Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Now: Ex-Tabloid Publisher Resumes Testimony In Trump Trial; Trump In NY Court As Supreme Court Heard His Immunity Case. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired April 25, 2024 - 14:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:31:28]

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: All right. Happening now, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker is on the stand and Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial and wins back from lunch, the former president in the room, the lawyers, the jury, they are all there and that cross -- that direct examination is continuing.

Joining us now is an attorney who at one time represented Trump Tim Parlatore. So, you've been in these situations of course, Tim, you know, you've worked with him. I just want to take -- take stock of where we are, he's back in that room. We do know that the judge is moving ahead with at least four of those alleged violations of the gag order that the prosecution had put forth to move to censure on that, but not a broader ruling yet. So that's -- that context is now on top of the fact that he's in the room right now with David Packer on the stand.

Give us a sense of what you think his mindset is right now.

And it seems like Tim cannot hear me. All right. So, we'll see if we can -- OK, while we're working on that, I'll just give everyone a sense of what we know what's happening in the room. Our reporters are in there and basically filing, typing as I -- telling us getting shoulder (ph). Feel like they're getting shoulder injuries. But what's actually happening and right now 2:31, text messages between Dylan Howard and Keith Davidson, Karen McDougal's attorney are on the screen. And some of these have been important. There's been a significant back and forth between attorneys on whether some of these text messages can be submitted.

The screens in the courtroom are now showing a photo of Dylan Howard at the White House. Dylan Howard was the editor-in-chief of the National Enquirer worked under David Pecker. And they're talking about this meeting at the White House, which David Pecker is just testifying to was, according to him, a Thank You Dinner that Trump was hosting for the team of the National Enquirer for what -- what Packer has made clear was the help that they gave Trump during the election in some of these catch and kill schemes, including the Karen McDougal scheme that we have with a lot of question -- questions earlier today. And also now of course, the Stormy Daniels, one text on July 12, 2017 from Keith Davidson to Dylan Howard reads, how goes it. And there was another one I know, Wolf that they have been -- there's debate -- debate or whether -- over whether it will be allowed between those two, one of the attorneys and Dylan Howard, the former editor-in- chief, a sort of one of them saying what have we done on election night when Trump actually won the White House, Wolf?

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Yes, a lot of details emerging right now inside stuff (ph), inside the White House with it, then former president of the United States was going on with all these --

BURNETT: Yes.

BLITZER: -- allegations that have been now leveled against him, including various criminal allegations. We're watching this very closely.

And Elliot Williams, it's not just sleaze that we're reporting right now.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Of course.

BLITZER: And these are serious criminal violations that Trump is facing, and potentially could wind up in serious trouble.

WILLIAMS: He could wind up in serious trouble. And to your point, it's important for a jury to strip away the sleaze and sort of the details and just get to and this is what prosecutors are trying to do get to, number one, where were their financial transactions made? What purpose were those transactions made for? And was that purpose for influencing a campaign? All the stuff about the porn and the money and the tabloids yes, it's salacious but it isn't entirely relevant to the underlying the prosecutors are trying to do.

[14:35:05]

And now the defense I think wants to and ought to want to muddy the waters by focusing the jury on how crazy and salacious at all it is always. But as a prosecutor, what you really want to do is just stick to the facts.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: And Wolf, to that point, again, we've said it and (INAUDIBLE) continue saying it, catch and kill hush money, not a crime. I think it was Paul Begala, who said, it's the economy stupid. Do I have that right, historically?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: James (INAUDIBLE) --

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: James Carville.

HONIG: James called the other one.

BORGER: Yes.

HONIG: James Carville, who said, it's the economy stupid. I think a tagline for this case is it's the accounting stupid, it's not the actual hush money purchasing. It's the way that Donald Trump and Michael Cohen and others set up the repayment to Michael Cohen, on the Stormy Daniels pay off. That is the crime here, that -- that we'll get to that, David Pecker does not know about that, he wouldn't be in position to know about that. But he's setting the stage for that.

WILLIAMS: And I will add one little thing to that what is most newsworthy, I acknowledge is all of these details about the human element and the side to all of this. What is legally most relevant is probably the guy with the green eyeshade, who will come testify at some point about accounting practices within the Trump Organization, about how they handled and maintained their records, what they did with them and what they knew about what the purpose of what they were doing was that ends up being (INAUDIBLE).

BORGER: What's interesting about Pecker is that he refused to pay for Stormy Daniels. You know, Karen McDougal was one thing, but it didn't want to pay for Stormy Daniels, whether it was clear she was a porn star or whatever. If he said, I'm not a bank, I'm not going to pay for Stormy. So that takes you out of his bank account into Donald Trump's organization, into Michael Cohen, into Michael Cohen laying out the money and trying to get reimbursed and not really being successful at that.

So, I think what, you know, what Pecker does is he kind of sets it up and says, well, that was a bridge too far. Stormy was a bridge too far for me and for the National Enquirer. And I told Michael Cohen, if you want a payer (ph), you're going to have to do it. And that's exactly what happened.

BLITZER: And when we're talking about the hush money, David Chalian, the allegation is that it's all related to criminally getting involved in campaign finance, election interference, and these are serious, serious allegations.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Yes, I mean, as we've discussed, just paying hush money is not a crime. That's, that's not illegal here. This is all about attaching the -- the hush money payments to trying to defraud the public in an election. And this was -- and remember, I know defrauding elections and something in elections is something we discussed in terms of the context of the Supreme Court immunity case this morning, that related to the 2020 election.

This is about Donald Trump's first election in 2016. This is candidate Donald Trump. And when Pecker was on the stand, and asked about whether he knew that this was in violation of campaign finance laws, he said he did understand that this was as a part of his -- I mean he understood later, perhaps, I don't know if he knew at the time, but as a part of his agreement with prosecutors that this non-prosecution agreement understood at this point that he's testifying today that what he was conducting was in violation of campaign (INAUDIBLE).

BLITZER: And very quickly. These are not just criminal violations that are misdemeanors. These are felonies. HONIG: So exactly what brings this from the misdemeanor, the accounting makes it a misdemeanor. What brings it up to a felony is that campaign connection that we've been seeing a lot of testimony about that David and Elliot and Gloria, everyone has been talking about, was the motive here. We need to cover this up for the campaign, or was it? We need to protect Donald Trump and his wife and his children from humiliation. And if it's both, if it's substantially both, that's good enough for prosecutors.

BLITZER: Interesting. All right, guys, everybody stand by.

Our special coverage will continue right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:43:28]

BURNETT: And welcome back. Right now, the former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker is on the stand in Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial. And joining us now an attorney who at one time represented Trump, Tim Parlatore, and I know we've got communications back. Those watching, we know we had an issue, but we're good now, Tim.

So let me start with they're in the room right now. And I'm trying to get, you know, your sense of Trump's mindset right now, the context on it, of course, is that he's been in that room all day, we're nearing maybe the end of David Pecker's direct testimony. And the judge has indicated cause for at least four of the alleged gag order violations against Trump at the prosecution brought justice this morning.

TIM PARLATORE, FMR TRUMP ATTORNEY: I mean, I think that his -- his mood is probably much the same as it's been throughout. I think he's, you know, this is incredibly frustrating for him to have to sit there and not be allowed to stand up and defend himself. And, you know, to not be, you know, the person in charge.

And so, I think that that's continuing. And I think that the -- the gag order rolling is certainly going to only compound that. So, I can, I can certainly see an immense amount of frustration there.

BURNETT: An immense amount of frustration and also, I'm curious what you make of the people who are surrounding him. I'm not talking about his attorneys, obviously there and they're doing their job. But when he just walked back into the room, Tim, after the lunch break. One of the individuals with him from his current inner circle is Boris Epshteyn. Now Boris Epshteyn of course was just indicted last night in for election fraud in the state of Arizona, he's there front and center with Trump right now. What do you read into that?

[14:45:15]

PARLATORE: I mean, I think he's probably trying to make some kind of a statement that he's standing by Boris, you know, notwithstanding this new indictment. You know, Boris is, has been there, you know, for a while, and he has kind of well publicized my differences with Boris, you know. I never -- I never had a problem with the client directly. My problem is always with the people around them, specifically, Boris.

And so, anybody who was hoping that, you know, that this indictment would kind of remove him, at least for now, it appears that it's not happening.

BURNETT: No, it certainly appears it's not. But it also shows that the current legal team that Boris Epshteyn is still there, he's still that gating factor. He's still there in that room.

PARLATORE: Yes.

BURNETT: What do you -- what do you think that means --

PARLATORE: Sure.

BURNETT: -- in this case?

PARLATORE: Well, you got to remember Todd Blanche was brought in as Boris's lawyer initially. And so, you know, Boris brought him in to represent himself in the Jack Smith investigation, and then he expanded his role to also cover these other cases. And, you know, Todd has an obvious affinity and loyalty to Boris, you know, one that, you know, people like myself and Jim (INAUDIBLE) he did not have.

BURNETT: Yes. So, Tim, I want to ask you about some of the evidence coming in now. Pecker is -- David Pecker is, of course on the stand at this moment. But there was something earlier that happened right before the lunch break, there was a text message between Dylan Howard, the editor-in-chief of the National Enquirer, and what they describe as essentially a first-degree family member, I guess, his immediate family member.

Now, I'm going to tell you what the text says. But right now, the defense raise an objection. So, it's unclear whether this text will be allowed to be shown to the jury. The discussion about it happened when the jury was not in the room. But the text is very significant perhaps Tim. Dylan Howard texts, this family member quote of Trump, at least if he wins, I'll be pardoned for election fraud. Again, Dylan Howard, the editor-in-chief of the National Enquirer who was leading up so many of these catch and kill payoffs. And then Pecker is now testifying to himself and Dylan Howard being at the White House for what Pecker recalls was a Thank You Dinner from Trump for the work that they did to help him get elected.

What is the significance of this and a text like that, if they are able to get it admitted for the jury? What could it mean?

PARLATORE: You know, texts like that are problematic, because it certainly shows, you know, the somebody at least believed that they were committing a crime at the time. And, you know, I heard about how Pecker also said that he didn't know at the time that this was a campaign finance violation. The problem is that neither one of those two individuals are lawyers, and they don't know for a fact whether it is a campaign finance violation. You know, this, this type of activity is something that, you know, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, it kind of -- it's an open question as to whether it is even is illegal.

So, I think that that's one of the things is that they have to have the court rule on, you know, is this something that actually has probative value that they know that they're committing a crime? Or is it more of a joke? Or is it something that you know, that he's saying that's just simply not true?

So, I think that, you know, we really need the judge to weigh in and make a clear ruling on, you know, whether there was illegality in this in light of the Citizens United decision.

BURNETT: Right, and that, of course, we don't have a ruling yet from the judge on that. There had been an objection and as we know, a sidebar conversation, but we don't yet have that.

All right, Tim, thanks so much. Glad to speak with you.

PARLATORE: All right. Thank you.

BURNETT: Tim. All right, Tim, Parlatore.

And our special coverage continues ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:53:22]

BLITZER: Welcome back to our special coverage. While Donald Trump has been in court in New York City for his criminal trial, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments here in Washington about whether presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. All this relates to the charges accusing Trump of conspiracy and election interference after his defeat in 2020.

CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid has been following the arguments for us all day.

Paula, give us the big takeaways of what the justices said.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well Wolf, it's clear that a majority of the Supreme Court is not likely going to be willing to just toss the special counsel's federal prosecution of the former president. But it's still unlikely that any trial would happen soon. Justice Kagan really crystallized one of the big issues with throwing this case out at the beginning, noting that the point of founding this country was to get away from a monarch who had absolutely no accountability. But then it becomes a question of OK, well, how much accountability does a president have when it comes to the criminal justice system?

And there was a really important exchange between justice Amy Coney Barrett, of course, appointed by Trump and Trump's lawyers, where she got them really for one of the first times to concede that some of the acts that are detailed in a special counsel's indictment really weren't part of Trump's official job when he was in the White House.

Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)

AMY CONEY BARRETT, JUSTICE: You can see the private acts don't get immunity.

D. JOHN SAUER, ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: We do.

BARRETT: OK. And I want to know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts as private.

Petitioner turned to a private attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spear had his challenges to the election results. Private?

[14:55:02]

SAUER: As (INAUDIBLE) I think we dispute the allegation but --

BARRETT: Of course.

SAUER: -- sounds private to me.

BARRETT: Sound private. Petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing in court of a verification signed by petitioner that contain false allegations to support a challenge? Private?

SAUER: That also sounds private.

BARRETT: Three private actors, two attorneys, including those mentioned above, and a political consultant helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding. And petitioner and a co-conspirator attorney directed that effort.

SAUER: You read it quickly --

BARRETT: Yes.

SAUER: -- I believe that's private.

(END AUDIOTAPE)

REID: And that's really significant. So, a revision from what we've heard in the past. So, the Chief Justice really laid out the next issue, which is that he and so the other justices don't believe that the lower courts spent enough time when they rejected Trump's argument, trying to suss out what exactly is an official act? What was he doing in his private capacity?

So, Wolf, it seems like where we're going here is that the court will likely set up some kind of test or parameters, where the court will lay out how you figure that out. But then it sends the entire case back to the lower courts to be re-litigated, possibly making its way up to the Supreme Court. But this is why even if Trump doesn't win here, legally, it's still a strategic win for him, because the whole point has been to delay. And if he is reelected, he can make this entire case go away.

So, the question now is, how quickly do we get this answer from the Supreme Court? And if they toss it back down, how long does it take this case to move forward? Will it happen before November? Seems unlikely?

BLITZER: If they send it back to a low -- lower court that would delay it, delay it, delay it, that would be a huge win, at least in the short term for the former president who wants this delayed until after the election?

All right, Paula, thank you very, very much.

And stay with CNN, our special coverage is about to continue.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)