Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Testimony Continues in Trump Hush Money Trial. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired April 23, 2024 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00]

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: They're walking Pecker through that AMI record-keeping and the information on AMI's servers like text messages that they have. Obviously, those could be really valuable to prosecutors.

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

Text messages would be great in this case, especially any text messages between Pecker, AMI and Michael Cohen, anything related to suppressing these stories for Trump. I absolutely think prosecutors are going to want to tell the story of how this relationship fell apart, as it very likely relates to the events that issue in this case.

As for what Trump is going through right now, look, it just really sucks to be in court, to be a defendant. It is just one of the most stressful things you could possibly go through. And, of course, Trump, being who he is, everything takes on, right, an extraordinary nature.

But for anyone to be in that seat, it's one of the worst things you can go through in your entire life.

COLLINS: David Pecker, I think, really importantly, we should note here, for people who may say, why is this guy testifying and revealing all this information, he has an immunity agreement.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Right.

REID: Exactly, with the government. So, he's been involved, interestingly, going back to about approximately 2017.

He has been involved in these investigations into whether this was criminal conduct, right, these hush money payments. This was first something that was primarily investigated at the federal level.

The Manhattan district attorney, the state investigation sort of took a -- took a little bit of a back seat, as they often do when you're dealing with a two-tracked investigation. But, yes, he had -- he had immunity when the Justice Department did its deal with AMI. Michael Cohen, of course, did not and he did plead guilty to several charges, including campaign finance violations.

COLLINS: And, Phil, I mean, they're asking right now about text messages and what he had access to on their servers. They're also kind of teeing up a text message that they are going to admit into evidence.

And that's the new thing that we're seeing today. They're really bringing in e-mails from Michael Cohen.

MATTINGLY: Yes.

COLLINS: There's a thumb drive that they just introduced. And now they're teeing up text messages. We will find out which ones they're talking about.

But, I mean, I imagine the text messages of anyone who was involved at AMI or "The National Enquirer" would be quite revealing, potentially.

MATTINGLY: Right.

We have talked about what we know versus what we don't know, what will be a surprise, given how much reporting has come out on this. And text messages, particularly detailing things that just haven't been reported before, I think, are critical at this point, but also just having evidence, introducing even the e-mail from Michael Cohen or multiple e-mails from Michael Cohen, which weren't exactly revelatory for the case.

But you realize, oh, wow, they have got all of this stuff. They have a lot of information. Paula mentioned the nonprosecution agreement that they have with AMI, the fact that David Pecker is a cooperating witness. And I think that's something to -- or has immunity. It's something to remember.

We saw at the very beginning that David Pecker seemed to be flattering Trump throughout the course of the kind of opening parts of the trial. He has immunity here. He was called by the prosecution. And this could go down a path where it seems to be going right now, particularly with the evidence that they're attempting to admit, that is problematic.

COLLINS: Well, and these wouldn't be text messages with Trump.

MATTINGLY: Right.

COLLINS: I mean, he just started texting a few -- maybe a year-and-a- half ago, I think.

MATTINGLY: Right.

COLLINS: And so this could be potentially Michael Cohen, Steve Bannon, these people that they were just saying were introduced to him.

REID: Yes.

COLLINS: Right now, we're told that Trump brought -- you saw Trump bringing that stack of papers with him when he went back into the courtroom, Paula. At one point, our team said it was so quiet in the room that you could only hear Trump thumbing through that stack of papers. Is that normal behavior for a defendant at the defense table?

REID: So, thumb through your papers at some point.

Remember, I said this is such an extraordinary, difficult thing to do. Now, Trump's legal team has just objected. They have asked them to come to the bench. It appears that this objection is related to the text messages, so, clearly, something that they're a little bit worried about coming in.

I would, again, expect this is likely going to have to do with either AMI and/or Michael Cohen.

COLLINS: Oh.

REID: The judge has said that he doesn't want to speak about objections in front of the jury.

OK, so they will go to sidebar, which Trump has said he wants to participate in all the sidebars. They will go where the jury can't hear them to hash out this particular objection. I'm curious to see if Trump wants to get some steps in and join the sidebar, hear what it's about, or if he stays at the seat, because I was -- well, many of us were skeptical that he really would participate at this level.

He said he wanted to be at every little sidebar, every little meeting with the judge and lawyers, but most defendants don't do that.

COLLINS: What would be the...

REID: So, it will be interesting to see if he does.

COLLINS: What would be the reason for objecting to the introduction of text messages? I mean, that seems like a pretty standard move for a prosecution or defense.

REID: It depends what's in it and what they're saying, right?

So, if we're talking about Michael Cohen talking about a hush money deal, it's going to be hard to keep that out, right? But if we're talking about maybe Kellyanne Conway asking about something or someone who's not actually at the heart of this case, they may try to make one of several objections.

But we have no idea what the text message is or what it's meant to support. So, it's hard to say. And we may not hear, because they're doing this sidebar. So I don't believe even our colleague in the courtroom can hear.

COLLINS: Yes, Jake.

So you have the judge and Trump's attorneys and prosecutors who are going to be speaking up to the side out of the earshot of the jury to talk about whatever these text messages are that are related to American Media Inc. that clearly the prosecution wants to bring up.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: All right, fascinating stuff.

Kaitlan Collins, thanks so much.

Elie Honig, tell us about these text messages and also the process by which the prosecution is trying to introduce them through this one witness, David Pecker.

[13:05:07]

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

So, in order to put documents, texts in front of a jury, you have to have a witness on the stand who can say, yes, that is what we say they are. Those are texts that I sent and received. Those are e-mails that I recognize.

TAPPER: So, it has to be somebody that was party to the texts?

HONIG: Exactly, unless the other side what we call stipulates, meaning agrees. But, sometimes, you want to do that. You want to show the jury, OK, this is the guy who sent or received those texts.

And the other thing that you always want to do as a prosecutor, especially with your more contentious witnesses -- watch for this when Michael Cohen testifies, but also now with Pecker -- is, you want to support as much of their testimony as possible with written documents, so you can say to the jury, you don't have to take David Pecker's word standing alone.

You don't have to take Michael Cohen's word standing alone. Look, it's right here. It's in a document. So the prosecutors right now are trying to build and bolster their case.

TAPPER: And, Laura Coates, right now, David Pecker, we're told, is inside the courtroom. He's at the witness stand. He's sipping water from a glass.

Trump is going through papers while the lawyers sort out the objection here. Why would the defense attorneys be objecting?

LAURA COATES, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, first of all, let's take a step back.

The judge is saying, clearly, that he does not want objections to be made in front of the story, the speaking objections. He does not want this jury to be hearing anything besides the actual testimony at issue. And the lawyers and the judge are actually discussing an objection from Trump's legal team. This is out of the earshot of the jury in this context.

The reason why is because you want this jury focused on only the presentation of evidence or notetaking, not trying to get through the different rabbit holes. It's really important for the clarity and a streamlined process, but not wanting to get these documents in for the reason Elie talks about.

They don't want the corroborative aspect of it. They do not want anything that's not being said. They don't want to have the overwhelming number of receipts to say, listen, if you question the credibility of the speaking witness, if you want to figuratively ixnay the messenger, then you can turn to the actual documents.

They want to undermine the ability to do just that.

TAPPER: Mm-hmm.

And these text messages are likely going to be between Pecker and Michael Cohen talking about these arrangements, these deals.

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: Yes, it actually makes me think about the fact that -- and you can speak to this, because you were actually Donald Trump's attorney -- he doesn't communicate that way. He doesn't text. He doesn't e-mail, at least certainly hadn't up until this point.

And so -- and he doesn't do that for the very reason that we're talking about right now. I mean, the whole question is about paper trail and it's about documents. We certainly have that with checks. But imagine if that included something other than checks and what he puts on social media. Imagine if what he said was actually involved in a text.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: So, Trump attorney Todd Blanche grabbed a binder from the defendant's table.

And, Susan, how do you pronounce it? Necheles?

(CROSSTALK)

HONIG: Necheles.

BASH: Necheles.

TAPPER: Susan Necheles got her tablet as a discussion about the objection continues.

Tim -- Tim, why are they objecting?

TIMOTHY PARLATORE, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: So, I mean, I think that the reason they're getting that binder is probably because it has the contents of all the text messages, so they can go through whatever they're about to introduce as to why this stuff should not be put before this jury.

And a lot of this could be -- I mean, they certainly could have hearsay objections, but I think a lot of it is probably going to be more to relevance of whether this is getting too far field from the actual false records and whether these are the type of text messages that would be -- the risk of unfair prejudice outweighs its probative value, that it's of minimal value to this case, but it has a significant risk of prejudicing the jury, to where they're going to make an improper decision.

TAPPER: So, in other words, it's going to look sleazy...

PARLATORE: Yes.

TAPPER: .. but it's not against the law. And so the defense attorneys don't want that sleaze to get out there.

(CROSSTALK)

PARLATORE: Correct.

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: They're also going to say it's just hearsay. It's an out-of-court statement being offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

And so you're not allowed to bring out prior consistent statements, unless there's an exception to that. There's -- hearsay is the thing that you mostly will object to in court. And so text messages between two people, that's just pure hearsay, even though it not only corroborates the witnesses.

It also brings the jury back to where they were in 2015, 2016, 2017, which is what they're going to try to do throughout this trial. They're going to try to bring the jury back to that time period and that time frame. And these were all done contemporaneous. You can bring it out, though, if somehow the defense attorney cross-examines the witness and tries to say that this is a recent fabrication.

That's one time that you can go back and say, no, it's not. I have these old text messages. I can now show this prior consistent statement. But until that point, at this -- right now, if it's being offered for the truth, if it's being offered for some other reason, like the fact that they were just communicating or it was evidence of the crime, if there's some other reason that's an exception to the hearsay rule, then you could bring it in.

But that's why they're objecting to this. It's just hearsay right now.

TAPPER: And, Kasie Hunt, who joins us now.

Kasie, obviously, what's important to remember here is, this is all disgusting and sleazy and horrific and exactly what we thought it was in 2015-2016, when "The National Enquirer" was doing Trump's bidding. But that's not a crime. None of that is a crime.

[13:10:14]

The crime being alleged is falsification of business records to cover up the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.

KASIE HUNT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Right.

And I guess, I mean, that's kind of my question, as the nonlawyer at the table. And, politically speaking, Jake, you're right. We are all going back to that time in 2015 and 2016, when we were first learning about this. This cast of characters is taking us back to that time.

But if old records show that they wanted to do something, they wanted to do X, but then the business records say Y, that's -- I don't totally understand why that's not relevant or allowed.

HONIG: So, the -- an important question here is, what is the scope of the conspiracy, right?

If you have texts between three people in this case or a conspiracy involving three people, Trump, Pecker...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: But look at this. The documents are being accepted into evidence, over Trump's objection.

HUNT: They just let it in, yes. Yes.

HONIG: Perfect. And I think I can explain why.

HUNT: Exactly.

HONIG: So let's say you have a conspiracy involving three people, Trump, Cohen and Pecker, right?

There are texts between two of them, in this case Cohen and Pecker, but not Donald Trump, you can still introduce as a prosecutor the texts between Cohen and Pecker against Donald Trump, even if he's not on those texts, even if he's not sending or receiving those texts, if you're all part of the same three-person conspiracy and if those texts go to further the conspiracy.

So we're guessing a little bit, but I think, based on what I know, the judge has said, Donald Trump's not on these texts, but they're sent by two of his co-conspirators, and they're furthering the conspiracy.

TAPPER: And, Tim, as somebody who used to work for Donald Trump, who represented Donald Trump, that squares, not the criminality of it, but that squares with how you deal with Donald Trump.

You might text somebody close to him, but not him.

PARLATORE: He's never texted me.

TAPPER: Never texted you or e-mailed you?

(LAUGHTER)

PARLATORE: He calls me, but he doesn't text me.

TAPPER: Or e-mailed you?

PARLATORE: No, no, never. It was always, like, anything we had to e- mail, we would e-mail to his assistant.

(CROSSTALK) TAPPER: Yes. The objection has been noted and overruled, Judge Merchan says -- Merchan says, noting that any embedded hearsay issues will be dealt with as they move through the documents.

PARLATORE: OK. So they probably went through and found a few text messages where one of them said, somebody else told me X.

And so, to Elie's point, because these are texts between two alleged co-conspirators, they would be admissible for that purpose, but, to the extent that there are certain pieces within that go outside that, as they come up, he's going to potentially excise pieces of it, if that makes sense.

TAPPER: And, yes, I mean, what we're going to see here in these text messages between Michael Cohen and David Pecker, Dana, presumably will bolster what Michael Cohen's going to say on the stand and what David Pecker has said on the stand in terms of this agreement.

BASH: Which is such an important point.

There doesn't seem to be as much of a credibility issue with David Pecker as we are going to see with Michael Cohen, from the perspective of the defense and what the defense is going to try to do to Michael Cohen.

And as I talk about that, we should say the prosecutor is Pecker about the story of Dino...

TAPPER: Sajudin?

BASH: ... Sajudin. Oh, he's the doorman.

TAPPER: Yes.

BASH: And Pecker says that he learned from Dylan Howard about Sajudin's story and that he called Cohen.

So this is -- now, these -- these are the stories -- forgive me. Trump shook his head, leaning back at the defense table as Pecker recalled the story.

Now, quickly, the story is, which there's absolutely no evidence actually was true at all -- it's been actually disproven -- was whether a doorman in Trump's building was going to go forward with a -- an allegation that Trump fathered a child out of wedlock. Again, that story had been disproven, but that didn't preclude this from being discussed and the catch-and-kill on this story certainly happened.

But what I was saying before was, this is all the buildup, clearly, to preparing for the defense, Trump's defense, to say, everything that Michael Cohen says is not true because he was proven to be a liar, so on and so forth. And all of the exchanges that Michael Cohen had, especially with somebody like David Pecker, whose credibility is not as much in question, are critical to the prosecution.

TAPPER: Pecker said -- quote -- "I immediately called Michael Cohen and I described to him exactly what I was told by Dylan Howard."

That's "The National Enquirer" editor. And that has to do with this false story by the former doorman at Trump World Tower that Donald Trump had fathered a child outside his marriage.

Pecker says, Cohen responded to the story -- quote -- "Absolutely not true, but I will check it out."

So, Michael Cohen -- David Pecker is alerting Donald Trump's attorney of this guy shopping around a presumably false story. Michael Cohen says: "It's not true, but I will check it out."

Tim, do you buy the argument that David Pecker buying this story and then burying it is a campaign contribution that should have been disclosed?

[13:15:10]

PARLATORE: Not under the Supreme Court's holding of Citizens United.

I mean, it does get a little bit more unseemly when they're actually paying a witness for their story. And, remember, this is different from the Stormy Daniels. They're not paying them for an NDA. They're paying them to get the exclusive rights to tell their story, and then they're just not publishing it.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: But why would they do it? And then we already had David Pecker acknowledge that, sometimes, he would do this to benefit Donald Trump, even if it didn't benefit "The National Enquirer."

PARLATORE: Right. Well...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Hold on one sec.

David Pecker says, that day or the next, Michael Cohen called him back, called David Pecker back, and said he verified that the two names were on the payroll. That's the name of the doorman and the name of the women -- woman with whom Donald Trump was accused, although falsely so, of fathering a child.

He asked Pecker to check out the story. Cohen is asking Pecker to check out the story, which is interesting.

PARLATORE: Right.

TAPPER: Pecker tells Cohen of the -- of -- or "The National Enquirer" tells Michael Cohen the story. Michael Cohen checks it out, says these two people are employees of Trump World Tower, gets back to them, and then David Pecker says he will check out the story.

But you say this is not necessarily a campaign contribution?

PARLATORE: Right.

Well, remember, Citizens United dealt with a case where somebody, a documentary filmmaker, made a film attacking Hillary Clinton, trying to make her look bad right before the election. And that was held to not be an in-kind campaign contribution. When a media company does something like that, expends money, a significant amount of money in that case, millions of dollars, to produce something that could change people's opinions of the election to help their preferred candidate, that was constitutionally protected free speech.

And so that's -- that's what the law is.

TAPPER: But is buying somebody silence the same thing as free speech?

PARLATORE: That's a...

TAPPER: It's not free and it's not speech.

(LAUGHTER)

PARLATORE: It has an -- it's an interesting question that should be tested.

TAPPER: David Pecker says he called Michael Cohen because of the 2015 meeting where he agreed to notify Cohen of anything he heard -- quote -- "that was going to be negative to Trump, his family or his campaign."

So, that's Pecker saying that the only reason he called Cohen is because of this agreement that they had at this meeting in 2015.

PARLATORE: Right.

So it's untested how it would apply to this particular circumstance. The U.S. attorney's office decided not to press it with AMI. But to the extent that this goes forward to a conviction, I can predict that the Trump team would likely litigate this on appeal.

TAPPER: All the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

(CROSSTALK)

PARLATORE: Sure.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Yes.

PARLATORE: And because this involves a federal question that is something that's been decided by the Supreme Court, I see that is something that the Supreme Court could potentially take.

COATES: Remember, though, it's not as -- I mean, the fact that they have not charged this conduct -- keep in mind, the reason we're hearing a lot about this is because this notion of prior bad acts.

PARLATORE: Right.

COATES: They're bringing up this to establish a pattern, not to show that there was criminal activity for Karen McDougal or for this doorman.

You can enter into an NDA. The question here is whether they falsified records on these issues. And what they're trying to establish here, to refocus, is that they're trying to create the evidence that David Pecker was part of a catch-and-kill scheme where they would -- following that announcement to run for president, he took a greater interest in ensuring that whatever was run in his tabloid and met publication would be favorable to Donald Trump and would kill whatever was not.

That's important for one part of this jigsaw puzzle. The next part has to be that -- one, catch-and-kill scheme. Number two, it was for the purpose of helping in the election. That's the other part of it. The third part, though, has to be that there is a falsified record.

That's where the invoices come in, the documents you're seeing about. And, remember, there was a moment where there was a testimony. I'm going to go to my tablet here.

TAPPER: Tablet it up, baby.

COATES: Tablet it up.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: There was a key takeaway in here. That's a new verb. I love it.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: One of the key takeaways here is that he said he would describe Mr. Trump as very knowledgeable.

TAPPER: Well, put it up. Put it up.

COATES: I'm putting it up. They're not putting it up with me.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: Put up the stuff, people. All right, here we go.

TAPPER: Put up -- put up -- there it is. There it is.

BASH: There it is.

COATES: All right, there -- put up or shut up. I'm not going to shut up.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: So, I would describe Mr. Trump as very knowledgeable. He was very detail-oriented here, right?

TAPPER: Look at that.

COATES: And he almost was a micromanager and looked at all aspects of whatever the issue was.

So, if the issue here was...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: One sec.

David Pecker starts to say that they discussed having Sajudin, the doorman with the false story, take a polygraph test. But the prosecutor quickly cuts him off.

"What you were about to say, don't say that."

COATES: Ooh.

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: "Don't say that." Pecker starts to say that.

Why -- why -- why...

COATES: So, now every juror is like, what were you about to say?

(CROSSTALK)

PARLATORE: Yes.

TAPPER: The judge had previously ruled that polygraph information could not come into evidence.

BASH: Oh.

TAPPER: Steinglass again told Pecker not to discuss any results of a polygraph test that Sajudin took.

COATES: Yes.

TAPPER: Why...

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: So, first of all, for those of you who pretend not to have read "The Enquirer," one of the most interesting aspects of "The Enquirer" has always been the idea of a polygraph test to substantiate those who are involved in this sort of checkbook journalism to suggest...

TAPPER: Not admissible in a court of law, right?

COATES: Not admissible in a court of law in this instance. So he's trying to make sure -- they already had these pretrial

motions, where the different lawyers were saying, here what are the guardrails. If you were to go beyond that, there's a problem.

[13:20:03]

They know very well this will likely result, if there is a conviction -- that's an if -- in an appeal. They will go through every part of it. Did anyone violate the rules beforehand? So, trying to make sure that they know that the prosecution is trying to toe that particular line.

But one of the reasons people would look to these publications was to say, well, gosh, do I believe you? The polygraph test was important here.

BASH: I literally did not know that.

COATES: Oh, well, OK, sure, Dana. Got it.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: OK, Kasie Hunt, well, I knew it, because I used to -- I know -- I'm familiar with those sort of publications.

BASH: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: But the bottom line here is that he's trying to establish that there was some way to show as a part of the scheme.

But the prosecution has got to go to the next level. And this witness might not give you everything that you need to prove every single test. But at least to credibility factor, you -- now you have Pecker saying that Howard...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Dylan Howard, the editor in chief of "The Enquirer," negotiated to pay 30 grand to buy the story.

And he called Michael Cohen, hey, we're going to spend $30,000 to buy the story, and the implication, of course, that they're not going to run it.

COATES: Yes, which remember, yesterday, we learned in the first 20 minutes of his testimony that anything above $10,000 per story had to get the approval of David Pecker.

TAPPER: Nice. Good -- yes, good call. Good callback.

HONIG: And so people can track of this all, this doorman story is the first of three parts of the catch-and-kill scheme that prosecutors are going to introduce.

There's the paying off of the doorman, the $30,000. Next up will be the paying of Karen McDougal to catch and kill her story, $150,000. And then the third one will be the one that's charged in the indictment, the falsification relating to the nondisclosure payoff of Stormy Daniels.

TAPPER: And didn't Pecker say earlier today, Karen, that "The National Enquirer" typically didn't buy stories just to suppress them?

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Yes, I believe so. Yes, that is definitely the case.

And I think that goes -- that's further evidence that this was an illegal conspiracy, which -- and the reason we keep going back to that term is, a co-conspirator statement is an exception to the hearsay rule. And that's why you hear this coming up over and over again in court, because the pro -- a lot of the evidence the prosecution is trying to...

TAPPER: Pecker said at the time: "This could be a very big story. I believe it's important that it should be removed from the market."

And Pecker was -- that statement by Pecker was greeted with a statement from Michael Cohen: "The boss would be very pleased."

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: So, again, all of these out-of-court statements that are being offered for the truth are an exception to the hearsay rule, because they are co-conspirator statements.

And some will say, well, but, wait, he's not charged with conspiracy, but two things. Number one, you don't have to be charged with conspiracy to be able to fit into this category, number one.

TAPPER: Yes. And Pecker confirms this is the first time he paid to kill a story about Donald Trump.

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: And, number two, the other -- the other thing is, don't forget, in order to make this a felony, in addition to being falsifying business records, he had to have done it to either commit or conceal another crime.

One of the other crimes that the prosecution has alleged is state election law violations. And New York state election law violation is a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy to commit election law -- and so that's why they are hanging their hat on this and saying, Judge, we should be allowed to bring all this hearsay in because of that allegation.

TAPPER: So, and -- Laura Coates has found the quote and question.

You want to bring -- you want to tablet it up?

COATES: Oh, we're tableting it up?

(CROSSTALK) TAPPER: Tablet it up again.

COATES: OK. We're tablet...

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: This is the question. The point is, like, is this a standard operation procedure?

COATES: Right.

TAPPER: Pecker said, if the story was true -- this is about Trump having this child outside his marriage, according to this doorman, not a true story, apparently.

Pecker said, if the story was true, it would probably be the biggest sale of "The National Enquirer" since the death of Elvis Presley in 1977. Pecker said, if the story was verified, he would have published it after the election, based on a conversation he had with Michael Cohen, presumably thinking that Donald Trump wasn't going to win the election. I -- because I can't see why they would do that otherwise.

COATES: And, of course, the great irony is that some of the highest- selling tabloids include that Elvis has not actually died. So that's...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: But the thing is also they had...

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: You're a secret tabloid...

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: Oh, it's not even secret.

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: Pecker said it was very important to pay for it, because Sajudin, the doorman, would likely shop around the story to other outlets.

COATES: Right.

TAPPER: So they had to get it. They had to get it.

By the way, I think that "The National Enquirer" actually had photographs of Elvis dead in his coffin, I think -- I believe, if memory serves, from 1977. Somebody snuck in with a camera, and this wasn't in the ear of camera phones. So I don't know how they did it exactly.

I will check it while you're doing your thing.

COATES: Well...

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: But it was definitely -- a tabloid definitely published photographs of Elvis dead in his coffin.

COATES: Well, there's been a lot of folklore about what's happened there as well.

But, to this point, and, mind you, catching and killing, they also have to include this idea of a nondisclosure. They don't want to have paid somebody for these stories to have not them published, just "The National Enquirer." The whole point is that it could never see the light of day.

But going back to this point of whether or not they had...

TAPPER: Yes, by the way, "The National Enquirer" paid Elvis' cousin Bobby Mann $18,000 for the death photo.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: See, there you go.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Again...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Eight years old, and I remember that.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Well done. I'm impressed by this.

[13:25:00]

TAPPER: Yes. Thank you. Thank you so much.

COATES: Well, so one of the takeaways here, if you look at this, is, he was asked, David Pecker, earlier today, prior to the August 2015 meeting -- now, I note, of course, it was June of 2015 when Donald Trump came down that escalator infamously, that: "Had you ever purchased a story to not print it about Mr. Trump?"

Pecker saying: "Ah, no."

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: The jury right now is visit -- is reviewing an agreement AMI struck with Dino Sajudin to purchase the rights to the story. The document is dated November 15, 2015.

COATES: So, now we're saying a couple of months after that now August meeting where Pecker would say he'd become the eyes and ears of Donald Trump.

Also the question: "Did that part help 'The National Enquirer' at all?"

That's a really important point here.

And he says: "No, that didn't help."

Now, many might be wondering, well, why on earth would there be a payment to just try to unilaterally help Donald Trump?

Well, it's not just the catch-and-kill. It's the continued relationship. If somebody's getting ready to be the president of the United States, and they believe that they might be or might have a chance at doing so, think about the fodder you have in the future.

There is every incentive for somebody who's publishing a magazine to have that access point. And so, although it might appear to be unilaterally only helping Donald Trump, after 2015, it would actually inure to the benefit of -- ultimately of "The Enquirer."

TAPPER: And just, because, Kasie, I know you're really curious and to know what Dino Sajudin looks like, just because we're talking about him so much...

HUNT: Am I?

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: ... the doorman, here is a photograph of Dino Sajudin. The jury right now is viewing this agreement between AMI and Dino Sajudin. There he is on the bottom right-hand of your screen.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: And just in case you were wondering what he looked like, I just wanted to make sure.

HUNT: I'm sure our audience is...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: I'm here to -- I'm here to please.

(LAUGHTER)

HUNT: Can I just say that it's so interesting to kind of get this window into Pecker on the phone telling Michael Cohen, I want this story because it's going to sell so many tabloids.

Everyone who works around Donald Trump and has any sort of relationship where they are, as you know, Laura, trying to maintain that, learns how to flatter him in their own kind of specific way. I mean, the idea that a cover of a tabloid with this man's face on it is going to sell like Elvis' death photos is absurd, but a kind of a compliment to Trump.

BASH: And we saw that at the very beginning of Pecker's testimony yesterday, and especially today. His Trump-flattering muscle memory just came back like that.

HUNT: It's -- and it's also been really interesting.

Some of the most interesting notes I think coming in from our team is, how is Trump interacting with these witnesses, right? Like not making eye contact with David Pecker as Pecker walks in, and then his sort of reactions to the things Pecker is saying.

It doesn't have -- it has a much different quality, right, to it than the way that Trump is interacting with Michael Cohen through the case.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: The jury right now looking at this agreement, Kasie. The jury's looking at this agreement, which presumably says that AMI is buying the exclusive rights to this story that Dino Sajudin has, presumably a false story, about this woman who had this child that he said, he claimed, again, falsely was Donald Trump's child from outside his marriage.

But, Elie, I mean, one of the things that's interesting here is, you have "The National Enquirer" operating as a vessel, if not of the Trump campaign, of Trump. They are doing him this solid, buying the story for $30,000, burying it, and that's not something that journalists do to -- in order to get a story off -- out of the public eye.

David Pecker right now explaining the agreement to the jury.

HONIG: OK, there's a crucial detail that just came through in David Pecker's testimony a few minutes ago.

David Pecker testified that if -- after the election, if he could have confirmed the doorman's story -- it ended up being unconfirmable, but he said, if he could have confirmed it, he would have published it after the election.

It's a crucial point for prosecutors, because it shows the whole point of buying these stories was to keep them away from the public before the election. So it's a little nuanced, but there's no other way to explain that. Why else would he be willing to put it up after the election, if they could prove it?

TAPPER: Hmm.

COATES: And you made this point yesterday too, Elie, I think it was a good one, in that the timing of it.

Say, Karen McDougal, this was not an affair that was alleged to have occurred, at least from her, and then Trump denies it, in 2015 or 2016. It was more than a decade earlier, Stormy Daniels as well. And so the idea of the why now is going to be lingering in this court, with the prosecutors noting, why now? Why, of all the different moments they could have brought these things up, why now?

Now, they will say, well, that's when we heard about it. That's when Stormy brought the case to us or brought the incidents and Karen McDougal. But for the jury's purpose, the idea to convince and persuade them that -- beyond a reasonable doubt that the why now was because there was an election.

HONIG: Yes, and the response will be, as you said, Laura, this is when Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal pounced.

They -- he's running for president. He's vulnerable at this point. And it is a fact -- we can -- there will be argument at the trial how to characterize that, but it is a fact that this all was initiated by the camps around McDougal and Daniels.

Trump's team didn't go out and find them. It worked the other way. They -- their people came to Trump's people, perhaps even Pecker, and said, hey, we have got this story. You may want to think about what you want to do with it.

COATES: And, by the way, Karen, you talked about this yesterday too.

[13:30:00]