Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Ex-Tabloid Publisher Being Cross-Examined In Trump Trial; Trump In New York Court As Supreme Court Heard His Immunity Case. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired April 25, 2024 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:30:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: We're following the breaking news as former "National Enquirer" publisher David Pecker testifies in Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial in New York. Our panel of experts are is back with us right now.

And Elliott Williams, prosecution has concluded their questioning more than at least five six hours. It went on and on and on now. The defense is cross-examining as we all know. Did the prosecution achieve what they were trying to achieve?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, what they were trying to achieve is number one put David Pecker in the room with Donald Trump on in August 20 -- 2015 pardon me. Put -- put the two of them in the room, establish the scheme, establish an understanding of how catch- and-kill and the business model of AMI and the National Enquirer worked. They needed to do that.

Now again, you put the testimony out in the world and then have the defense have their way with him. And they are going to beat him up. We're seeing it now on the screen as well. They're already talking about his profit motive merely saying, oh you weren't a charity? Sort of saying that will look, you know, you were in this to make the money too. But -- but as far as what prosecutors needed to do, of course, they succeeded

BLITZER: Because right now Trump's attorney is asking Pecker to describe other instances where AMI, American Media Inc -- that's the parent company of the National Enquirer -- would purchase a story including sometimes, quote, as leverage against the celebrity

WILLIAMS: Yes, this is this is the place where Audie and I disagree a little bit about the -- how people regard journalists and journalism. Whether they see it as, you know, that's just it's just an icky business and this is just another extension of it. Or if jurors will regard what they see here as something so distasteful that they'll hold it against this particular witness. You know, I tend to take the view that people just find this stuff disgusting and the defense is really sort of wagging their fear.

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Also, I don't technically consider it journalism. But I appreciate you saying that. But I like you guys pointing this out about the leverage against the celebrity. Because again, It's trying to pull this out of the column of campaigns, elections, where the prosecutor wants the public as well as the jury to think about this. To say actually, there's a whole range of reasons why you operate the way you do and it's not just because you really wanted to help this person who wanted to be president?

And I think it's going to be interesting to see sort of how you know This former publisher starts to justify all of that kind of work

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: They want to show that he has a lot of self-interest in this. That he was -- he was gaining access through Donald Trump and using Donald Trump also in many ways.

But I think the main thing about David Pecker is that he's going to be the key corroborating witness for Michael Cohen whom as we all know has some credibility issues here. And while they may try and use the non-prosecution agreement as a way to challenge Pecker's credibility I think that they went a long way towards establishing that that Pecker was a truth-teller here and had nothing to hide. Since he was under some obligation to tell the truth as a result of the non-prosecution agreement.

So when, when, when Michael Cohen comes to testify, you know, they can then say well you were at this meeting with, with David Pecker You had this phone conversation with David Pecker And so they'll be able to tell the same story and I think that's really important

CORNISH: And I know we've been focused on the feud between Cohen and Trump, et cetera, but Cohen has also spent the last two to three years on this crusade to rehabilitate his image and to, to convey to the public that he understands he did something wrong. And therefore that is why he is out in the world talking the way he is now.

I don't know if that will work. But I wouldn't discount the fact that he has spent the better part of this time basically trying to say, look, this is a problem. I was part of it. And sometimes people respond to that.

BLITZER: I made a mistake But now I'm moving on.

BORGER: I paid for it.

CORNISH: Or I paid for it, yes.

BLITZER: If you were a defense attorney representing Trump right now What would be your main goal in the cross-examination of David Pecker?

WILLIAMS: Three words, Credibility, credibility, credibility, you attack the witnesses credibility. I think you do it a few ways. They're starting with it right now by just going after the business model and the profit motives. Look, man, you're just out trying to make a buck here, aren't you? That's pretty sleazy and disgusting. You wouldn't use those words, but that's the implication you're making to the jury, one number.

Number two, I would talk about the non-prosecution agreement and number three any cooperation agreements you might have with law enforcement. What those last two things do is suggest that he has an incentive to not be truthful. He's in cahoots with these -- this is what the defense would say, the prosecution -- in cahoots with the prosecutors.

[15:35:00]

He's not really being straightforward. Don't believe what the prosecution says about he's afraid of getting in trouble for lying. No, he's bending his story because he doesn't want to go to jail.

And you just hammer that point again and again and again and hope that the jury just starts to mistrust it.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: I have another question. You mentioned the August 2015 meeting, that one of the things the prosecution did was sort of put Pecker in the room with Trump. But we know there's a limited number of actual Trump-Pecker direct interactions and that so much of this was through Michael Cohen.

How problematic is it for the overall case? Not at all your suggestion.

WILLIAMS: I will. Would four or five meetings be more valuable than one? Of course.

But you have a few things. You have number one, you have Pecker and Michael Cohen. And also Hope Hicks was in and out of that room, a former White House staffer, Hope Hicks, was in and out of the room and can testify as to what she saw.

Number two, some of that, if the prosecutors do their jobs, will rely on financial records. And you'll have people coming in and authenticating and saying where the checks were, why they were written and what people knew about them.

Of course, more meetings would have been better. But, you know, one can be convicted on the basis of one meeting between the defendant and the associates.

BORGER: And there were the Cohen meetings with Donald Trump. Don't forget.

WILLIAMS: Oh, right. Right, and there's -- right.

BORGER: Right.

BLITZER: You know, it's interesting, Gloria, because Pecker has testified now that he still considers Trump a friend --

BORGER: A mentor.

BLITZER: Pecker said, and I'm quoting him now.

I felt that Donald Trump was my mentor. He helped me throughout my career. BORGER: I think that's probably true. I think it was a mutually beneficial relationship. Remember, early on, Pecker said Trump would let him know where there were parties and would invite him to parties. And that was good access for the newspaper and for Pecker himself. It took him to a certain level of society that he wanted to be a part of.

And so I think it was competitive also. He was competing with tabloids. And Donald Trump gave him a leg up many times by feeding him information. So Trump was not only a source, but he gave him access. And I think it worked for both of them.

CHALIAN: One other detail that we got about the Pecker-Trump relationship, which I thought was so interesting in this testimony, Michael Cohen, who worked for Donald Trump and was his complete loyal supplicant and aide and what have you, was going to Pecker to help get his Christmas bonus paid, that he thought, rather than going to his boss directly and saying, hey, I want to make sure I get my Christmas bonus and whether or not that's an allusion to other monies owed to him or not.

But using David Pecker's relationship with Donald Trump as a way to being like, hey, can you help me get my Christmas bonus paid just shows you, I think, where Cohen perceived the strength of that relationship.

BORGER: Right. Talk me up to the boss.

BLITZER: Very significant. You know, it's also interesting, David, that Trump said in the course that he'd rather be campaigning instead of sitting in court, whatever he speaks publicly. He suggests that Trump is facing several legal battles right now, as we all know.

How is it -- how do you think so far this is resonating with voters?

CHALIAN: Well, I don't think we know the answer to that yet. I think, I think voters are paying attention to this. Some voters. I don't think all voters are paying attention to this. But I do think that this is going to captivate the attention of some segment of the electorate. But to the point about he wishes he could be campaigning, there was no court yesterday. There was no place for Donald Trump to be. He wasn't on the campaign trail yesterday.

So, you know, if indeed, and now they've announced he's going to be in Michigan and Wisconsin next Wednesday when there's a break. But I think we have to wait and see this -- how this unfolds and how much Donald Trump uses every moment that he's not required to be in court to actually be campaigning.

We're starting to see him do it message wise at the courthouse. This morning he made the comments about the economy and GDP and trying to be a bit more on a political message. That's a development that's occurred in just the last couple of days.

So I think Donald Trump right before our eyes, Wolf, is still figuring out how to be candidate Trump in this environment. WILLIAMS: The caveat, though, that every morning, literally every camera and television station in America is on him when he's stepping out and on the way into court. He has ample opportunity, if he wishes, outside of the courtroom to politic all he wants, which is sort of interesting, the way in which he's chosen to attack sort of the legal system in the process rather than.

BLITZER: And the court is in session Mondays and Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, not on Wednesdays or Saturday or Sunday. So it does have three days out of the week to go to campaign if he wants to, if he wants to. Key words.

Everybody stand by. Our special live coverage will continue right after this.

[15:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: The Supreme Court heard nearly three hours of arguments involving Donald Trump today. Specifically his claim that American presidents have absolute immunity. Basically a blanket protection from being held accountable for criminal prosecution for anything they did while in office.

His lawyers argue that is why Trump should not face any charges in the federal criminal case against him. The special counsel has accused Trump of conspiracy and election interference during his final months in office. Our senior Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic was in the room as justices heard the arguments.

[15:45:00]

And Joan, to actually be in that room, you know, we could hear obviously some of the back and forth. But you're there seeing the players, seeing the interactions. One thing that sort of stood out watching it was seemed to be a surprise that some of the justices did not soundly reject Trump's immunity claim. Like the appeals court in D.C. obviously unanimously did.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: That's right, Erin. And it's good to see you. It truly was riveting inside the courtroom today.

You know, just, you know, what a historic moment with this untested constitutional question. But then also, as you observed, how the justices came out and really were more sympathetic to former President Donald Trump's lawyer than to Jack Smith's counsel at the lectern there. And many of their -- it was clear from many of their concerns that they see various detours or off-ramps that the former president can take before any kind of trial.

They might, you know, say, well, we're not going to give you absolute immunity, but we're going to give you some immunity here and some defenses for whenever a trial occurs, given the kinds of questions they were asking. The other thing, Erin, I would point out is how they really suggested

a real vulnerability on the part of a former president. And let's hear first from Justice Samuel Alito on that score.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAMUEL ALITO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT: If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process, where the loser gets thrown in jail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BISKUPIC: And, you know, Erin, that wasn't a concern just of Justice Alito. The Chief Justice John Roberts also just talked about, what kind of asked about, what kind of checks are on prosecutors in this sort of situation. You know, how can we trust the grand jury?

And, you know, I just think that in the end, there will be more delays before any kind of trial, even if in the end they reject Donald Trump's outright claim of absolute immunity -- Erin.

BURNETT: Joan, thank you very much. But just even the possibility of delays, they're not the headline so many were expecting we'd walk out of the day with.

All right, we're going to have a live update on the criminal hush money trial of former President Donald Trump right after this. Our reporters in the room, they're now talking about other deals Pecker had with other celebrities, including former governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. We'll be right back.

[15:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Right now, former tabloid executive David Pecker is on the stand. He's being cross-examined by Trump's defense lawyers. Pecker just confirmed that he had been giving Donald Trump a heads-up about negative stories about Trump for about 17 years before the 2016 presidential election.

CNN's Brynn Gingras is joining us right now. Brynn, take us through what's happening now.

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf, I mean, right out of the gate, Trump's defense team is chipping away at the credibility of this witness, who for more than six hours was on the stand trying to build credibility, according to the prosecution's testimony there, right? We are, just like you said, seeing the defense basically say that David Pecker and Trump, they had a relationship for decades, and it was mutually beneficial that Pecker made money for his newspaper when the headlines read Trump, and that, you know, these catch-and-kill stories didn't exactly just happen prior to the election. They happened more than a decade prior.

He would give Trump the heads-up about a story, and they would let him know that this, you know, is something that's out there in the public. And so he even pointed out, the defense team, that the term catch-and- kill, Pecker wasn't even aware of that term until a prosecutor actually brought that up to him.

One of the things they also talked about is they brought in Arnold Schwarzenegger and the fact that he was the former governor, of course, of California and that there were dozens of people that came to the "National Enquirer" with stories about him, and they were trying to explain to jurors that this wasn't an unusual thing.

In this exchange, let me read it to you.

It says: This relationship you have with President Trump is a mutually beneficial relationship. You had similar relationships with other people, the defense attorney said.

I did, Pecker replied, confirming there were other people he would promote in the "National Enquirer" and give a heads-up about negative stories.

So the defense team really trying to show this was not an unusual relationship, that there was no wrongdoing here, and again, doing it right out of the gate. Now, I do think it's interesting, again, they spent more than six hours of prosecution building the credibility of David Pecker.

They had his testimony. They brought jurors inside the room in discussions that he would have with Michael Cohen, with Donald Trump. They would back it up with text messages. They would talk about all the discreet ways that they would have these sort of back-and-forth conversations or agreements or negotiations.

And so it'll be interesting to see how the jurors sort of, you know, take in this cross-examination who right out of the gate is going through, sort of chipping away again at this credibility of Pecker.

BLITZER: Brynn Gingras reporting for us. Brynn, thank you very much. And our special coverage will continue right after a break.

[15:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BURNETT: And we're back. We've been following all the developments in former President Trump's criminal trial here in New York, ongoing right now. At this moment, the ex-Tabloid publisher David Pecker is being cross-examined by Trump's lawyers.

They finished the direct move straight to the cross. We do know the former president is set to speak at the conclusion of today's testimony at 4.30 p.m. Wolf. And of course, we'll bring you those comments.

BLITZER: I'll be coming up in about a half an hour or so.

All of this on the same day the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Trump's absolute immunity claims. A truly historic day.

And thank you very much for joining us, Erin -- for joining me and Erin for our special coverage.

[16:00:00]

Watch Erin later tonight, 7 p.m. Eastern for "ERIN BURNETT, OUTFRONT." I'll be back 6 p.m. Eastern in the "SITUATION ROOM."

Jake Tapper picks up our special coverage right now.