Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Today: Opening Statements, First Witness Testimony In Trump Trial; Prosecution Presents Case As A Cover-Up In First Day Of Testimony; Trump Insists He Will Testify But Final Decision Not Yet Known; Judge Sets Parameters On Cross-Examination If Trump Testifies. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired April 22, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: We are following the first day of testimony in former President Donald Trump's Manhattan hush money trial.

I'm Erin Burnett, just outside the courthouse here in Manhattan, along with my friend Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

The first witness took the stand today, David Pecker, a longtime friend of Trump's and the former publisher of the National Enquirer. He testified for about 20 minutes today, so that's just the beginning. He is expected to return to the stand tomorrow. Prosecutors say Pecker was involved in numerous so-called catch-and-kill schemes he orchestrated on behalf of Trump, basically finding out a bad story, buying it from somebody in order to kill it and never run it.

And apparently, according to the, albeit (ph), case here, brokered a deal with adult film star Stormy Daniels to keep her silence over an alleged affair, Wolf.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Interesting, very interesting. Before Pecker took the stand today, both sides gave opening statements, and Trump's defense repeatedly attacked the credibility of the man who's expected to be the prosecutor's key witness. We're talking about the former Trump lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen.

CNN's Kara Scannell was inside the court for us all day today for today's historic proceedings. Tell us what you saw, Kara.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, opening statements began today. Donald Trump sitting there watching a screen of himself watching the proceedings as he sat at the defense table, the first former president to ever do so.

And prosecutors began their - telling their story to the jury, telling the jury that this was a conspiracy and a cover-up, all to hide the hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels to stop her from going public with her allegations of a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier, and that they falsified business records in order to cover up the reimbursement of the money that Michael Cohen had initially given to Stormy Daniels. As the prosecutors put it, this is a conspiracy, this is a cover-up, it's election fraud, pure and simple.

Then Trump's attorneys addressed the jurors who were given notebooks and pens so they could take notes during opening statements. Trump had turned in his chair to watch his lawyer talk to the jury. And what the first words out of his attorney's mouth, he's told the jury, President Trump is innocent. President Trump did not commit any crimes. the Manhattan District Attorney's Office should never have brought this case."

He then went on to attack the credibility of Michael Cohen, who's expected to be a key witness in this case, saying that Cohen has previously lied under oath saying that Michael Cohen was obsessed with Donald Trump and his entire financial livelihood depends on him trying to take Donald Trump down.

So trying to put in the jurors' minds this notion that they should question some of Michael Cohen's testimony. They also said that they expect that the jury will hear from Stormy Daniels, but saying that her testimony really doesn't matter because she has nothing to do with how the documents were kept at The Trump Organization.

The core of this case, 34 counts of falsified business records, and Trump's attorney saying, you will not hear testimony from anyone who said that Trump told them how to record these payments in the company's books and records. So the jury is trying to keep him far from the cover-up part of this alleged crime.

We had the first witness on the stand, David Pecker. He just began his testimony. Longtime friend of former President Donald Trump and his testimony will continue tomorrow when court gets underway at 11 AM with him back on the stand, Wolf.

BLITZER: Very interesting indeed.

Kara Scannell on the scene for us, thank you very much. Erin?

BURNETT: All right. Wolf, so Paula Reid and Phil Mattingly are here.

So let's talk - we only have 45 minutes of David Pecker, as Kara was saying. So he's coming back tomorrow, and it could be other days because, obviously, Wednesday is a break from this particular case. So could go through the week.

But, Paula, a couple things we heard in this brief 45 minutes. One, David Pecker is - I don't want to say forced to admit - but acknowledges that he has an email that he doesn't even want his own assistant to know about, so what did we learn about that?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I'm fascinated. I mean, we didn't get to learn a lot about where they're going with that. But the fact that he has this other email account where he's doing business in and around his work in the National Enquirer.

BURNETT: This is where he gets his, like, catalog ...

REID: I mean, we don't know, right?

BURNETT: I know.

REID: It suggested to me ...

BURNETT: Right.

REID: ... that perhaps they were going to make the point that there was some correspondence that really wasn't truly about business and that perhaps he was using the National Enquirer to perhaps help a friend. But it's not clear exactly where they're going with that, but it definitely piqued my interest.

BURNETT: Yes. I mean, for sure, right? So there's that. And then there's the - they go through a whole bunch of phone numbers. Tell me about that.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT & ANCHOR: Which, by the way, we should note that Pecker was quite pleased that he remembered a lot of the phone numbers that they were asking about. And - but there wasn't really an explanation as to why.

And I think when you think about - if you take a step back and look at - even though it was a short period of time - what we learned from the David Pecker testimony today, it was an effort to lay the groundwork for what's to come, right? If you're one of the 12 jurors or one of the six alternates, you might not know what catch-and-kill journalism is all about.

BURNETT: Right. Right.

MATTINGLY: You might not know what checkbook journalism actually is.

[15:05:01]

MATTINGLY: This is not what we all practiced on a day-to-day basis. So they explain how the National Enquirer works. They explain David Pecker's role. If it's above $10,000, he's going to be aware of what's actually going on. He's going to have to sign off. If it's something that's big enough about - some big enough celebrity, Dylan Howard, one of the top executives there, is going to be going to David Pecker, he's going to have to sign off. If it's about the front page of the National Enquirer, David Pecker is going to have to sign off.

So you understand his role and his importance and his relationship with the former president, which was quite close. Then you start to hear about the private email. Then you start to hear prosecutors asking about specific phone numbers for phones that David Pecker had, and him being - able to give those phone numbers back to them, make clear that he knows what they are.

But you don't get an explanation as to why. You don't get an explanation as to why they want to acknowledge the private email.

BURNETT: Right.

MATTINGLY: You don't get an explanation as to why the phone numbers, which gives you the sense that they're laying the groundwork for types of correspondence ...

BURNETT: Right.

MATTINGLY: ... whether it's phone records, whether it's something else that may be coming in the days ahead that connect it more directly to the former president in this case.

BURNETT: And to use the words that we would use in our industry, a tease, right?

REID: Totally.

BURNETT: You're going to pique someone's interest, and they're trying to do that with the jury. It seems interesting, Paula, in the context of - as you say, laying the groundwork or teasing, that they want to bring the jury in.

REID: Yes.

BURNETT: Sort of like you're - it's chapters in a thriller. You want to leave them hanging at the end so they come back and they're engaged.

Reid Absolutely. And this is such a stressful experience for those jurors. I mean, the gravity of the situation. This is a historic trial and they're starting out kind of light, right? So how do stories come to the National Enquirer? What's the budget to investigate them? Interesting stuff, right? Light, interesting stuff that's all setting up the larger argument the prosecution will make about election interference.

BURNETT: And, by the way, I'm fascinated, $10,000 is the threshold that would go to the CEO of the company to buy a story, and every alien story I've ever seen in the supermarket checkout line and was approved by David Pecker. I mean, but you are, just as a person, learning a lot, which I think was interesting about this. What do you think, though, Phil, you're now - let's talk about the recipients of all of this, and that's the 18 people sitting there, the jurors and the six alternates. They're in this moment where they're just trying to grab them in, I guess the prosecution especially, right? They want to make sure they stay. They don't give up. They don't throw in the towel.

MATTINGLY: And I think you also have to think about what's coming next. We know Michael Cohen, who is a clear target of the defense team in their opening statements, is coming, and that is going to be a very intense several, maybe multiple days, who knows, of testimony of examination and cross-examination and how that's actually going to play out. We don't know who else is going to testify.

There was laughter in the exchanges from the prosecution and Pecker today. I think there's - you understand that it's not only how do you tell a story, it's not only how do you capture, it's also recognition of what jurors may not know. I think the - and I thought about the entire trial like this over the course of the last two weeks, which is we know a lot about a lot that normal people for - I really hope don't understand them or know about them.

BURNETT: Right.

MATTINGLY: Because we've had to.

BURNETT: Right.

MATTINGLY: We remember Trump season one. We remember 2015, 2016, we were covering that campaign. You covered his White House. You understand all of these types of things, the players and their roles and how bizarre and weird some of them may have been.

The jury, you have to assume, at least the vast majority of them, don't remember ...

BURNETT: Right.

MATTINGLY: ... weren't involved, have no concept of what these actual ...

BURNETT: Yes.

MATTINGLY: ... kind of this process entails. And explaining that to them, but doing it on your terms, through your narrative ...

BURNETT: Right.

MATTINGLY: ... ahead of the defense team putting out theirs, is critically important.

BURNETT: And if you go through the grid of where the jurors say they get their news, and I have some skepticism about that. I'm going to admit. But if you go through that and you take it at face value, you've got some people on there who really say they don't consume news. You have others who really consume very specific, very little news. But it would appear clear from what they checked, nobody is following this trial in any level of detail at all on that jury, right? So you would need to set the stage.

REID: Yes, absolutely. Who is Karen McDougal? Who is David Pecker? You need to set the stage. Even if people are vaguely familiar ...

BURNETT: Right.

REID: ... with Stormy Daniels and some of the more salacious allegations, they're absolutely not familiar with the nuts and bolts. So that's why they need to walk them through step by step, taking the time to talk about the numbers or the email accounts.

BURNETT: Yes.

REID: It's all setting up these larger pieces of evidence that the prosecution hopes will prove their case.

BURNETT: All right.

MATTINGLY: And it's important not having an isolation, right?

BURNETT: Yes.

MATTINGLY: Todd Blanche and the defense team are going to have their shot as well. And who's going to tell the better story with the better facts and details that they believe prove their version of events is probably going to determine who wins this case.

BURNETT: That's right. And who wins this case could mean everything. Twelve people, maybe 18, could determine everything in this country. All right, thank you both.

And as we stay here, continuing our special coverage, Wolf.

BLITZER: Thanks, Erin. Thanks very much.

Our CNN legal analysts are back with me right now, Karen Friedman Agnifilo and Elliot Williams.

Karen, you worked with the Manhattan District Attorney for several years. What's your takeaway from what we saw and heard today?

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: They're setting the stage for the jury and planting - painting a picture of exactly what the situation was back in 2015 and 2016.

[15:10:00]

And taking the jury back to where it was and what it was like and what the import of the Access Hollywood tape was, for example, at that time. And it's clear that that's what they're trying to do. They're trying to transport the jury back.

I also noticed that Trump seems to have learned from his other trials where his outbursts in court and things like that really didn't bode well for him. And he lost all of his prior civil cases in a very big way in New York. So he's really on his best behavior inside of court. He's not speaking out. There's no outbursts.

And you also see Judge Merchan is really controlling his courtroom and keeping things moving along, keeping them smoothly. And so I was struck by that, which is great. And I think he realizes that this is all about the jury. This is not about Joe Biden. This is not about Alvin Bragg even or the judge who Trump likes to go out and say is biased in some way.

Because at the end of the day, the only people who will be determining Trump's fate is that jury.

BLITZER: Yes, very important point. And Elliot, give us a sense because David Pecker, who oversees the National Enquirer, he's going to continue his testimony tomorrow. What are you going to be looking for?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right. So David Pecker is a critical witness for establishing what's called criminal intent. Not just that an act happened, but an act happened for a purpose. The defendant did something wrong to carry out some criminal purpose. And here it's not just the catch and kill payments, but catch and kill payments for the purpose of concealing information from voters in the context of an election.

And so what I would be looking for from David Pecker is what was said in those conversations in 2015 in a meeting with Donald Trump about the intent behind these payments. Did they actually discuss making these payments for the purpose of concealing information from voters? Or was it just Donald Trump saying, well, this is embarrassing to my wife and my kids. I really want to keep this hidden. That's really at the heart of this.

And picking up on what Phil and Paula were saying a moment ago, the jury knows none of this. And prosecutors have to establish not just that this thing happened, but that it happened for a criminal purpose and Pecker is really central to that.

BLITZER: Yes, important point. It's interesting, Karen, the prosecution has pointed to three different so-called catch and kill transactions. What makes the Stormy Daniels case in this particular instance different?

AGNIFILO: Yes, so the Stormy Daniels one is criminal, while the doorman, the payoff of the doorman in Karen McDougal aren't criminal in this context because they didn't falsify the business records in the context of those payments. So if you recall here in the Stormy Daniels case, what they did was Michael Cohen paid the money, which was then reimbursed by Trump and The Trump Organization and they wrote in - the allegations are that they wrote in the The Trump Organization business records that it was for a legal payment when it was actually to reimburse Michael Cohen for paying Stormy Daniels.

So it's the falsification of the business records that are what the charges are here and it was for the intention of influencing the election.

BLITZER: Interesting point is - I thought it was interesting that the prosecution is calling this a criminal conspiracy.

WILLIAMS: Right.

BLITZER: They even charged Trump with conspiracy. How do you explain that?

WILLIAMS: Now they could have. And when we use a term like conspiracy, that is an agreement between more than one individual to carry out a criminal purpose. Now you can charge it as a crime or charge other crimes and speak about a conspiracy in the context of that. And so what you have here are a number of people, Donald Trump, David Pecker, Michael Cohen, speaking and working together in - at least as charged by the prosecution - in furtherance of this criminal act that is making these payments and falsifying business records for the purpose of concealing criminal activity. Because they worked as a group and took acts in furtherance of what they were doing, you can call it a conspiracy (INAUDIBLE) ...

BLITZER: Because basically what they're saying is this was election interference, which is against the law.

WILLIAMS: Election interference, which is against the law, as a group. And they worked together to do it. Now Donald Trump is the individual charged with it. Now note that David Pecker was not because he also had an immunity agreement to not be charged by prosecutors, but it was a group of people working to a criminal purpose.

BLITZER: Yes, very significant. All right, guys, thank you very, very much. Should Donald Trump testify at his own trial? Just ahead, the legal and political consequences of the former president taking the stand in this truly historic hush money case as our special coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:19:06]

BURNETT: Welcome back to CNN's special coverage of Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial.

Before today's testimony, the judge established what prior bad acts could be used to cross-examine the former president if - and I have to emphasize the if - he chooses to take the stand. His attorneys so far have not said whether Trump will testify despite this comment that he made just on Friday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Trump, are you going to testify?

TRUMP: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: And joining me now is CNN Contributor, John Dean, who served as White House counsel to Richard Nixon and also co-wrote the book "Authoritarian Nightmare: Trump and His Followers." So, John, I'm just curious here to set the stage on this. Trump has a big decision to make about whether he should - will testify or not.

As an attorney, as someone who would have been in the position of watching maybe the first president to have a criminal trial, except for things turned out differently in the case of Nixon, do you think Trump should testify?

[15:20:09]

JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: It's rare that any defense attorney wants his client to testify.

In this instance, it's possible, but to me, doubtful, particularly since the rulings on the Sandoval hearing are really very negative for Trump. Lots of bad acts, lots of his prior behavior, such as the E. Jean Carroll defamation, the Letitia James' lawsuit against him for fraud, those can all come into play, and he has to address them and that can be very uncomfortable for him. BURNETT: That's right. And the Sandoval hearing, of course, established what they were allowed to ask if he does take the stand. As you point out, all those prior cases are now fair and square on the table.

One thing, John, though, that is not on the table, the judge said that the Access Hollywood tape, the infamous "grab 'em by the pee" tape, could not be shown to jurors.

Now, I guess on the one hand, I don't think there's anyone in this country who doesn't know about that tape and hasn't heard that tape. Nonetheless, it is years ago at this point. Many people on this jury may not have thought about it for a long time, may not be thinking of it in the context of this. So the fact that they're not allowed to play it may matter. How do you see it and what do you make of the judge saying no to that tape?

DEAN: Well, I can understand why the judge didn't want to have the actual recording played to the jury because it could be deemed too prejudicial. But still, they're going to get the content. They're going to get a transcript of what was said on that bus pulling into the Access Hollywood show.

So - and that is the - a chance to actually hear it word by word in a way that is even clearer and more disgusting than to listen to it. So I'm not sure that there's any real difference. In fact, it might be a benefit to understanding why this issue was so sensitive and so central to the case and understanding it when you actually just have the transcript.

BURNETT: Yes. And it is amazing, as you point out, sometimes you see it in black and white, right? You see the words as opposed to hearing them.

DEAN: Yes.

BURNETT: And we all do process things differently, so that's significant.

So here we are today. You're going to have a hearing tomorrow morning as part of the case about the gag order. Now, prosecutors say that Trump has violated it at least times - 10 times, I'm sorry. And, John, as you know, in this gag order, he was prohibited from saying prejudicial or nasty things, really, of any sort, against potential witnesses or jurors or family members of the judge, although not the judge himself.

So 10 times they say it was violated. And today, Trump said this about somebody who was obviously anticipated to be a central witness, his former fixer, Michael Cohen. Let me play it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Cohen is a lawyer, represented a lot of people over the years. Now, I'm not the only one and wasn't very good in a lot of ways in terms of his representation. And also the things he got in trouble for were things that had nothing to do with me. He got in trouble, he went to jail. This had nothing to do with me. This had to do with the taxi cab company that he owned, which is just something he owned, and medallions and borrowing money and a lot of things, but it had nothing to do with me.

And what are they going to look at all the lies that Cohen did in the last trial? He got caught lying in the last trial. So he got caught lying, pure lying.

BURNETT: Now, John, of course, Trump's team will say that Cohen was convicted for that and served prison time. So they'll say, oh, Trump was just stating a fact. But nonetheless, he is the one stating it. Is that a violation of the gag order or not?

DEAN: It could technically be a violation of the order because the order seeks to have him not talking about these things to influence the jury or while the jury is not sequestered, they're not supposed to read, and listen to television. He's certainly putting it out there in the atmosphere where they could easily get access to this information and hear his characterization of the witnesses and that's what the order tries to avoid.

So Trump just seems unable to control himself. If it's in his mind, it often comes out of his mouth. And he's thinking terrible thoughts about Michael Cohen after hearing the opening statement. And he knows what is that issue, so he just can't control himself. And so we'll see what the judge does with this tomorrow. I'll - it's a very tough ruling and an interesting one.

BURNETT: Yes, it's going to be crucial. And obviously there could be fines. Eventually you could end up with prison, but it does look like this would be a situation of fines. And they're de minimis. It's more the statement that would be made in calling that out.

All right. John Dean, thank you so much. And our special coverage of this historic day continues ahead with Wolf and myself.

[15:25:03]

And we've got some new reporting here on how Trump's team is really scrambling right now to revamp his entire schedule. And we'll explain exactly what they're doing and why. That news is after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:29:52]

BURNETT: And former President Trump will be back in court tomorrow for day two of testimony in the criminal hush money trial. And while he sits behind the defense table in that courtroom, his political team has been scrambling, trying to figure out how to improvise his campaign schedule with him largely absent because of this case for anywhere from five to eight weeks.