the 2016 campaign. Erin.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: And Wolf, David Pecker is so central to this, could, of course, be testifying on the stand through the week, even though the jury for today has gone home. David Packer at the center of this, the prosecutors alleging that he is a conspirator in the entire hush money payments themselves.

When he walked out of the courtroom today, he did walk by the Trump team's table and said, hi, I suppose, indicating maybe some level of friendliness there. But David Pecker really at the center of this and the first witness here in this crucial criminal hush money trial here in New York. And we're outside the courtroom here with Paula Reid and Phil Mattingly.

So, Phil, David Packer really is central to this. And just sort of the optics of what we saw today are significant in terms of prosecutors alleging that he's a conspirator and how he walked by the Trump table and said high on his way out.

[13:35:03]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT AND ANCHOR: And I think more than anything else, when you listen to our team relayed what was actually, what actually happened in the courthouse today is you understand how the prosecution is laying the groundwork for what's to come, right, explaining who this individual is, asking him about his age, what he does, kind of his process, but also about the type of journalism that he oversaw, his role in that journalism. And I want to make something abundantly clear that we all know, but

maybe isn't as obvious to others, payment for journalism, whether for stories or to kill stories, is not how we operate, is not how kind of usually media operates. It's how they operated. And why he has become so central in his relationship with the former president is so central in this case.

And I think what you saw in these initial stages, you made clear there will be much more testimony to come from David Pecker. His relationship with the former president and his role in this as alleged criminal conspiracy is that they're trying to set the stage for the critical moments to come. And Pecker's role in actual meetings, actual conversations at the center of this case.

BURNETT: And obviously, Paula, you know, it was unclear today whether he would actually get on the stand because we knew they had to leave early, in part for the Jewish holiday. And the juror also had an appointment, I guess, this afternoon. So it was an early dismissal. But they did get him on for about an hour. But that is just the very tip of the iceberg, right?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It is. And it was a good sort of light way to start a very serious case because they had to talk to him, you know, ask him, how old are you? Right? That always gets some chuckles. These are the standard questions you'd ask anybody. But they also talked a little bit about how business went down at the National Enquirer. That's really interesting. Right? How did you find stories? How did you investigate stories? Hey, how much did you spend?

So they're just now getting to these basic questions, but it's so important to the prosecution's case because David Packer helped set the stage for this argument. This was all part of an effort to suppress negative stories about candidate Trump to help his chances in the 2016 election.

And they're going to go back to a 2015 meeting between Trump, Packer and Cohen, where he talks about how he's going to help him suppress these stories. I'll be your eyes and ears. And then we know that David Packer was helpful in suppressing other stories, not Stormy Daniels. Karen McDougal, another woman who says she had an affair, a doorman who said falsely that Trump had fathered a child out of wedlock.

David Packer helped secure those two stories and then suppress them, make sure they never saw the light of day. He is important. Even though he didn't pay Stormy Daniels, he just tipped them that she was telling her story. He's important to set the framework. The prosecutors are trying to tell the story with it.

BURNETT: And what's interesting, Todd Blanche, Trump's lawyer, in the opening statements, setting up this argument that Pecker is so central to saying, I have a spoiler alert. There's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It's called democracy.

So going at the heart of catch and kill was the business model, and there's nothing wrong with doing it, even in the goal of influencing an election is the argument they're going to make.

MATTINGLY: The argument that they're going to make and also making very clear they don't believe this is a criminal conspiracy. This was just the way they were doing business. The 34 charges are based on 34 pieces of paper. I'm paraphrasing a little bit. There was how they framed things, which goes against, they're telling a similar story but just have very different conclusions as to what it actually means.

And what's interesting, when you listen to or when we read through what Blanche was saying in the opening statement and how he framed how the former president did business, who he was and his role in New York in society, when you contrast that with how the prosecution was trying to lay out what was actually happening in this moment, laying out the Access Hollywood tape, laying out the kind of urgent need to try and kill this story and why.

People don't remember what was happening in this week when this information first became apparent to Trump and his team. This was a very political and electoral strategy related type of operation which runs counter to what we heard from Blanche, who's saying, look, this is protect the family. This is how the business operates said nothing to do. But hey, if it does, you know, this is, we always try and persuade when it comes to an election.

BURNETT: All right, well, we're going to be here as we continue our breaking coverage here this afternoon and this historic moment of the trial. Paula and Phil and I will all be here, of course, along with Wolf and his team.

So what have we learned from the jury selection, from the people who were sitting in that room today hearing all of these arguments in day one of this historic trial? We'll tell you what we know about the New Yorkers, who will be the ones who decide and determine for the whole country whether Donald Trump is convicted and guilty in a criminal trial. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:43:47]

BLITZER: Welcome back to our special coverage. The judge at Donald Trump's hush money trial gave jurors extensive instructions before the opening statement started. Among them that there is no formula for judging the accuracy of a witness, that they should use their, quote, varied life experiences in evaluating if a witness is credible, and that they can take brief notes. But the note taking should not distract them from watching the proceeding.

Joining us now is Alan Turkheimer. He's a jury consultant with some 20 years of experience doing juror research, focus groups, mock trials and more to help legal teams prepare for trial.

Alan, put these instructions into perspective for us. Is this typical or is this something unique to this historic trial?

ALAN TUERKHEIMER, ATTORNEY AND JURY CONSULTANT: This is typical because this is such a new thing for these jurors to do. And they're laypersons now. Yeah, there are a few lawyers on the case, but laypersons come into it pretty much with a blank slate.

Now, they know about the former president, they know a little bit about the charges, and they were given opening statements. And now for the witness testimony, they are to pay attention, look at the witnesses, listen to what they say, take notes if they want, and then in their minds, they get to decide whether or not the witness was or was not credible.

[13:45:05]

That's a pretty typical standard instruction that a judge would give jurors before the parade of witnesses start to tell the story for the parties in the case.

BLITZER: And, Alan, give us your thoughts. How critical is the opening statement in the long run to the jury? Because we are weeks away from deliberation. How much will the twelve jurors remember of today?

TUERKHEIMER: They will remember a lot. So commitments that were made and the case narratives that were pointed out and presented, the jurors will remember that impressions of the parties and the case story start to form very early on in a case.

And then as time goes by, as the evidence comes in and there are more witnesses, the preformed ideas that jurors have from opening statements then are interpreted and assimilated in their minds as the trial progresses.

So it's really important that initial formation of the impression and the initial case story, the jurors start to see. And that's why when you looked at the opening statements, clearly different case perspectives and case narratives, you want to have facts, you want to have arguments, but also, jurors want a story.

They want to know what really happened and what they're supposed to look for as the witnesses continue on with the cases, as they unfold.

BLITZER: In his opening statement, Trump's lead attorney, Todd Blanche, said that Trump is, quote, a man. He's a husband, he's a father, he's a person, just like you and just like me. What is he trying to accomplish here?

TUERKHEIMER: He wants jurors to see that this case is about, it's not about politics, it's not about a former president, that he's relatable, that he would do what you would do. He wants, probably the defense wants jurors to put themselves in the shoes of the president, if they could possibly do that at that point in time, and then make decisions based on the best interests of their family.

Now, whether or not it'll work, that's up for the jury. New Yorkers tend to have what I call good BS detectors. So whether it's the opening statement or the cascade of witnesses that are going to -- that are going to be testifying in court, it'll be up to the jury to decide whether or not the witnesses are truthful and are persuasive. BLITZER: Todd Blanche also said this, and I'm quoting him now, he said

none of this is a crime, and that there is nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It's called democracy, close quote. Two lawyers are empaneled on the jury. Why do you think both sides allowed attorneys to sit on the jury?

TUERKHEIMER: It's interesting. And maybe the attorneys thought the other side would use a strike on the lawyers and they didn't. But I think the defense wants to shake things up in the deliberation. And it's certainly a wild card to have lawyers sitting as jurors on a case. They tend to argue and tend to take different perspectives.

Lawyers are certainly good at taking two different sides of an argument. So maybe the defense thought that would be helpful. But at the end of the day, yes, they have law degrees. They're lawyers. And I think it's going to be a fascinating deliberation. A lot of times lawyers take a backseat and try to let the others speak in the deliberation.

So I'm not convinced that they're going to dominate the deliberation, but they will certainly be a force when it comes time to decide whether or not the state proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

BLITZER: Important points. Alan Tuerkheimer, thank you very much for your expertise.

TUERKHEIMER: Thanks for having me, Wolf.

BLITZER: Thank you. And we'll have much more of our special coverage of this truly historic trial that's coming up. We're also watching protests on college campuses. Protesters arrested now at Yale and at Columbia University. Classes are going virtual at Columbia University. Both schools, meanwhile, grappling with growing pro-Palestinian protests. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:53:22]

BURNETT: Another big story happening here in New York this afternoon. All classes at Columbia University are virtual, virtual because of growing security concerns from the pro-Palestinian protests that are happening on that Ivy League campus.

The New York Police Department has what they have called a large presence around Columbia, which is on the upper part of the island of Manhattan. And the state's governor, Kathy Hochul, visited the university today to address security concerns. She said in her words, students are scared.

Well, our Polo Sandoval is there to see exactly what is happening. And Polo, you have the whole NYPD with everything else going on in the city of New York, which is a lot, spending massive presence at Columbia University, just wrapping up a press conference. What did you learn? POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So Erin, I can personally tell you

that not only tensions, security extremely high here in Manhattan's upper west side, in the area surrounding Columbia University behind me. And I'll show you around what you see here, basically dueling demonstrations. It's very similar to what we have seen since the October 7 attacks.

The left, you have a pro-Palestinian group that has been chanting just outside of the Columbia University campus, directly to the right and separated by dozens of police officers and a space are Israel supporting demonstrators?. Much of the morning, of course, things have remained calm and these groups have remained separate.

And this is very similar to what we've seen, again playing out for the last several months. The game changer here, what we did notice change over the weekend is that there's the intensifying fears among Jewish members of the university that expressed some concern to Jewish associations, to the university in general, saying that they are afraid to come to campus because of the persistent protest that remains on campus.

[13:55:10]

Hence, this extraordinary step that was announced by the Columbia University president overnight. The classes today will be virtual. And the big question is, what will happen next? One of the big areas of concern here, at least, what we are closely watching, is an encampment on campus, one that was basically cleared out about four or five days ago.

Now the question is, will NYPD be called back on campus to help clear that out? The university saying at this point that has not been announced. The NYPD telling me, Erin, earlier this morning that so far they have not received any additional request from the Columbia University to make their way onto campus, which is private property, and to clear out that encampment.

BURNETT: Significant other how this is sprung onto the national consciousness. All right, Polo, thank you very much.

And coming up, our coverage of the historic trial of Donald Trump continues. Both sides presenting their opening statements today in court. And they were lengthy, they were detailed. They laid out the case against the former president and of course, in defense of him as well. So what exactly they told the jurors and whether that will be what makes up their minds, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)