Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Second Day Of David Pecker Testimony Wraps In Trump's Hush Money Trial; CNN Reporters Detail Second Day Of Testimony In Trump Trial. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired April 23, 2024 - 14:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:30:32]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Hello, I'm Brianna Keilar in Washington alongside Boris Sanchez. And it is day two of testimony in the historic Donald Trump hush money trial that is just wrapped up.

Trump's longtime friend and tabloid executive, David Pecker was back on the stand today, and he detailed a pivotal 2015 meeting with Trump and Michael Cohen that resulted in Pecker making a secret gentleman's agreement to shield Trump from damaging stories during the 2016 campaign. Pecker testifying that the deal was, quote, highly confidential.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Now, the agreement was never actually put into writing, but that 25 minutes meeting almost nine years ago eventually led to the Stormy Daniels' payout. And that is now at the heart of the first criminal trial of a former president. CNN chief legal correspondent Paula Reid has been following the case. Paula, what else did jurors hear from David Pecker?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, this must be a fascinating witness for the jury to listen to because they led up to that 2015 meeting by talking about Pecker's relationship, a longstanding relationship that he had with Trump throughout the 80s and 90s, how they had this mutually beneficial friendship where Trump would help him with stories that sold really well.

But then ahead of the 2016 election, they had this now infamous meeting in 2015 where they talked about how Pecker, through the National Enquirer, could help the campaign. Pecker vowed to be the eyes and ears of the campaign in terms of hearing what kind of stories were being sold out there, what kind of stories were being pitched, and of course, that's how we know the National Enquirer came to purchase the rights and then suppress two stories that were mentioned in today's testimony.

The first was from a doorman who falsely claimed that Trump had fathered a child out of wedlock. They paid him $30,000 for the rights to his story and then buried it until shortly after the election. Then, just before we broke for the day, the jury started to hear about another similar story, Karen McDougal. Now, this is significant because this is the allegation about an

extramarital affair that Trump denies. But it's significant because we know, of course, AMI paid her for her story and then also suppressed that ahead of the election.

And this is also incredibly important to the prosecution's case because they're arguing that Trump wanted to cover up the hush money that he and Michael Cohen allegedly paid to Stormy Daniels because he was trying to help his chances in the 2016 election.

And they're arguing that everything that David Pecker did here was, in Pecker's own words, as part of this larger effort to help Trump in the election. And that's what, you know, leads this into possible, you know, criminal conduct.

It's different if you want to help your friend get some stories in the tabloid, but if you're doing things like this, you know, giving people tens of thousands or even well over $100,000 to help a candidate in a campaign while simultaneously publishing damaging stories about their opponents, well, that's what brings us to court for the next few weeks.

SANCHEZ: Yes. That distinguishes the argument whether this was an effort to help Trump personally or politically, that testimony may go a long way there with the jury. Paula Reid from outside the courthouse in Manhattan. Thank you so much, Brianna.

KEILAR: Let's talk more about this now with former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams. All right, Elliot, let's start now with the testimony of David Pecker. Of course. Explain why prosecutors called him as their first witness.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Sure. And there's no signs, Brianna, as to why you'd ever put a witness on. You want someone who's compelling and got something to say. And David Pecker is exactly that in this case. He's a former publisher of the National Enquirer and was said to be, and is acknowledged being involved in an effort to stop this embarrassing conduct about former President Trump from getting public ahead of the 2016 election.

Now, there's a long history of the National Enquirer, number one, pushing out stories that were very favorable to the former president and very critical of his opponents. And that's Ted Cruz there, senator from Texas. He was running against at the time, a number of critical articles of Hillary Clinton, the senator at the time -- first lady as well. And so that's sort of the National Enquirer's role in all of this. And David Pecker had a hand in it.

KEILAR: Explain why he's crucial enough that they're calling him, considering there is a risk here, which is that they might reinforce or even just establish this idea that favorable coverage of a candidate is kind of the norm when it really shouldn't.

[14:35:00]

WILLIAMS: And it's absolutely the norm. There's nothing that spectacular about favorable coverage of candidates. Now, what he can testify to is this idea of the catch-and-kill pattern, buying stories and suppressing them so they're not harmful to the former president. That's one tying it to the 2016 campaign, which is also relevant.

You don't have a crime here. And Paula touched on this a little bit. Until there is falsifying business records to suppress this information from getting out, falsely business records or cooking the books, as we have here. And it all comes together in this 2015 meeting.

Donald Trump, David Pecker, Michael Cohen, former attorney for the former president, and Hope Hicks, a White House staffer, were in and out of Trump Tower this meeting where a lot of these things in this prior slide were talked about, catch and kill, perhaps cooking the books, or at least falsifying business records. And if Pecker gives prosecutors what they want, he's going to testify to that.

KEILAR: We also saw this hearing this morning where it was discussed whether Trump violated a gag order, which prevents him from talking publicly about witnesses and jurors in the case. The penalty is $1,000 per offense. Explain why. It seems like small change for him.

WILLIAMS: A lot of people have asked me about that as well, Brianna. And $1,000 seems really small. It's set by New York law, New York judiciary law 751 sets $1,000 per instance, so per statement, per comment, whatever, and or could be either 30 days in jail.

Now, it wouldn't be uncommon for a judge to start low and then work their way up to jail because you also have to remember, Donald Trump in this case has not been formally sanctioned. It's all the other cases where he's had gag orders and so on. So surprising that he's talking about, this is what the prosecutors have asked for. They've asked for fines.

Now, if Donald Trump is sanctioned, if there is one statement that is the one that his attorneys are blowing their minds over, it's this statement he retweeted or tweeted about Jesse Watters from Fox News, talking about liberal activists lying to the judge. There is no defending this statement whatsoever.

The other ones, he has some statements where he gets into it with Michael Cohen, a closer call. This is a defendant talking about a jury pool in a way that just doesn't have protection. And to quote Little Orphan Annie, bet your bottom dollar the judge refers to this in whatever he does for Donald Trump.

KEILAR: Really interesting. Elliot, thank you so much for taking us through that.

Our special coverage will continue ahead. Plus, Columbia University announcing that all classes will be hybrid for the rest of the school year, as pro-Palestinian protests spread to more college campuses as well. We are live from the Columbia protest. Ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:42:20]

KEILAR: Welcome back to our special coverage. Our team of reporters attending the first criminal trial of former President Donald Trump made an observation today about the jury's attention to testimony. The seven men and five women were listening to David Pecker, the former top executive at the National Enquirer who detailed the catch and kill scheme at the center of this trial.

SANCHEZ: A reporter is right that, quote, Pecker is speaking toward the jury. Many of the jurors heads are turning to look at Pecker as he answers questions, and then back toward the prosecutor as he asks the next question like a tennis match.

Joining us now is jury consultant and attorney Linda Moreno. She's served as a jury consultant in a number of high profile trials, including those of Wesley Snipes and Elizabeth Holmes.

Linda, thank you so much for joining us this afternoon. It seems like jurors are paying close attention to Pecker's testimony and the details of his unsavory dealings, you could say. How do you think they are receiving that testimony they're perceiving it so far.

LINDA MORENO, ATTORNEY AND JURY CONSULTANT: It's so good to be with you both. I think what's important here is that the prosecution put on Mr. Pecker to sort of frame the story, to give context and continuity.

Now, at the end of this case, the jurors are going to be given instructions by the judge, the law, on how to determine credibility. It seems that a lot of us have common sense. You know, you walk into a meeting or you meet someone you've never met before, and you think, I don't believe a word out of his mouth, or I believe everything she says.

So we have this internal radar, but the jury instructions will tell the jurors that they can look for a lot of things. Does the story make sense? Does it hold together? What are the biases, the self-interest and the motivations that are playing throughout here?

And to phrase from the Latin cui bono, who benefits from this case, from this alleged conduct? So the jurors, of course, are paying a lot of attention, and I'm sure they're taking a lot of notes.

KEILAR: I mean, it is asking a lot, I think, of anyone to pay attention to something for hour, Linda, and you have, yes, you have all these salacious details. You also have very important financial details. There's a paper trail. They have a lot to keep track of. How important is it that the prosecution walks them through that? And how easy is it to fail at that?

MORENO: Well, it's very important because, of course, it's the paper trail that gives the corroboration to what all these witnesses are going to testify to.

[14:45:00]

And at the end of the trial, all those exhibits, the emails, the text messages, the invoices, they'll all be sent back to the jury if they've been admitted as exhibits for the jury to look over. Yes, it can be very tedious, but it's absolutely necessary, certainly as corroboration, because we're talking about witnesses who themselves might have credibility problems.

SANCHEZ: Linda, I'm also curious about how these jurors are processing the high profile nature of this case. You've obviously, as we mentioned, helped select some high profile juries before, rather high profile juries for, rather, juries for high profile clients like Wesley Snipes, who mentioned, and Elizabeth Holmes.

How do you ensure that juries don't immerse themselves in this wall to wall coverage that potentially could sway them and influence their judgment?

MORENO: Well, that's a great question. And I guess what I want to say about that is something happens to people when they take the oath in that courtroom, when they become jurors, and they understand what the obligation is, and they see the accused at counsel table and they know that these are very high stakes, especially in such a historic case like this.

And one of the instructions is that it was certainly on the questionnaire that they're not allowed to follow any of the media coverage. Of course, that's important because that would sway, as you've suggested, their opinions. But you'd be surprised at how well jurors can do.

And at the end of the day, you have to just believe that when they tell you that they're doing their very best and they're just listening to the evidence that's produced at the trial, the witnesses, and looking at the documents, that's what they're doing. It's a challenging role, indeed.

KEILAR: Of course, you have the former president there. I mean, he's there as the jury is watching him. We've got our reporters observing his behavior, Linda, from coming in with paper, he's writing notes, he's leaning back in his chair. Sometimes he even has his eyes closed, it appears. How much does the jury pay attention to the behavior of a defendant, in your experience?

MORENO: Everything. They are watching him. In my experience as a defense lawyer, I won't say for how many years now, but they are watching every move that he's making. And if his family was in the courtroom, they would be watching that as well, but they are watching everything.

I would say that it's good for the accused for the defendant to be engaged, to be consulting with their attorney because it matters to them. And if it matters to them, it should matter to the jury. So it is very important jurors pay very close attention to everything that the defendant is doing.

KEILAR: Very interesting. Linda, thank you so much. Linda Moreno. We appreciate your time today.

MORENO: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Still a lot of angles to cover with this historic trial the first one of a former president. We had reporters in the room. No cameras allowed in. But they're going to join us after a quick break to give us some of the color and texture of what was happening today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:52:49]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

SANCHEZ: We have breaking news into CNN. Our reporters who have been inside the courthouse following the Trump trial have just been allowed to exit.

KEILAR: Let's go straight to them. CNN's Kara Scannell and Jeremy Herb. And Kara, we've heard about this testimony from David Pecker. You saw how jurors and Trump reacted. Tell us what you saw inside the courtroom.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, when David Pecker was giving his testimony, he was often facing either the prosecutor or turning to the jury box when he was providing the answers. Donald Trump was sitting just a few feet away at the defendant's table in the defendant's seat, and he was flipping through papers at times.

But when David Pecker was talking about some of these very specific catch-and-kill deals, the arrangement that was allegedly crafted at Trump Tower in August 2015, and then the Karen McDougal story, he was facing David Pecker, watching him as he was testifying, couldn't see Donald Trump's facial expression, but his body was facing him and his face was facing him.

The jury was paying attention during the day. I mean, there was evidence that was shown. So they were often looking at screens, like emails and other exhibits, but they were other times, like watching a tennis match with their eyes on David Pecker when he answered questions, and then turning back to the prosecutor when he asked the next question.

SANCHEZ: Jeremy, to that point about the jury's attention, what was the point of Pecker's testimony that seemed to get the jurors attention the most? That may have elicited the most interest from a body language perspective?

JEREMY HERB, CNN POLITICS REPORTER: Yes. You know, I actually could not see the jury from where I was in the overflow room, but I was able to watch the president and his facial expressions. And for most of the day, he really tried -- was not trying to react as they were bringing up issues. You know, they free up a lot of sordid details about his personal life that came out or that were being discussed back in 2015 and 2016. You know, we had their allegations of a doorman who said that he had fathered an illegitimate child, which turned out to be untrue. We have the Karen McDougal allegations. And Trump, it really seemed like he was trying not to react while he

was in the presence of that jury. You know, last week when he was here, he was -- there was a lot of time he spent. The jury wasn't in the room.

[14:55:00]

Now that we have a jury, it feels like the former president, he's trying to not really make any visible, audible kind of shaking of his head and just having that sort of visceral reaction that we've seen previously in other cases.

SCANNELL: And I would say that the jurors themselves, the times I was watching them, they didn't have any visible or, you know, physical reaction to the testimony. They all seemed to keep pretty straight faces, as David Pecker was telling, was giving his testimony and answering the question by the prosecutors.

KEILAR: Yes, this speaks to the sort of machinations in order to see the jury and to see Donald Trump, that you have to have people position in different places. But I wonder, Jeremy, as you were, you know, watching Trump, there were, I mean, listen this allegation that he had fathered a love child. There were so many lurid details, accusations that he had an affair with the Playboy model. How did he react as the court was hearing that?

HERB: Yes. What's interesting is his mode of reacting to that seems to be to pass notes to his attorneys. We saw a lot of note passing, you know, between the three attorneys that are sitting next to him and the former president himself. We don't know what's on those notes. We can see him writing. We can see the notes kind of going back and forth.

But you know, as I said, he's really trying, it seems like, not to react to the testimony. Now we'll see what happens, of course, when Michael Cohen is sitting there across from him and talking about this, it may be harder for him to not have, I guess, the lack of a reaction that we saw for large parts of today.

SANCHEZ: I wonder if Cohen will say hi the way that David Pecker did yesterday. Kara, I'm curious about the gag order hearing this morning. This was before the testimony got underway. There were some testing moments between the judge and the defense team for Donald Trump. At one point, Judge Merchan telling Trump's attorney that he was, quote, losing all credibility. How did Trump's team seem to react to that?

SCANNELL: Well, I think we saw Todd Blanche, that's Trump's main attorney, kind of accept that. He was -- he kind of took this posture of like he understood where the judge was coming from. But he also knew that the judge hasn't ruled yet, so he didn't want to continue down that path. The judge made that comment toward the end of the morning after they had already been discussing this for about an hour and a half. And that came up because Trump's attorneys were saying that they thought the gag order wasn't clear.

And so, you know, they didn't think that Trump had violated it when he was reposting things that other people had said, particularly about the jury and the judge saying, you could have always asked me if you thought it wasn't clear.

And then they were trying to show a post that had come up, you know, to justify Trump doing it. And the judge noticing that the timestamp of that post was 3 hours after Donald Trump's. And at that point, he had said, you're losing your all credibility with the court. And he reminded him that he hadn't yet ruled on this, but he would be reserving his decision and making his ruling on this sometime to come.

KEILAR: And he's going to be making that ruling. So when are we expecting, Kara, the timing on that to be?

SCANNELL: So the judge didn't give any guidance on when he would issue the ruling. The prosecutors want the judge to issue it soon because they think that Trump keeps violating the gag order, including some statements that he made last night about Michael Cohen. So they're saying that he doesn't seem to be stopping in this. They say that this is a willful violation, that he's continuing to make it, and they want him to be fined at this point a thousand dollars per violation and the warning and to Trump that he could face up to 30 days in jail if he continues to violate the gag order.

At this point, they said, they're not asking for that, but they want Trump to be fined and they want him to be told, yes, to take down the posts that are at issue right now.

SANCHEZ: And, Jeremy, you had the vantage point of Donald Trump and what he was doing during all of this. What was his reaction to those testy moments between the judge and his defense team?

HERB: Yes, you know, it was interesting. He was still passing some notes to his other attorneys who were still at the bench. But he really, he -- it seemed like he was trying not to really pay attention to Blanche as he was getting into it with the judge. When we saw Blanche give his opening statement, the president, the former president, he turned to Blanche and he was watching him throughout today, this morning. He really wasn't. He was just sitting straightforward, looking ahead, sort of staring out into space for a large part of it.

And so I think, again, he was trying just really not to get engaged and get wrapped into this, obviously issue that makes him very angry, as we heard about after he left the courtroom this afternoon.

KEILAR: And so what are we expecting ahead here, Kara?

SCANNELL: So Karen McDougal was the last witness on the stand. Excuse me. The testimony involving Kara McDougal was the last bit of testimony we heard from David Pecker. Was just the final 15 minutes of the day, and he was teeing up this issue. They knew about her allegation of a romantic relationship with the former president and a conversation that Pecker recounted having with Donald Trump.

[15:00:04]

At this point, they are still scrambling to understand what the allegation is.