Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Testimony Continues in Trump Trial. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired April 23, 2024 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: They have got to actually prove some kind of connection here to give this witness the most gravitas -- Kaitlan.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Yes, it'll be fascinating to see what David Pecker could say that he heard from Trump directly, what came out of his mouth, another firsthand witness here.

And, obviously, Paula and Phil, is -- the Trump team is looking at David Pecker. They found out later on Sunday afternoon, about 3:00 p.m., that David Pecker was going to be the first witness. They didn't really get a sense of what he's going to testify yesterday. So they haven't really had the opportunity to kind of comb through that, think about it.

They will obviously have the opportunity to cross-examine him. But they know what David Pecker can get to here, because he had multiple one-on-one meetings with Donald Trump.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, absolutely.

I think, for the first witness for the prosecution, this is kind of a duh. Of course you're going to start with David Pecker. Of course you're going to lay out...

COLLINS: Why is it a duh?

REID: Yes, absolutely.

COLLINS: For people who don't know who David Pecker is, why is it obvious to have him first?

REID: So, this is going to help frame the prosecution's argument that there was this concerted effort with Trump's active participation to suppress the negative stories about him ahead of the 2016 election to help him get elected to the White House.

And while David Pecker was not directly involved in paying Stormy Daniels, he had previously paid another woman, Karen McDougal, and -- to be quiet about an alleged affair, and a doorman who falsely accused Trump of having a child out of wedlock.

So we know there are at least two stories that he paid to suppress. And then he got wind of the Stormy Daniels case, passed that information off to Michael Cohen, and we all know how that ended, right, with him, Michael Cohen, facilitating this hush money payment.

So Pecker is the perfect place for the prosecution to start their story.

COLLINS: Well, and he's someone who -- he's not a Michael Cohen. He's not this hostile witness...

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Right.

COLLINS: ... tweeting things that we can't even say, names that he's calling Trump on air.

He was actually kind of jovial on the stand yesterday. He accidentally gave out his phone number. He said hi to the defense table. And I should note there's Trump holding a newspaper, I believe. He doesn't look very happy going into -- back into that courtroom, that same courtroom where they just had the hearing, Phil, that did not seem to go well for his team.

We will see what the judge ultimately decides. But Trump is now returning to the defense table -- table, where he will see David Pecker on the witness stand again talking about their interactions.

MATTINGLY: Yes. And we will see if David Pecker tries to exchange pleasantries, as he did yesterday, with the former president.

I think you make a great point in terms of setting the stage at the start of this trial. There are going to be so many witnesses that will have a very fiery and probably aggressive back-and-forth between the defense and the witness, but also the prosecution and the witness, very heavy moments in the weeks ahead with some of the witnesses in particular, Michael Cohen, who are likely to come up.

David Pecker is not that individual. Not only was there some levity yesterday, some laughter as well, but it's also a fascinating way to seize and kind of drive a narrative at the very start, given the types of things the tabloids do for their business, the catch-and-kill, checkbook journalism, stuff that normal people probably aren't super familiar with, is awfully tawdry and has a lot of famous people involved in it.

But I think, to Paula's point, the importance, I think we saw it in the early stages yesterday, is how it starts this process for the prosecution, laying out the picture that, no, these weren't just legal fees. This wasn't just paying your lawyer. This wasn't just the normal course of doing business.

There was a conspiracy here. There was something involved that was much deeper. And I think that's what we saw the start of yesterday. And, certainly, I think they're going to continue today.

COLLINS: Yes.

And, of course, Jake, "The National Enquirer," everyone sees it when they check out at the grocery store. You can see the sensational headlines on it. David Pecker yesterday shedding light on how those covers made it, one said, often helps Trump and hurt his Republican rivals. And now we will see him testifying against Trump on the witness stand today.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: All right, Kaitlan, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

My panel's here with me.

And just the latest update from inside the courtroom, we're told the defendant, Mr. Trump, has reentered the courtroom holding a stack of papers, some held together by binder clips. One can only imagine what those are.

Laura Coates, let me just start with, before we get to David Pecker and the witness testimony we're going to hear...

COATES: Mm-hmm.

TAPPER: ... to review the gag order hearing that happened this morning and whether or not Mr. Trump has violated the gag order.

Now, one can argue that the gag order shouldn't exist and Mr. Trump should have the right to say whatever he wants about the jury or about witnesses, and one could argue this case is not a good case. Whatever. I'm not going to take a position on that. That's not my job.

But it seems pretty clear that he violated the gag order.

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: I mean, these TRUTH Social posts that were introduced in court today, April 10, he calls -- he calls two of the witnesses sleazebags.

COATES: Mm-hmm.

TAPPER: He also refers to Michael Cohen, one of the witnesses, as a serial perjurer time and time again, over and over.

He misquotes a FOX News host who said -- quote -- "They are catching undercover liberal activists lying to the judge in order to get on the Trump jury." Apparently, Jesse Watters never said in order to get on the Trump jury.

Either way, that's going after the jury. And then, last night, on a channel called Real America's Voices, Mr. Trump said this:

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (R) AND CURRENT U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: That jury was picked so fast, 95 percent Democrats. The area is all -- mostly all Democrat. You think of it as a -- just a purely Democrat area.

[11:05:06]

It's a very unfair situation. That, I can tell you.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

TAPPER: Now, we don't know the political affiliation of members of the jury, so his saying that 95 percent of them are Democrats is not necessarily true or based in fact in any way.

COATES: Right.

TAPPER: But, again, he's talking about the jury. And he's been told by the court, you're not supposed to talk about the jury.

COATES: He knows very clearly what the parameters are.

Let's talk about why you have a gag order, more broadly, though. It's to ensure a fair trial, fair in terms of the witnesses not being intimidated into not testifying or feeling as though they have to shape their testimony in a way that will not get them incurring the wrath of, say, a huge following like Trump has, or if this was not a infamous defendant, instead, somebody who would feel they could not testify openly and truthfully.

It also protects the actual staff of the courtroom and, of course, the prosecution team. Now, you can talk about the judge. The judge left himself out of it, as well as Alvin Bragg, the DA. But if you think about the philosophy saying, the more you talk, the more likely it is you're going to have a witness who will not feel comfortable testifying or a jury, by the way.

Multiple times we had before even the trial began a juror saying, I think my anonymity has been compromised, I can't even sit on this jury, let alone a juror just yesterday before opening statements began suggesting that they too had concerns about it.

And remember the actual jury selection. We knew that there were members, at least the alternate pool of jurors, who actually were supporters of Donald Trump, who were saying that they believed in his policies, for one. We can assume maybe their policy or their political -- but we weren't actually able to hear, because the jury questionnaire explicitly did not include statements about how one votes or how they voted in the elections, only about their feelings more broadly about the defendant and others.

And so all of this is the concern of the judge to say, if you do these things, there will be threats, intimidation and possibly worse, and not a fair trial.

TAPPER: So, Trump and his attorney right now inside the courtroom are whispering before the judge enters -- Dana Bash.

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: As we wait for the David Pecker testimony to resume, I just want to kind of take one half-a-step back on what happened this morning and how we who have covered Donald Trump in the political realm, one of the hallmarks of him as a candidate and as a president is that he can kind of say what he wants without much political consequence.

I mean, there are certainly people who despise him. But when it comes to his supporters...

TAPPER: Well, he lost the election.

BASH: Well, I -- OK, but he also got -- I mean, yes, he lost the election.

TAPPER: I mean, that's a political consequence.

(LAUGHTER)

BASH: He lost the election. The -- I'm not going to argue that, for the record.

(LAUGHTER)

BASH: But, from his perspective, I'm talking about, he feels that he needs to say whatever he needs to say to get his message out.

In his mind, he doesn't think that there are consequences to this. This forum, this courtroom pushes back on that in a way that he has never experienced in his adult life.

TAPPER: Yes.

BASH: And we're going to continue to see that.

TAPPER: So, Trump, we're told, inside the courtroom has been veering from speaking with one attorney to talk to the other, Emil Bove, who's now sitting in the first chair.

And let's set the stage for the testimony we're going to hear today, if we can, Elie Honig, because David Pecker obviously played a crucial role, at least in Trump's mind, in his 2016 campaign, helping to suppress stories that would be damaging and helping to push stories, however nonsensical, against Donald Trump's opponents.

And, right now, I'm thinking about the story about Ted Cruz's dad...

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Right.

TAPPER: ... somehow being involved in the Kennedy assassination, a completely deranged story pushed by "The National Enquirer" that Donald Trump in May, when he -- of 2016, when he was still facing off against Ted Cruz, was pushing when he would do TV interviews.

HONIG: David Pecker is the ultimate insider here. And he and Trump, it's important to understand, they go way back. They used to hang out in Manhattan and hit the party scene together.

And they had been doing this catch-and-kill tactic well before Donald Trump was even a candidate, which, by the way, may come into play when it comes to his motivation. And David Pecker is there from the inception of this particular scheme. August 2015, we're going to hear a lot about that meeting. Donald

Trump has now decided he's going to be a candidate. He had announced his candidacy a couple months prior to that. And there's a crucial meeting. David Pecker is there. Donald Trump is there. Michael Cohen is there.

And they sort of discuss version 2.0 of catch-and-kill, according to the prosecutors. Basically, now he's a candidate. Now we need to, A, put out stories that might damage anyone who gets in our way, whether it's Ted Cruz, whether it's Hillary Clinton. They did stories on Hillary Clinton too.

And, more importantly, perhaps, we need to catch and silence, catch and kill any story that may be damaging to us. Now, it's important to understand, he's crucial to understand how this all works, but David Pecker is probably not going to have any information as to the financial, the front end of that, how the repayment was made from Donald Trump to Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels.

He doesn't have to know everything.

TAPPER: Right.

HONIG: But he's still a crucial witness.

So, Jim Trusty, let me ask you. Donald Trump is sitting there in court whispering with his lawyers. We have no idea what he's saying. But I have never been a defendant. What are defendants...

[11:10:10]

JIM TRUSTY, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: Well, you're young.

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: Not really. Not really.

(LAUGHTER)

TRUSTY: Give it time, Jake.

TAPPER: But what -- what kinds of things are defendants talking about with their attorneys?

Obviously, we don't know what he's talking about at this moment. But, just theoretically, what kind of conversations happen?

TRUSTY: Oh, look, I mean, any time you have a client who's high- energy and highly interested and an intelligent person, they're going to have questions about it every step of the way.

They're talking about the gag order hearing. They're talking about what the judge had to say towards Todd. They're talking about what's coming up this afternoon in terms of witness testimony, I mean, all of the above. It's all on the table. I suspect that, right this minute, because it's so fresh, they're

talking a lot about the gag order, as opposed to Mr. Pecker, and what does this mean? And I have to say, if you're an attorney, no matter what side of the aisle you're on, the C-word is a terrible word to hear about yourself. And I mean credibility.

When you start hearing a judge -- and, look, this could be a tongue- lashing that's not followed by a whole lot of damage. But if the judge starts saying you have lost credibility, that's a bad moment for anybody. And you have really got to figure out a way, how do I patch this back?

And most of us, we feel like our reputation precedes us when we go into a courtroom anywhere, whether it's home territory in New York or somewhere else. You know what your reputation is with the bench, and you don't like hearing those moments.

So, that -- to me, that's almost a more powerful thing than anything else. This debate about reposting and stuff, that's a losing debate. You should probably just frame it like, this is kind of a passive violation, as opposed to saying, this is innocent.

And any time -- last thing, any time you tell a judge, hey, your order's kind of ambiguous, good luck.

(LAUGHTER)

TRUSTY: I mean, because even if it is, that's -- you're going right into the ego, right into the heart of things with the judge by saying, hey, we -- you weren't really clear. We don't know if we broke any rules.

That's tough sledding no matter who the judge is.

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, I mean...

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Jake, can I, just quickly -- and this is one of these daughter of a judge moments, but it's -- you cannot overstate what Jim just said about the importance of credibility for lawyers.

You do not want to be attacking the judge. And Judge Merchan is known for his judicial temperament. He is soft-spoken. This -- for the word to come up that he's exasperated in this situation, or for you to see that emotion, that's -- Todd Blanche, I -- whether it has a consequence or not, I would say he went too far.

Could I just add one thing on the gag order? A Republican senator once told me that, in talking to Trump, Trump said to him: "I can't help myself. If someone punches, if they punch," was the quote, "I have to punch back."

Of course, he also likes to punch first. But this gag order just goes to the heart of the man as well. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Yes, I mean, Judge Merchan is going to expect that

the lawyers zealously advocate on behalf of their client. He welcomes that. He welcomes a defense that is -- puts forth legal arguments that are strong.

But there are legal arguments that are being made here that just fly in the face of any credibility. And two that come to mind was, one, when the lawyer said that Trump -- that the prosecution waived, waived enforcing the gag order because they only brought certain, certain tweets to the court's attention. By not bringing others, they have somehow waived -- now the -- now the gag order doesn't stand.

That makes no sense. And only the judge, by the way, can say whether the gag order is enforced or not. And then the other thing that they said, I think, was when he said that Donald Trump is trying to comply with the gag order.

(LAUGHTER)

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: I think that was the statement that really put the judge over the edge, saying, look, you have lost your credibility here. You can't -- that's not even a strong legal argument. That really doesn't even pass muster of credibility.

COATES: And, by the way, you're talking about this gag order. As the prosecutors, I would be furious with my witness Michael Cohen as well. Talk about the muzzle that I'd want to actually have.

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Right. Right.

COATES: The fact that Donald Trump is punching back, that's one thing for his defendants, his counsel, and one thing on his own issue. He's the one who is the subject of the gag order.

But the unspoken thing is, everything that Michael Cohen is saying might have an opportunity for it to be used against him in my own presentation. That includes Stormy Daniels as well, who has often been very infamous in her response as well. So you have got that muzzle.

TAPPER: So, Donald Trump just posted on his social media site...

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: ... in all caps: "Highly conflicted, to put it mildly. Judge Juan Merchan has taken away my constitutional right to free speech. Everybody is allowed to talk and lie about me, but I am not allowed to defend myself. This is a kangaroo court, and the judge should recuse himself."

[11:15:05]

BASH: And he's allowed to...

TAPPER: He's allowed to go after the judge.

BASH: He's allowed to go after the judge. (CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Yes.

BASH: So that is within the bounds of the gag order. It's not going to help. It's not going to help with what Jamie and what you all were just describing as, on day two of this trial, the judge clearly being incredibly annoyed.

And just to add a little bit of color to that, about how the politics that Trump thinks work for him outside the courtroom are landing with a thud in the courtroom, his lawyer said, well, there are two tiers of justice. He needs to fight that.

And the judge said: "I'm sorry. You're saying there are two tiers of justice in this courtroom?" That didn't go over well.

HONIG: I'm looking to see what happens next.

Now, I think it's fairly predictable what will happen in the immediate future. The judge is going to come back at some point and say, I find these statements you made do violate my gag order, maybe all 11 of them. And, therefore, I find you $11,000. The max you're allowed to find someone under New York law is $11,000.

But my question is, what's the judge going to do about the next time? I mean, he's clearly going to reprimand Donald Trump, but he has such limited tools. All he can do is keep fining him $1,000 per instance. Trump doesn't care about that.

Or, ultimately, he can lock him up for up to 30 days. But I just think Donald Trump has calculated, probably correctly, that that's just not in play here. So, how is the judge going to keep this from spinning out of control?

TAPPER: Well, he's not going to lock him up. I mean...

(CROSSTALK)

HONIG: No, that's what I said, yes.

TAPPER: Yes, that's clear.

But, like, I mean, Jim, is there any way to -- first of all, we should note, if I didn't make it clear enough, that TRUTH Social post that Donald Trump did is not a violation of anything. He's -- the judge said he's allowed to go after the judge and the district attorney.

It's just interesting that he's sitting there in court, with his all- caps TRUTH Social post...

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: ... saying it's a kangaroo court.

But is there any way to control him, or is this just going to be the way that, going forward, the judge and everyone's just going to have to deal with it and maybe fine after fine after fine?

TRUSTY: Well, I think the greatest -- look, there's two things.

One, don't underestimate how much Cohen is affecting this equation. Laura's right. I mean, as a prosecutor, if I had a witness who kept saying, hey, I'm going to go on TV and give them more cross- examination against me, I would be like, why don't you come over for dinner, and I'd lock him in a room?

(LAUGHTER)

TRUSTY: Like, he's not -- he's not getting an opportunity to go on TV every morning or every night and say the stuff that this guy's saying.

We're going to see all -- the greatest hits of Michael Cohen, clip after clip after clip, in cross-examination. So, I think some of these issues take care of themselves over time, as you focus on the trial and you tell the president, don't alienate the jury. We don't care what you say about the kind of political lane, but don't tick off this jury.

TAPPER: Yes.

Coming up: He used to be one of Donald Trump's biggest cheerleaders, but now David Pecker is helping prosecutors make their case against the former president from the witness stand as somebody who has an immunity deal with the prosecution.

We're going to bring you the latest from inside the courtroom after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:22:31]

COLLINS: And Welcome back to CNN's special live coverage of Donald Trump's hush money cover-up trial.

Judge Juan Merchan now back on the bench, as we are standing by, waiting for David Pecker to resume his testimony on the stand, the tabloid king who started yesterday, but did not really get into any substance.

Back with my panel now, Phil and Paula, as we are waiting.

The judge is a little delayed coming back on the stand. This was supposed to start at 11:00, Paula, but they just had that very dramatic and contentious hearing over whether Trump violated the gag order. Is there any chance whether or not the judge rules on that in these moments?

REID: I think that's probably the best guess as to why he ate up 20 minutes of the precious three hours that we have today to hear from David Pecker.

But it's unclear. They had that hearing outside the presence of the jury. Both sides got to make their arguments. Clearly, clearly, he was extremely frustrated with the Trump defense team. He said he would reserve his decision, gave no indication of when he would reveal what he was going to do about these alleged violations of the gag order.

So, definitely watching right now, although it appears that David Pecker has just entered the courtroom, so perhaps we will not get the -- it's just unclear right now if we will get a decision on the gag order today, or maybe he will wait until tomorrow, where there's no court.

COLLINS: So, David Pecker is back on the stand.

Yesterday was really just introductory, in the sense of what he was getting into. He was saying that he personally approved stories that they had to pay over $10,000, or he referred to it as checkbook journalism, a term that I'm not really a fan of.

But he was saying, essentially, that he cared the most about the covers of "The National Enquirer" and big stories that they had to pay a lot of money for, which the stories at the heart of this with Karen McDougal, those qualify as that.

The question is what he says about his conversations with Trump. And I should note the jury is now entering the courtroom. So, everyone is in the courtroom now, David Pecker, Judge Juan Merchan, Donald Trump and his team, prosecutors and now, most importantly, the jury is in that room, Phil.

MATTINGLY: And a continuation of what we saw yesterday.

And I think you hit the key point. And Elie was laying this out earlier. It's what actually happened in these meetings. When you have a first-person witness with Michael Cohen, with Donald Trump in August of 2015, and then I think progressing from there, right?

There was a meeting in the White House as well that happened after the former president was elected. And how the prosecutors are able to use what he can say from those meetings as a first-person witness to them to help drive what's going to be happening over the course of the next couple of weeks.

I think Paula made this point earlier, and it's a valuable one. In terms of the front end, how the financials actually played out here, David Pecker is not the best or the most central witness of things in terms of the payments themselves. But in terms of explaining how this process all works, we saw the start of that yesterday.

[11:25:02]

You're talking about how "The National Enquirer" works. Over $10,000 is when he weighs in. Friends of David Pecker is what he's most concerned about. The front page of "The National Enquirer" is what kind of drives his attention.

Now you're going to see the specifics of how that dovetails into the meetings he was having with one of the friends of David Pecker, Donald Trump.

COLLINS: And Trump was -- yes, Trump was called FOP, friend of Pecker, Paula.

And the reason that they're bringing him out is because prosecutors want to say, this is -- was his effort to suppress negative stories about Donald Trump and the efforts.

And when Karen McDougal, the Playboy model who said that she had an affair with Donald Trump, was taking her story to them, David Pecker actually researched whether or not it was a campaign finance violation for a corporation to buy her story, because he was concerned about this, clearly.

And I should note the direct examination of David Pecker has begun. These are the prosecutors who are questioning David Pecker. Where are they going to start with this?

REID: So, I think they're going to pick up where they were yesterday. They just got through the mechanics of his job. How do you find a story at "The National Enquirer"? How much does it cost? What was your role?

Just how much oversight, Mr. Pecker, did you have as an editor? And it was clear that he was incredibly involved in what went on, especially the cover of his magazine. They talked about how that was so important. So I think they're going to pick up there.

He's such a colorful witness, right? We're talking about a former Playboy playmate. We're talking about what was at the time the biggest tabloid in the world. I mean, this is a pretty compelling, interesting witness for the jury really on any day. But he is critical here, because one of the things that I know the defense attorneys are going to try to attack is the paperwork, right?

Those 34 counts, they're based on 34 documents. They're going to try to attack any connection between that paper and Trump. But David Pecker sets up the story and emphasizes that Trump was in -- in this from the beginning. He knew there were efforts to catch and kill these stories, to suppress negative stories going back as far as 2015.

And I think that's one of the most important things they want to get across, is that Trump was actively involved and aware of what was going on.

COLLINS: Yes, and he only testified for about 30 minutes yesterday, so today is really where we're going to see why they're putting him first on the witness stand.

MATTINGLY: And how deep they're able to get into it.

And I also think one of my big questions throughout every witness that we're going to see, what do we not know yet? I think there's so much that has been revealed over the course of the last several years. You guys have covered so much of every twist and turn.

And just about every witness that we're going to see here, all were key players at various points.

(CROSSTALK)

COLLINS: Yes, it's quite a blast to the past.

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

MATTINGLY: Right, it's seasons one through three, I think is where we're at over the course of the next couple weeks of the Trump show.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTINGLY: And what, if any, of elements that they get in to with all of the witnesses do we not know? What's new? What are the elements from the first-person conversations that maybe we have some threads of, but don't know the exact details of?

We will at least know one of those conversations, the one in 2015 and perhaps more, through David Pecker. But, as that progresses, it's going to be fascinating.

COLLINS: That's a good question, because David Pecker is now saying, he's known Donald Trump since the late '80s. I mean, these two people go way back, Paula.

REID: Yes.

COLLINS: And they had a longstanding relationship in this.

And it's like he's not someone who is like a Michael Cohen, who their relationship has really soured.

REID: No.

COLLINS: Trump and David Pecker do not speak anymore, to be clear.

But, to Phil's point, they had that one one-on-one meeting in August 2015, when he was Donald Trump the candidate. David Pecker, though, came to the White House. He got Oval Office tours...

(CROSSTALK)

COLLINS: ... tours of the Lincoln Bedroom, kind of Trump's spiel that he would do with people who were new to see the White House. He loved to take them through and see it.

And I should note, Trump is leaning back in his chair and giving a smirk as David Pecker is pointing at him.

REID: Yes, he was asked to identify the defendant, a basic question you would ask any witness.

But as you were saying, these two men, they go back a long ways. And, like you said, it's not like he was someone who worked for Trump directly, right, or that his entire identity depended on Trump, but they had a mutually beneficial relationship going back decades.

And if you read a lot about David Pecker, he truly admired Trump. He admired the lifestyle. He admired his wives, the beautiful women around him. So this was certainly an admiring relationship on David Pecker's part. And, of course, Trump got a lot out of it too, because he loved being in the tabloids, right?

That's how many people came to learn a lot about his personal life through the '80s and '90s. So this is a very unique, very New York relationship that I think we're going to hear a lot about.

(CROSSTALK)

COLLINS: And prosecutors are asking David Pecker to explain that relationship with Trump.

He says: "I have had a great relationship with Mr. Trump over the years."

So, even though they don't speak anymore, I mean, I think that, it could help build credibility with the jury, because this is not someone who's going to come on and say what they have been alleging about Michael Cohen and whatnot.

David Pecker is someone, he wanted Trump to be president. Clearly, he helped him with his stories.

REID: Yes. Yes.

MATTINGLY: And it was funny in the courtroom yesterday, very clearly making an effort to say hi to the former president.

And I think that their relationship, if you think about what's happening in the courtroom right now, him having to identify Donald Trump, how they have been friends for decades. They have probably gone through so much together in terms of their relationship, what they have seen, the things that we don't know about that they have actually seen.

And Pecker -- yes.

COLLINS: This is the best part. This is -- this magazine, if people haven't -- aren't familiar with it, it's "Trump Style."

MATTINGLY: Yes.

COLLINS: David Pecker used to publish it and put it in the Trump properties, where people would go.

And he says, you know, starting in 1989, that's when they had this.