Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Ex-Tabloid Publisher Testifies He Didn't Publish Story About Trump & Playboy Model So It Did Not Influence 2016 Election; Ex- Tabloid Publisher Testifies About Stormy Daniels Negotiations. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired April 25, 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]

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Honestly, he was sitting there at times, sometimes conferring with his attorney, but he was mostly just sitting back in his chair like this with his eyes shut sort of taking in word by word how Pecker was testifying and what he was testifying to.

And it really kind of spoke to some of the testimony we did hear from David Pecker toward the end that prior to the campaign when those two, Donald Trump and David Pecker, would talk about those stories that were out about him regarding the doorman, regarding Karen McDougal.

You know, Trump said he was embarrassed, and then he was worried about what his family would think. But after the campaign, it was -- or after the election, he was more worried about those coming out because of how it would look for him, you know, outside of his family.

So, it really speaks to sort of how Donald Trump was sort of, you know, taking in all of this information. The one time that he actually did give a smirk inside the courtroom was when they discussed that meeting inside Trump Tower after President Trump was President-elect Trump. And David Pecker walked into the room and he was surrounded by a number of these people who were advising the now President-elect.

And Donald Trump made the comment that this is David Pecker. He's the publisher of the National Enquirer, and he knows more stories about me than anyone else in this room. And Pecker sort of said, nobody really laughed at that, but that did get a laugh from Donald Trump.

But quite honestly, he has been just really taking in word for word how Pecker is testifying, and he really is just kind of pulling back the curtain on every single detail, sometimes having to be reminded about some of the details, about how this catch and kills worked.

And we didn't quite yet get to the Stormy Daniels. It was touched upon, but we haven't yet gotten to the depth of the Stormy Daniels story, which, of course, is at the core of this case.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Certainly is. Brynn, thank you very, very much. We'll get back to you soon.

We got an excellent panel here of our legal and our political analysts. And Elliot Williams, let me start with you. What stood out to you the most so far from today's testimony by David Pecker?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think the biggest point right now, Wolf, from today is the direct link to the Trump campaign, which I don't think has been said explicitly. Now, just to recap, it's important to note that in order to make this a felony, it's -- prosecutors have to establish not just catch and kill payments, but also the falsification of business records to hide things from American voters in the context of a campaign.

And Pecker says at one point, once the former president started campaigning, it was basically what the impact would be to the campaign and the election. Now, I don't want to leave the impression that that's some kind of smoking gun, and the president gets convicted on account of that.

What I'm saying is that that is, you know, a direct nexus to talking about the campaign where suppressing these embarrassing stories wasn't just about the president and his wife, but actually the president's campaign. It'll be useful for prosecutors, but again, it all comes down to what the jury does with it.

BLITZER: Elie Honig is with us. You've been listening and watching all of this unfold. How do you expect the defense to cross examine David Pecker?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, that could happen starting this afternoon, by the way. It sounds like the way things are going in court. We could see the start of the cross examination this afternoon. Let me just say, the way that you will feel about a witness, as a prosecutor, as a defense lawyer, as a juror, after the end of direct examination, is often very different from how you will feel at the end of cross examination.

Here's what I think we could see in the cross examination. First of all, they will say to David Pecker, this catch and kill stuff you were doing at the Enquirer, sleazy, right? You knew it was sleazy, but you never believed this was criminal. And, in fact, it's not criminal.

Start with that. I think that they're going to go to the limitations of his knowledge. They don't necessarily need to paint David Pecker as a liar, but they could say essentially to Elliot's point, the crime here is falsification of the Stormy Daniels business records.

You don't know anything about the logging and accounting of the Stormy Daniels business records. And then finally, they may sort of go after David Pecker on the fact that he's been given a free pass here. He's been given a non-prosecution agreement. You're given a walk. Donald Trump's on trial. Therefore, you have an incentive to try to help them, the prosecutors.

BLITZER: If --

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: No, also, they could go after him in a way because he dealt so largely with Michael Cohen --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. BORGER: And they could try and take Trump out of it and say, look, you and Michael Cohen were very close. You did all the dealings with Michael Cohen. You were even asked to help him get his Christmas bonus or whatever it was.

And Trump wasn't as directly involved in this as Michael Cohen has said. And then, you know, try and put Trump off to the side in all of this is not being as involved in a so-called conspiracy as he may well have been.

WILLIAMS: You know, one more thing, even if it's not specifically legal or a specific legal point, something prosecutors can do is simply expose what David Pecker does for a living to the jury, which ordinary people, these citizens, do not have a concept of a magazine publisher who pays off porn stars to protect people's reputations.

It's the kind of fact that at least plants the seed about someone's credibility in the eyes of the jury. And then when you add to that, the non-prosecution agreement that Elie had spoken to a moment ago, what a defense attorney is trying to do is simply give jurors a reason not to trust or at least like this person.

[13:35:04]

BLITZER: I assume everybody on that jury knows the National Enquirer.

WILLIAMS: They do. Certainly, they do. But once details about their business practices and what they actually do is exposed to a jury. It's a perfectly permissible thing for a defense attorney to say, wait a second. Who are you, and what do you do? And what's your job? And it all comes down to how much jurors like, believe, and trust the person who's testifying to them.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Guys, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't what the prosecution is doing overall with Pecker, understanding they have a huge problem with Michael Cohen --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

CHALIAN: -- trying to bring him in as sort of a substitute to build up this narrative of this scheme, not necessarily to your point of saying, Pecker knows the illegal behavior that took place here and observed it and can speak to it as much as it is, try to get as much in from him about the overall scheme because Cohen is going to be a problematic family.

HONIG: And this is a dynamic in every trial. Defense lawyers like to say, look at this little piece of testimony. That's not a crime standing alone. But what prosecutors say is you have to look at all. All of it sort of blended together. And I think what they're doing with David Pecker is setting a foundation for the more important witness, Michael Cohen.

BLITZER: And they think that what Pecker is saying will back up what we're going to hear from Cohen. HONIG: Yes. It's not going to be 100 percent aligned. It never is when two people are telling a story about something that happened eight years ago, but clearly they're confident enough that it will reinforce Michael Cohen.

WILLIAMS: And I think if that -- I think what the defense can also do is keep reminding people that the president also had an incentive to keep this information away from his wife and children. Now, that -- it's still a crime if the fact -- if in fact the president had a motive to interfere with the election in some way on account of the behavior.

But merely mixing up for the jury, the fact that the president had different reasons for wanting these stories not to come out is a great way to just plant that doubt seed (ph).

BORGER: But Pecker was asked directly about whether the family was ever raised as a concern, and his answer was, no, that this was all about the campaign and that this wasn't personal.

WILLIAMS: It's -- what he does say is that it shifted at a certain point, but earlier on he does say he was -- if a negative story was coming out, he was always concerned about Melania. He was concerned about Ivanka. He was concerned about what the family might hear or say about it.

And I just think the various purposes can twist the jury's minds --

CHALIAN: And his own interpretation as to why on the Karen McDougal case that he was thinking about participating in the catch and kill and stuff was because he thought -- he said he thought it could be terribly embarrassing to Donald Trump and his family.

HONIG: That's the exact quote, David. I was just going to read it. The quote was, quote, "We didn't want the story to embarrass Mr. Trump or embarrass or hurt the campaign." And as Elliot was saying, I think defensers are going to say, oh, when you say, embarrass Mr. Trump as distinct from the campaign, that's the family part of it.

But again, the law, you don't have to show it was 100 percent one or the other. Prosecutors just have to show that a substantial part of the motivation here is campaign related.

BLITZER: Audie, how do you think it's playing politically right now as far as Trump's grip on his own base on the Republicans going into this general election?

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I don't think it's really changing things in that respect, but, you know, I don't know if anyone else on the panel cares that Jim Comey was there. Like, does anyone else have a question about this?

BORGER: I do.

CORNISH: Reince Priebus? Like, to me, this is one of -- in the context of the Supreme Court conversation today about presidential immunity, one of the things they were focused on was official acts. And this president, I think, in a way, has shown us that there's a kind of collapse there.

What's official versus what's not? Do you talk about your hush money issue in front of your new FBI chief? Sure, if he's in the room. Like, there's no sense of borders there. And that's one of the reasons why the case that's happening before the high court is so important because it does directly speak to the kind of culture that can be established out of the executive office if there are not guardrails as decided by us as a society.

BORGER: Well, and --

BLITZER: And these conversations were going on when he was already the president-elect --

CORNISH: Exactly.

BLITZER: -- of the United States.

CORNISH: This is ahead of the inauguration this was happening. And there was no sense of like, hey, maybe there's a border here that, between candidate me and official me. It was like, you all work for me.

BORGER: Well, and maybe, and maybe, you know, he puts David Pecker in this meeting with James Comey, Sean Spicer, you know, Reince Priebus.

CORNISH: Yes. Lordy, I hope there too, as it says.

BORGER: And all of the -- and thanks him, thanks him for helping him out. And there is no distinction. It shows you how important the President-elect thought David Pecker was. I mean, that really does go to this, you know, not only was he a good friend, but he helped him a lot, and wanted to thank him. And as you point out, he didn't care who it was in front of, right?

CORNISH: And to Elliot's point, I mean, I love that you have that kind of faith in people and how they think of us as journalists. I actually don't think that's the case. This is the kind of behavior that people come to see as somehow common. That there -- that even journalism, politicians, that together there's a kind of pay for play kind of concept to how we do our work, which is not true.

It may have been true for the National Enquirer, which is how you end up in this box testifying. But I don't necessarily think people will hear that and think, oh no, I can't believe a politician did that.

[13:40:08]

WILLIAMS: I just meant more porn stars and aliens and the kinds of junk that you see in the National Enquirer all the time. I just think --

CORNISH: But like both of those things have better reputations than politicians and journalists. You know what I mean? Like people are far more willing to believe it.

WILLIAMS: Congress, 18 percent of people --

BLITZER: On that note, let me take a quick break. Everybody stick around. We have a lot more of our special coverage coming up just ahead. This is another truly historic day. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:45:08]

ERIN BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR: And welcome back to our special coverage here on CNN. I'm Erin Burnett and I'm outside the New York City courthouse where former President Donald Trump is on trial. And right now, they're having lunch, in recess for just a few more minutes.

We anticipate in just a few minutes, everyone's going to come right back into that courtroom. And, of course, the session will resume. And at that time, tabloid executive David Pecker will return to the stand.

Kara Scannell, Phil Mattingly are with me. So, we've got a few more minutes. Everybody's, you know, you can imagine the lawyers, right, getting everything together, getting ready to go back in and resume this direct examination of David Pecker.

There have been some really interesting moments already, though, that are giving them maybe, at this moment, some moments to pause. One of them an executive at the National Enquirer who works for David Pecker. The prosecution brings up a text message that this person, Dylan Howard, sends to a family member in which he says -- talks about being pardoned for election fraud if Trump wins, that at least I'll get a pardon for election fraud, ostensibly referring to everything that they were doing.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN REPORTER: Right. I mean, it's an acknowledgment that they knew that what they were doing, because remember, this is in 2016 around the election night, an acknowledgment that they knew that what they had done was in violation of the election laws.

Thing is the judge has not allowed that into evidence yet. That was something they were arguing to try to get in outside the presence of the jury and the judge said right now, he's not letting it in.

BURNETT: So it's a sidebar argument right now. So what I just said is out there, but not to the jury.

SCANNELL: Exactly. Right. So the prosecution is still going to try to get this. And the judge said as of now, he's not letting it in. And part of that has to do with, you know, this was a conversation Howard had with a family member and Dylan Howard's not on the stand right now.

So they'd have to authenticate it in order to get it in. And they're still fighting about that. The prosecution is saying, well, this was his AMI phone that he used for work. So this is going to continue to be a debate. But at this point, the judge isn't sold, so the jury hasn't heard that very stark line.

BURNETT: Very stark.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: And what's fascinating, he read through several different text messages. And again, the jury was not in there.

BURNETT: Right.

MATTINGLY: They're trying to have this admitted. This was objected to by Trump's team and Judge Merchan said he would consider it would think about it more and talk about it after lunch. Another email from Dylan Howard had actually been admitted by the judge a little bit earlier on during a series of objections.

But also that with this first degree family member, I believe is as it was described, Dylan Howard who's the editor in chief of the National Enquirer on election night saying in a text message, oh, dear, essentially that the Trump was going to win.

But also in another text message saying, I don't believe this is going to hurt us at all, the favors that we've done for the former -- or for then the president-elect or soon to be president elect. And whether or not this drives the case forward, first off, they have to be admitted.

But I think it underscores kind of the thinking at the time of the individual who was clearly a point person with David Pecker, was actually running the National Enquirer himself was in conversations with a lot of the lawyers I think for Stormy Daniels. And over the course of this time period, that they recognized, and maybe some of it wasn't just, but they recognized, I think, the gravity and the stakes of this moment.

That maybe in the moment, because this was how they did business, they'd done this with the former president several times --

BURNETT: Right.

MATTINGLY: -- had not necessarily occurred to them, but on election night was really kind of dropping like a hammer on their heads.

BURNETT: You know, I know that at the heart of the case, right, is what the payments, were they a violation, were they a felony, and it's not about whether the underlying act that the payments before happened or not, right? Nonetheless, though, you can imagine the defense wants to raise that question.

Trump wants to raise that question. Like, basically, well, of course, I had to pay this off. This is unfair. These things weren't true. Forget election fraud. I was just, you know, defending my honor, right? Make that argument.

In that context, Karen McDougal, who they also spoke extensively about today, the former plaintiff who had had, she said, a nearly yearlong affair with the former president. So they're talking about buying these things and oh, well, they didn't happen. So that's why Trump was paying off.

They talk about -- Pecker talks about a conversation that he had with Trump where Trump says, how's our girl doing?

SCANNELL: Right.

BURNETT: Referencing Karen McDougal, referring to someone in a way that you would refer to them if you knew them, if you had had an affair with them, if they were your girl.

SCANNELL: Right. And, in the -- there was another conversation, there were just a handful of conversations that David Pecker's testified, that he'd had directly with Donald Trump. And in another one of those conversations when they had just learned that Karen McDougal was going to go public with this, according to Pecker, Trump said to him, and how's Karen?

So a familiarity, not who is this stranger that has made some allegation, but calling her by her first name, which then when you add the two together suggests that there was some familiarity with who she was and where the story was coming from.

BURNETT: And that's the psychology that that was in front of the jury, but that's the psychology that the prosecution is trying to get, I'm sure now, in front of the jury.

MATTINGLY: And I believe that discussion with how's our girl was the same meeting we were talking about prior, was just after the meeting with the future president's national security team inside Trump Tower.

[13:50:08]

So those individuals left James Comey, Mike Pompeo, Reince Priebus, Sean Spicer, and then Trump turned to David Pecker, according to Pecker's testimony and asked him about that issue. So of all the other things going on in a president-elect's mind, that was something he wanted to talk to David Pecker about.

I think the other element, too, is we're starting to see the Stormy Daniels, who obviously is at the center of all of this --

BURNETT: Yes.

MATTINGLY: -- start to come into play here as the prosecution has kind of laid the foundation, is telling the story through, and how it connects to the prior two catch and kill payments, where there's a conversation that Pecker recounts with Michael Cohen basically saying two things.

One, I'm not going to front this money for you anymore, because AMI had covered the first two catch and kill payments --

BURNETT: Yes.

MATTINGLY: -- which would, you know, explained why Cohen felt like he had to pay for it. But two, that AMI couldn't be tied to Stormy Daniels because she was a porn star and that wasn't the type of business -- I'm paraphrasing here -- that wasn't the type of business that the National Enquirer would want -- which isn't necessarily a conclusion you would have drawn --

BURNETT: No.

MATTINGLY: -- but was an issue.

BURNETT: These are the windows into this room.

MATTINGLY: Right.

BURNETT: So in the story arc that we're on now, right, they're going from -- they are establishing Karen McDougal. They talked about the doorman who had made allegations, which were proven to be false, about a child that Trump fathered, it was false. Now you're on Stormy Daniels. Where are we in the testimony of David Pecker?

SCANNELL: We're almost at the end because he is also talking about that Trump Tower meeting was what prosecutors have called the thank you meeting where he talks to -- he goes and he sees Trump thanks him for taking care of this. He also invites him to the inauguration. David Pecker said he didn't go.

And then there's one more meeting that prosecutors have flagged. So this is what I expect David Pecker will be asked about when we return soon for after lunch was that it was in the spring or summer of 2017. After Trump has been president, he invites David Pecker to the White House.

Keith -- I'm sorry, not Keith Davidson, Dylan Howard goes along with him. And it was the thank you dinner and he thanks him then. Trump thanks David Pecker for everything he's done for the campaign. So that is what we will then hear. And I think that brings us toward the end of the direct examination and then it will be Trump's attorney's opportunity to cross examine David Pecker. And I'm told that's going to take a few hours.

BURNETT: A few hours. Well, we'll see where we are then.

All right. Let's send it back to you, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Erin.

I want to bring in jury consultant Alan Tuerkheimer right now. Alan, thanks so much for joining us. How do you think the jury so far is responding to all this testimony?

ALAN TUERKHEIMER, JURY CONSULTANT: I think it's so far so early on favorable for the prosecution now. They're painting a picture, they're painting a broad picture and they're giving jurors details that they're going to use down the road. So I -- my guess is if you ask the jurors, of course, this couldn't happen, but hypothetically, which side are you favoring? Or do you think that there's some wrongdoing?

I think most jurors would say, yes, I kind of lean in favor of the prosecution at this point. And there was probably some wrongdoing. But there's so much left. When I talk to jurors after they've served on cases, it's very rare when they say that something clicked with them and they made up their mind or something really significant happened in their outlook of the case just during the direct testimony of the first witness. So I think it's going well for the prosecution but that can change quickly.

BLITZER: Well, do you think the prosecution is doing an effective job at proving its basic allegation that this so-called catch and kill scheme wasn't just unsavory or sleazy, but it was illegal election interference? This is the novel legal argument. Do you think it's been laid out well enough, at least so far, for the jury?

TUERKHEIMER: I'm not so sure it has and the prosecution has to enable jurors and empower them to connect the dots because at the end of the day, these jurors who went through this whole process of indicating they can be fair and impartial and keep an open mind, they're going to have to say, and they can compartmentalize, they can say, well, I don't really think this was a nice thing that that happened.

And there were a lot of sleazy things that went on or underhanded things. But at the end of the day, I still don't see the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. So I definitely think that the prosecution has to start speaking the language of the law and try to propel the jurors to decide that there was in fact election interference.

BLITZER: Keywords beyond a reasonable doubt, so critically important. Pecker testified, as you know, that Trump knew about the contract with McDougal. Will the defense be able to convince the jury that Trump was unaware of the Stormy Daniels hush money payments with testimony like this?

TUERKHEIMER: That's what they're going to have to try to do. And it's a tough sell that the person all the way at the top was unaware of things. Jurors often hold the person who's in charge accountable, and that often doesn't fly, but they're going to do their best.

And the cross examination, it's going to present Pecker in a very different light and jurors might come away with his testimony and others where there's just so much doubt swirling around and there's all this information that they don't really take to mean that there was awareness on the part of the president.

So, I think they have a good chance and that's certainly what they're going to try to do with the cross examination of these witnesses and then during their own case, and ultimately, maybe if Trump takes a stand himself.

[13:55:10]

BLITZER: Interesting. We're told by our colleagues who are inside the courtroom that Trump has been sitting in court, leaning back, closing his eyes, occasionally whispering and passing notes to his lawyer. At one point, he cracked a smile when Pecker described being introduced by Trump to some of his campaign staff, as someone who, quote, "probably knows more than anybody else in this room."

So how do you think Trump's coming off to the jury, the former president, how was he coming off to the jury?

TUERKHEIMER: I think the former president's coming off pretty well, but maybe by Trump's standards. He seems to be pretty composed. The occasional smile and the no taking and leaning over is fine. I think jurors appreciate that. But the dozing off or eye shutting, whatever happened there, I would probably try to limit that if I was the defense.

But overall, it sounds like he's seem like he's respecting the process and not rubbing jurors the wrong way, but it's early on. That can change or if it continues, then props to Donald Trump.

BLITZER: Yes, we'll see what happens. All right, Alan, thank you so much. Alan Tuerkheimer, a jury jury consultant. Thank you.

Court resumes in just a few minutes in the criminal hush money trial of Donald Trump. And our special live coverage will continue right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)