Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Second Day Of David Pecker Testimony In Trump's Hush Money Trial. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired April 23, 2024 - 13:30   ET

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

[13:30:00]

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: And said, hey, we've got this story. You may want to think about what you want to do with.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: And by the way, Karen, you talked about yesterday, too, because the idea of pouncing and one of the rare instances of having an objection during oral, during, excuse me, an opening statement was a motion.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: David Pecker saying, we hold the article and it's up to the publisher whether they're going to publish it. And paying meant a full exclusive for it. And you have the choice to publish, basically, we're buying the exclusive rights to this article.

COATES: Yes.

TAPPER: We can do whatever we want with it. You can't shop it around to anyone else.

COATES: And I bet there was some moment in time when they said to the person who they were negotiating with one day, we might maybe incentivize them to take this particular deal from the Inquirer as opposed to going someplace else and not getting the checkbook journalism.

TAPPER: Pecker said, we discovered that it was absolutely 1000 percent untrue. He also recalled Cohen told him Trump would be willing to take a DNA test to disprove the story.

COATES: Well, he took a DNA test. Turns out he's 100 percent that candidate. Afterwards, that was Lizzo (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I got it.

COATES: Thank you. The rest of you --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Minnesota zone.

COATES: --I have no concerns. But on this point, Karen, one of the few objections that were raise was about trying to intimate that Stormy Daniels was pouncing or somehow committing extortion in her comments. They attacked that very notion. The judge did not like that intimation in an opening. KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, I mean, that's the

thing. You really have to use your objections gingerly because you don't object every time you can object because that could just upset the jury, upset the judge. And you're seeing --

TAPPER: Speaking of the jury, David Pecker turned his head to face the jury as he told them they discovered the story was 1000 percent untrue. Does that both bolster Pecker's credibility with the jury? Do you think he's prosecutor's asking Pecker why they were paying for a story that was not true?

AGNIFILO: Yes, I mean, absolutely. I think it does. And I think, look, I think that good, bad, ugly, the prosecution is just telling the story of the world that they lived in and bringing the jury into this world. The whole thing, all of it. And the prosecution has to embrace this case. They have to embrace David Pecker and Michael Cohen and Hope Hicks and Stormy Daniels because this is the case.

TAPPER: But Pecker says if the article, quote, got out to another publication or another media outlet, it wouldn't -- it would have been very embarrassing to the campaign. This is in direct response to the prosecutors saying, if it's not a true story, you're saying it's not a true story. 1000 percent untrue. You said Donald Trump offering to take a DNA test to prove that it's not true.

Why would you pay for it? He says, because we don't want another publication or another media outlet to publish it. And he says specifically why? Because, quote, it would have been very embarrassing to the campaign, not to Donald Trump's family, but to the Trump campaign for president. Kaitlan.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Yes, Jake. Another update is David Pecker is testifying about this agreement that, you know, even though the story was not true, it still has the 10 -- what the argument was that this guy was making, which is that Donald Trump, as he was alleging and trying to shop around that he fathered an illegitimate child. I mean, that's obviously something that's going to be able to stick with the jury.

But David Pecker said that they determined it was false after they hired a private investigator to go where this kid apparently supposedly was, where he lived, and to suss out this story. It speaks to the efforts that David Pecker took and what he was doing to try to protect Donald Trump. And I think, really, what is key here?

And if people are watching and wondering, you know, why are they talking about a story that wasn't true about Donald Trump? It's also the timeline here that David Pecker had never paid for a story about Donald Trump until it was this close to the campaign.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And the timeline we're learning about on these agreements, the agreement contained a cause that would require the doorman to pay, am I a million dollars if he breached the agreement in which he was paid for the rights of the story. And this had a very long timeline. So this is interesting because it's not just to prevent Trump from

embarrassment, it's also to prevent the campaign from being embarrassed. And that is significant because that's, of course, at the heart of the criminal allegations here.

COLLINS: In the $1 million. I mean, that he was paid $30,000 for this fake story, but if he breached and told you about it, he would never be able to repay the $1 million, was essentially their understanding.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Which is why they want to hang it over its head. I think your point is a really good one. As we keep going through the updates, Pecker explaining, when it comes to that clause, it was basically a lever over him. Right. Not to go elsewhere with that story.

This is the timeline. It's also the mechanics. Right? So, first time they've ever done it. This is how it actually worked, $30,000. Michael Cohen talking to David Pecker about how this actual process would work, what the lever would be over the top, that $1 million as well. So you're getting the structure of this deal we've been talking about.

What's it actually going to look like when they put all this together based on the evidence that the prosecutors and the witness that they have. You're seeing it. This is the structure at a very specific timeline tied to the campaign. Plus, and I thought I would pointed this out, and I was fascinated by this, an agreement that if the story was true, National Enquirer could publish it after the election. So the campaign, the politics and the structure of everything coming before everything with Stormy Daniels actually transpired. It's all laid out.

[13:35:04]

COLLINS: Paula, we know the next two stories are about Karen McDougall and Stormy McDaniel -- Stormy Daniels, which Donald Trump has denied. I should note that these women have talked about publicly to Anderson Cooper and Stormy Daniels in multiple places.

Why do you think the prosecution is starting with the doorman's story first if they don't believe that it was true?

REID: I think you want to, first of all, get it out of the way because it's not true. And also, he was paid a lot less money. Here Packer says he determined jointly with Cohen to amend this agreement to extend the timeframe in perpetuity. And that's what I'm talking about.

You know, this doorman, he was under this agreement not just for a few months, not just for a few years, but in perpetuity. This is quite an extraordinary thing to do. And again, he's testifying. He did it not just to save Trump from embarrassment, but also the campaign.

COLLINS: Well, and it says that Trump's legal team objected to the next exhibit. They are now back at the bench. They just had this happen a few moments ago where they objected to text messages being shown. The judge here overruled that and said, no, we're going to continue to have this allowed to be shown to the jury. But also what this agreement shows that they are pulling out right

now, the one about the doorman shopping around the story, it shows how involved Michael Cohen was. He was basically writing this agreement along with David Pecker and the national Enquirer team.

MATTINGLY: At the same time he was serving as David Pecker's point person to the former president wasn't involved in the campaign. But when Pecker testified earlier that when Michael Cohen said we, he assumed he was talking about him and the former president because he wasn't actually on the campaign team as well. And he was the kind of do everything for Donald Trump at that time. And he was intimately involved.

And I think if they've shown anything over the course of the last several hours and to some degree yesterday as well, Cohen is intimately involved in things that the president is intimately aware of. Right? The micromanager keeping an eye on everything. He knows exactly what Michael Cohen's doing. At least that's what the prosecution is trying to display.

COLLINS: And Paula, with Trump leaning back in his chair, as they are, the prosecutors and his attorneys are speaking with the judge about what they're objecting to right now. We don't know what, but we may find out soon if the judge overrules them.

It's fascinating to see how Trump's been physically, his body movement and his body language as he's been listening to David Packer tell these stories. He was clearly bothered by the dormant story. He was shaking his head, according to our reporters who were inside the room as that story was being told in the efforts to suppress that story.

And also, David Packer saying, you know, would have been one of the most widely sold national Enquirer editions had it been true and been on the cover.

REID: Yes, exactly. And he knows what's coming. He knows what is likely going to come. It's unclear if he'll get to it today. They only have about 20 minutes left is the Karen McDougall story. That's up next. So that's not going to be a comfortable phase for him in this.

COLLINS: Can I ask you, Paula, just given your legal background, when you see an agreement like this, which is what the jury has been shown, it's this AMI agreement that was just entered into evidence. It's an exhibit here. And you can see, you know, it has right there at the top and pretty large letters about Trump fathering an illegitimate child. Even if that story's not true, how does that stick with the jury, do you think?

REID: I mean, I think the average person would say these are some real rich people problems, right? You have your friend at the biggest tabloid paying this kind of money to your doorman for a story about a child out of wedlock. We have another update.

The judge said the exhibit Trump teams objected to will be displayed, but there will be a redaction. So interesting to see what exactly that is. But, yes, this agreement, I'm sure, you know, the jury is probably interested, but this is not as apples for apples as Karen McDougall's hush money payment will be.

But again, that also is a little bit different because it's a catch- and-kill, a little bit different than what happened with Stormy Daniels. So they're building to it. It takes a long time to tell this story, which happened over several years.

COLLINS: And look at the signatures there that you can see on the screen. That's actually also, you know, something that really doesn't leave a jurors mind, I imagine, is looking at the signatures on this paperwork. We know that there is a lot of other paperwork to come, whether it's related to Karen McDougall and Stormy Daniels, that they had their own agreements, and Stormy Daniels, one that had pseudonyms in it, Peggy Peterson and David Dennison, I believe, were the names.

And right now, prosecutors, what they were just stepping away to talk about with attorneys. They are showing an email about the paperwork to get a wire payment to Sajidin (ph). That is the doorman who is shopping this story around. That obviously is also incredibly powerful evidence.

REID: It is. And remember, this has sex and politics and Playboy playmates. But at the core, this is a paperwork case. So documents like this are significant. And I think they're going to want to show this wire payment because they're going to set up later on why they believe that Trump falsified those records, why he had to falsify the repayment to Michael Cohen.

So all of this, again, this is building to the core of their case, which is the allegation that he falsified these business records to cover up the hush money payment. Now prosecutors are showing an email about the paperwork for a wire payment to the doorman.

Now, this, I'd be really curious to see what it says and who is on it because this would also speak to how many people were in the loop about this hush money payment.

[13:40:06]

COLLINS: I mean, why would the Trump team object to paperwork like this being shown?

REID: That's why I want to know. I want to know what's on it because we can only see these updates right now. But I want to know who else is on this and what else does it show. It must be something that they believe is not favorable to their client.

MATTINGLY: Yes, my -- I'm blissfully not a lawyer, but I assume either names or some type of contact information. Yes. I want to jump off Paula's point because I think as we're watching this all play out, why this is not the same as what he's actually been charged over, but why it's important and that's laying out that this has happened several times.

This is the structure through which it has happened. These are the people that have driven it. This is why these people drove it. What's different -- COLLINS: They had a process.

MATTINGLY: They had a process. They had a way that this all worked. By the time it got to the Stormy Daniels case, it had become somewhat cut and dry. This is how we do this. This is how it operates. This is how it works.

And that's at the crux of why, what was different about that and why Trump's team saying that these are legal fees, this is just a normal course of business. We're paying a retainer, seems to diverge when you lay out this entire process.

COLLINS: Also, that comment from David Pecker saying that even if that story had been true, they would have held it until after the election is also really notable because it all goes back to what Stormy Daniels and her attorney believed at the time when they were striking their agreement with Michael Cohen to get paid is they believed he was stringing them along.

Oh, the banks are closed because of Jewish holidays. Oh, Donald Trump's out on the campaign trail. They thought that they were being strung along until after the election passed and then they'd never get paid.

MATTINGLY: Yes, exactly.

REID: Yes, which is completely legitimate concern given who you're dealing with and the fact that there is this cutoff, right. There's going to be an election and that was the deadline, artificial deadline. But this is all very significant in terms of laying the groundwork that Trump was in the loop on what was going on.

Now, Michael Cohen may have been the go between eventually between Pecker and Trump, but they're trying to establish that Trump was well aware of the fact that these stories were being caught and then killed.

So that's a key part of trying to prove this case, because Trump's team is going to argue that Trump wasn't involved in paperwork. Even if he was signing checks, he wasn't involved in the details. We already have Packer on the stand testifying to the contrary that he was a micromanager.

COLLINS: Also, it is the definition of catch-and-kill. I mean, that's not a familiar maneuver for, I think, a lot of people, but it is the essence of what they were doing at the National Enquirer, but also what they were doing with Donald Trump.

The fact that they would pay 30 grand for this story, but if the doorman did go forward with it to someone else and try to get them to publish it, that he would have to then pay a million dollars. They basically had him in a chokehold and believed that there was nothing he would do.

Phil. And I should note that the email that they are now showing in court right now references a Trump non-published story. MATTINGLY: Which presumably would be this story that they're speaking about. I would.

REID: Or others. But that would be my guess. Yes. This is why it'd be helpful to have cameras in the courtroom. But we have the next best thing. We have our wonderful reporters who are giving us. Yes. The details that we can glean from this. But at this point, it's just not clear what this exhibit is or why the Trump team objected.

COLLINS: But it is the -- it's kind of revealing to the jury the seedy part of this. The non-published stories.

MATTINGLY: Right.

COLLINS: You know, they just showed the headlines about Ted Cruz and Ben Carson and Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton, the ones that were published and were on the headlines. These are the ones that never made it out. You know, there has been reports about the vaults that they had at the National Enquirer offices.

You heard David Pecker talking about how he didn't want this agreement and word of this agreement that he had with Michael Cohen, which he says inspired him to buy the doorman's story, to get out to even other people, his co -- his, you know, staff at the National Enquirer.

MATTINGLY: And to the point you're making, the fact that they had a relationship that had gone decades, as they recounted earlier today and the testimony, and the first time he kind of moved forward on a catch-and-kill process with the former president was during the campaign in this period of time, after they'd sat down in August of 2015 saying, I'll be your eyes and ears. I'll flag you anything that's in the market. I'll make sure that your people are aware, and I'll make sure I do my best to write good stories about you, write bad stories about your opponents. And if there's anything problematic, I will try and catch it and kill it.

He's delivering on that promise, on something that he'd never done before in the decades of their relationship prior to 2015, and sets up the precedent that he's going to repeat several times in the future.

REID: And it's amazing. You really don't have any connection or paperwork connecting Trump to any of this. That's something he's been so skilled at his whole career. Right? No text messages, no paper trails. Even when he gives an order, it's an indirect order, sort of has been compared to mob speak. That is how it, despite many criminal investigations, this is the first time he has faced a criminal trial.

And it is remarkable to me that at the heart of this is falsifying business records, that this is actually based on what they purport to be a paper trail.

COLLINS: You know, Paula, we've been -- we hear a lot from the district attorney's office here, where they always say, when we call this the criminal hush money probe, they say, no, it's the election fraud, the election interference story.

[13:45:04]

But to what prosecutors are showing here, they are repeatedly tying this back to the election, saying this is the first time the National Enquirer had ever paid for a story related to Donald Trump. Before, it was just going back and forth. And now they're tying this all back to the election to drive home that point.

And you can see here, these were the other headlines that came out from the Inquirer. The one about Ted Cruz saying he was shamed by a porn star. The one about Ben Carson saying he loved a sponge, any patient's brain, five secret mistresses, all these things that even takers had to come out in the campaign trail and deny this.

He admitted that they put out stories about Marco Rubio as he was surging in the polls and doing well. They made very clearly the tactic here what they were doing.

REID: Yes. And these stories, of course, about a porn star and multiple mistresses. I mean, the irony of not lost on anyone.

COLLINS: And the reason, right, they're making up stories about Ted Cruz while hiding potentially true stories about Donald Trump.

REID: Exactly. And now we're learning that Pecker says he told Cohen the story, again about the doorman has shared about the child out of wedlock, wasn't true, and that he wanted to release the doorman from the agreement.

Now, interesting to see what Cohen then said to Pecker in response. But this is also why Pecker has immunity. He does come across, even if there's a little bit of an ick factor. Factor just come across quite credibly, Cohen asked him to wait to release the doorman from the agreement until after the wait for it election. That's the key word.

This is why this is so critical for the prosecution, laying the groundwork that all of this was done to help Trump win in 2016. And the reason this case is being charged as a felony is because they argue these documents were falsified in violation of federal election.

COLLINS: I mean, Michael Cohen is effectively an arm of the National Enquirer, is what they are laying out. And the National Enquirer is an arm of the Trump campaign.

REID: That's what it does appear. They are not only trying to help Trump, they're trying to hurt his adversaries. And there is, you know, this clear story that prosecutors are laying out that everything they're doing here, it's not just because Donald Trump's a friend. It's all about the election.

MATTINGLY: I think I'm at the point now where I want to start creating a tally of how many times Michael Cohen tells David Pecker, wait until after the election. Wait until after the election. This story is true. You can publish it after the election, if you want to release him from the agreement. OK, we can talk about that, but wait until after the election.

COLLINS: They had a vested interest in the election.

MATTINGLY: It's almost as if.

COLLINS: And he did end up getting released from this agreement. I mean, that's why people know about what happened here is that he was ultimately released, you know, once Trump had like, this worked, basically.

REID: Yes, absolutely. It served its intended purpose. The story didn't get out. And Trump was elected president of the United States. And I think the next name that we're going to hear in the next few minutes will be that of Karen McDougal.

COLLINS: OK, well --

MATTINGLY: That's impressive.

COLLINS: I'm so glad you said that, Paula, because your timing is great because the prosecutor just asked David Pecker, quote, do you know somebody named Karen McDougal? Obviously, that is going to be the second story here. And this one is going to be really fascinating because they just laid out the mechanics of how these agreements worked and how for the first time they bought a story.

We do now know, you know, Karen McDougal's whose story they also bought. And Pecker is saying, yes, I do, as they are now getting into this story. This is incredibly significant, Phil, in this moment, just given Karen McDougal story was bought, David Pecker was worried when they bought that story that they were violating campaign finance laws.

MATTINGLY: Yes. Actually did research to make sure that they weren't or trying to make sure that they were on the right side of the law, which I imagine you're probably going to be hearing about that process.

COLLINS: Because corporations can't spend over $100,000.

MATTINGLY: Right. There are limits to what they can actually spend on that. And I think that -- there are so many elements of the Karen McDougal piece of this that are going to, if you thought the agreement on the fake love child or the fraudulent love child that ended up not being true.

Yes, that set up the structure. Yes, that set up a precedent that they could work off of this in terms of laying the groundwork for what we're going to hear on the Stormy Daniels front is going to be both detailed.

I think the expectation is quite embarrassing to the former president based on kind of everything that he's been through and this process. We're also getting the update that Trump is looking at Pecker as he's testifying about Karen McDougal as we've been paying attention to how the president has operated throughout the course of this trial.

The one real kind of notable movement that we saw from the president was shaking his head no to the story of the doorman and the child was not actually true. Now watching David Pecker as he's about Karen McDougal.

COLLINS: Yes. And I should know I said that corporations can't pay that money. They can't pay -- they can't donate that much to a campaign. That's why he was researching a campaign finance violation.

MATTINGLY: Right.

COLLINS: And obviously, Paula, this is going to be a really sensitive moment in this trial.

REID: Yes.

COLLINS: We talked about how personal this will be for Donald Trump. Karen McDougal is one of the most personal parts of this because she alleged not only that they had an affair, she said they had a relationship.

REID: Yes.

COLLINS: And this is something that when I know from covering the White House and covering Melania Trump that was deeply upsetting for the first -- the former first lady Melania Trump and it created a rift in the relationship between her and Donald Trump.

[13:50:08]

Everyone talks about Stormy Daniels, and yes, that certainly was there as well. But Karen McDougal, were told at the time, agitated Melania Trump more so, actually, than Stormy Daniels had.

REID: And you can understand that because the Stormy Daniels relationship, I mean, she says publicly in her new documentary, it appeared to be quite transactional. There were some sexual encounters, but she kept up the relationship talking to him because she wanted to be on the apprentice. And once it's clear that wasn't going to happen, she sort of dropped him.

But Karen McDougal, as she tells the story, it was from her viewpoint, a romantic relationship that went on for some time traveling together. It was much more of an intimate relationship again, according to her account of events. So it's completely understanding why that would be frustrating and annoying to Melania and something that Trump would not want out in the public.

COLLINS: Yes. And David Pecker says that Howard, who rose a reminder, was the editor-in-chief of the National Enquirer, called him in June 2016, a notable month and year, obviously, about a Playboy model who is trying to sell a story about a relationship that she had with Donald Trump for a year.

As I noted, it was a longer relationship, not just simply a one time affair.

Jake, obviously, this is a critical moment here in this, because this is one of the key stories that they can zoom in on that David Pecker has an immense amount of knowledge about. I mean, they sent emissaries to go and meet directly with Karen McDougal about this story.

TAPPER: Right. So this is a catch-and-kill story that there seems to be more grounds to believe it to be true than the doorman story. The prosecutor just asked David Pecker whether Dylan Howard, the editor of the National Enquirer, believed the relationship with Karen McDougal between Donald Trump and Karen McDougal, the former 1998 Playboy Playmate of the Year, whether that had a sexual component. Yes, he thought that, Pecker says, but he didn't know at that time.

This is not a subject that Donald Trump wants to be discussing. This is because, you know, with -- there is a lot of contemporaneous evidence that this actually happened.

Kasie Hunt, Pecker says Cohen's immediate reaction to hearing about McDougal's story was, it's untrue, absolutely not true, which seems to be at that point, Michael Cohen's reaction to any story that anybody asked about that might not be flattering about Donald Trump.

But Karen McDougal wrote an entire memoir about this that Ronan Farrow from the New Yorker got his hands on. Pecker says he told Cohen this is a little different, and suggested they vet the story. Cohen agreed it was a good idea to vet the story.

And as this all comes out, the story is according to Karen McDougal and according to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story of this relationship right before the election of 2016, is that they met in 2006, right after the Stormy Daniels encounter.

Pecker says he asked Dylan Howard, the editor of the National Enquirer, to go to California to interview McDougal.

Now remember, McDougal is supposedly shopping around this story. And around this time, Pecker says he was speaking to Cohen, Michael Cohen, Trumps lawyer, did not have an official role on the campaign, probably a couple times a week because now were in the thick of it. Its 2016, it's the presidential election. The story ultimately does come out in November, about four days before the election of 2016.

And then Ronan Farrow gets his hand on the memoir that Karen McDougal wrote about this alleged relationship. And he writes a big story, I think in 2018 for the New Yorker. Apparently they saw each other from 2006 to 2007 when the McDougall story popped up.

David Pecker and Cohen, Michael Cohen were speaking nearly every day, sometimes a couple of times per day. According to Karen McDougal, they saw each other from June 2006 to April 2007. They broke up because Donald Trump, according to Karen McDougal, made a disparaging comment about her mother who disapproved of the relationship. Karen McDougal's mother and Donald Trump said something like, oh, that old hag. And then Karen McDougal reminded Donald Trump that they were about the same age, the mother and Donald Trump.

And also because Karen McDougal didn't like something that Donald Trump said about a friend of hers who was dating a black guy and he said something.

KASIE HUNT, CNN Chief National Affairs Analyst: Is this just producing or is this all in your memory?

TAPPER: I just read it on the New Yorker story. David Pecker says Michael Cohen told him they shouldn't talk on a landline and Michael Cohen suggested they switch to the Signal app so that they couldn't be spied upon. Pecker says he did not know what Signal was. Remember, this is 2016.

HUNT: I was going to say that's impressive.

TAPPER: But he agreed to use it. Every time I used it dropped off after 30 seconds, Packer said. I have found it more reliable, to be completely honest, Signal. But this was eight years ago, so maybe it wasn't as good for David Pecker.

Now, right now, Todd Blanche and Donald Trump are whispering as David Pecker is testifying about using Signal to speak with Cohen.

[13:55:05]

Who knows what they're saying. But Donald Trump has been whispering to his attorney throughout this entire ordeal, writing notes to his attorney what we expect to happen in any case.

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: What Signal?

TAPPER: What Signal? Signal is a crypt. What is it?

BASH: No, I know what Signal is. Maybe Trump is asking, what Signal?

TAPPER: Oh, no, I'm sure he does.

BASH: He doesn't text.

TAPPER: Pecker says Michael Cohen explained to him that with Signal, there's no paper trail, no one that can listen to them quote, I still to this day, don't know if that's true or not, Pecker says.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

TAPPER: That's a good point. I think it is actually generally true. And if you're going to have confidence, well --

HUNT: I think it's generally true. Although I am aware of situations where Signals have been roped into lawsuits, which you guys might know more about, or criminal trials where they have been. I should probably keep what I do know about this to myself. It does not involve me.

But it's not like anything. I don't think anything is foolproof. It is more foolproof than sending a standard text message.

TAPPER: Well, it is -- if Michael Cohen telling David Pecker, I want to talk to you on a way that -- on a line where nobody can hear us and there will be no record of us ever having spoken.

HUNT: That's the point. TAPPER: Is interesting because it's Michael Cohen saying it to David Pecker, and he did not say that when they were talking about the untrue story being shopped around by the doorman, Kasie.

HUNT: Right, exactly. And I think that it's clear based on all those things that you just went through, that there is some truth to what happened with Karen McDougal, that this is telling us that they saw, that they understood that there was something real going on here that they didn't want to dig into.

And, you know, Jake, you also mentioned that Michael Cohen wasn't working for the campaign. But I think any of us who covered that campaign, as I did, knew that just like the editor of the National Enquirer, if you wanted to get to Donald Trump, you wanted to know what Trump was thinking about you wanted to talk on the phone with Donald Trump. You called Michael Cullen.

TAPPER: Right. And Packer right now is describing the phone call he had with Trump himself about Karen McDougal story after Dylan Howard had interviewed her.

HUNT: You texted Cohen and you get Trump --

TAPPER: Pecker says it was his understanding that Karen McDougal did not want to have her story published. So he suggested, David Pecker suggested that Donald Trump buy Karen McDougal's story, which is an interesting little wrinkle in this because that would be legal.

COATES: Go back in time for a second to yesterday. So one quick point. Remember yesterday, there was an objection raised during the initial testimony about David Pecker seeming to suggest that Dylan Howard was not available to testify.

Apparently, there's some issue with him not being in the particular jurisdiction and beyond. And there is something about that. We were talking about what statements can come in from David, Dylan Howard. Now, you have Pecker describing a phone call that he had with Trump about McDougal's story after Dylan Howard interviewed her.

Now, the more you reference Dylan Howard and if he's not available, there could pose a threat in terms of the ability to actually bring in testimony on this very point if he's not able to be cross examined, if he's not present to actually speak before this jury.

TAPPER: We should note that Donald Trump, for what it's worth, denies having this relationship with Karen McDougal.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

TAPPER: David Pecker says it was his understanding that Karen McDougal did not want to have her story published. He suggested that Trump buy the story. You might remember, by the way, in March 2018, after the New Yorker profiled Karen McDougal and Ronan Farrow in New York had detailed this alleged relationship.

Anderson Cooper had an extensive conversation interview with Karen McDougall. David Pecker says he received a phone call from Trump, which is unusual, Dana, because throughout all of this, Donald Trump has not been directly involved.

BASH: That's exactly right. Now we're getting down to what the actual substance is. Hopefully, we will see and hear what it exactly is that Trump allegedly, according to Pecker, said to him about this McDougal story.

TAPPER: Yeah. Karen told -- Karen McDougal told Anderson back in March 2018 that after they had been intimate, he tried to pay her.

UNDIENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.

TAPPER: Donald Trump. And she said, that's not me. I'm not that kind of girl. And he said, oh, you're really special.

BASH: Again, my question for legal side of the table, is any laws broken here? I mean, this is CD.

TAPPER: No, you didn't break for it.

BASH: Scumbaggery, but so, and forgive me, Packer, now saying Trump, quote, said, anytime you do anything like this, it always gets out.

HONIG: So paying to catch-and-kill Karen McDougall's story is not illegal. When it becomes, arguably, allegedly illegal is when they pay Stormy Daniels. That's going to be the next step and then try to cover up those payments.

TAPPER: It's the cover up.

HONIG: It's the cover up.

TAPPER: As always. It's always the cover up.

HONIG: And this testimony here is really important and different from what we've seen before. Because now David Pecker is saying, this is a conversation I had directly with Donald.

TAPPER: And David Pecker says he told Trump, I still believe that we should take the story off the market. Trump told him he'd think about it and have Cohen call Pecker back. And remember before that, Pecker said, Trump said, anytime you do anything like this, it always gets out, which is at least, I don't know if that's hearsay.