Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Now, Fourth Day of Testimony in Trump Hush Money Trial; Trump Lawyer Cross-Examines Former Tabloid Executive; Pecker Testifies About Agreement With Former Playboy Model. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired April 26, 2024 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: All right. It's the top of the hour and court is now in session for another day of Donald Trump's hush money trial. Good morning and welcome back to CNN's special live coverage. I'm Jim Acosta.

At this moment, the jury is hearing testimony from former tabloid executive David Pecker, a man who says he still considers Donald Trump a friend despite spending the week laying out their alleged scheme to bury negative stories on Trump and illegally influence the 2016 election.

Kaitlin Collins, a lot going on inside the courtroom right now. And I have to say, I mean, you know, you and I, Kristen as well, Jamie, all of us, we all remember the 2016 campaign. And for all of this talk of fake news, I mean, David Pecker is really laying out the scheme to not only kill negative stories but pump out fake news beneficial to Donald Trump.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, and something that went from the campaign, but also into the White House, where he was on the phone with, with White House officials. And right now what's happening, just for an update for everyone, is David Pecker is back on the stand, he's being cross-examined by Trump's attorneys, and they are obviously trying to undermine everything that prosecutors laid out, this idea that there was a conspiracy hatched between Donald Trump and David Pecker to try to hurt his Republican rivals leading up to the 2016 campaign. It's also to go after Hillary and Bill Clinton.

And so the way that they're doing it right now is they're questioning him about Ben Carson and stories that they had that they were publishing, implying that he had botched surgeries as a doctor. And what they're basically trying to say is this was something that was already out there in other outlets. The National Enquirer was just recycling it. So, this isn't something that was just a Donald Trump and David Pecker plan.

ACOSTA: Oh, it was just out there, yes.

COLLINS: They just asked David Pecker, would you have published this without that conversation in August 2015 with Trump? And David Pecker testified, yes.

So, really, you know, when I was speaking to Trump sources yesterday about what their plan is with this cross-examination, what their goal is, they really just want to undermine the idea that this is a conspiracy to get Donald Trump elected, that really it was just the National Enquirer doing what the National Enquirer does.

ACOSTA: Yes. Jim, I mean, we haven't gone to you yet. What, I mean, your reaction to what we've been witnessing thus far.

JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: So, right. I think it's all about dirtying up the National Enquirer, right, and the industry in general, this -- they called it checkbook journalism, I think, yesterday. They used the word standard operating procedure time and time again.

ACOSTA: And, Jim, we should note this right here on the side of the screen, just to keep giving our audience these excerpts, Bove confirms with Pecker that other outlets covered malpractice claims against Ben Carson in May of 2015. It sounds as though what -- and you can see some of the headlines there on screen there, Ted Cruz shamed by porn star, bungling surgeon Ben Carson left sponge in patient's brain.

I mean, you know, first of all, take all of these headlines with a grain of salt, as we do with the National Acquire. But it sounds like what the defense is trying to do is say, hey, wait a minute, all of those stuff, sort of, kind of floating out there anyway.

SCHULTZ: It's part of politics, it's part of celebrity culture. It's all -- you know, that that's -- the argument is that that is -- this is all part of kind of the, the dirty business of tabloid journalism. And I think you're going to hear more and more about that. Now they're moving on the Marco Rubio, right? So, they're going to go through each one.

And they talk about a little bit about Schwarzenegger, right, celebrity/politician. They're trying to make analogies here that this is kind of just the way they do business.

COLLINS: Can we also just not call it journalism? The checkbook journalism thing is driving me personally crazy because that's not a thing. It doesn't exist. The idea that this is journalism, it's not journalism. I don't know what you would like to call it, Jim.

ACOSTA: But, no. But the remarkable -- no. And I had a conversation with one of my producers about this before he came on. And you know, you can have a high minded conversation about what the National Enquirer is doing and so on.

Members of my family read the National Enquirer. You go to any supermarket in America. The National Enquirer, it's like having a T.V. right there next to the checkout stand. And millions of Americans consume this information, Jamie Gangel. It's a hugely influential publication, whatever you want to call it.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Some people believe it but it's also entertaining for a lot of people. And that's more what it is.

So, we have a new update, Bove says the Marco Rubio articles are also based on information, quote, not exclusive to the National Enquirer. Yes, Pecker confirms.

I just want to say one thing about the National Enquirer and its lack of journalism.

[10:05:03]

Two things can be true at the same time. They can be doing all of these other articles about Arnold Schwarzenegger, Marco Rubio, and it can also be true that David Pecker, who is very close to Donald Trump, and this is what he testified to yesterday, said over and over and over again that he was doing this to help him win the election.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: And, Jamie, this is going to be a challenge for prosecutors. They're going to have to explain to the jury, why is this criminal as opposed to just sleazy and gross? And if there is a problem, why is Donald Trump on trial here but nobody else who was involved in this? And the answer to that that prosecutors have to come through with is it's the accounting, it's the finances.

And there's an update.

ACOSTA: Yes. Trump is whispering with his attorney. His copies of the article in question are handed out. So, yes.

HONIG: So, they're going to ultimately have to answer that question for the jury. Why is this criminal and why is Trump being treated differently? The answer is the finances.

ACOSTA: And, Elliot, yes, jump in here because, I mean, a lot of this rests on the question of whether or not this is campaign activity. And I just want to read this. The National Enquirer was recycling information from other publications because it was cost efficient and made business sense, Bove asks, yes, Pecker testified. I mean, I'm trying to make it sound like the National Enquirer was just an aggregator. That's not really what's going on here.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And I think there's a few things. Number one, a lot of this hinges on the extent to which the jury either trusts the National Enquirer, trusts what they're being told about how the National Enquirer worked, or is inherently suspicious of it. They're ordinary people. And, frankly, I don't know what these 12 people think about, is this just what journalism is, or do they think this is disgusting and distasteful and so on? I truly don't know. And jurors can be weird about what they believe. think about facts that prosecutors accept to be matters of gospel, right?

And the other thing is getting to this campaign finance or the campaign question, it's, everything comes down to the extent to which you can convince people who simply don't understand, number one, New York law, and, number two, how campaigns are run in the United States, that this was something untoward. And you will notice that the defense will repeatedly make the point that nothing to see here, this happened all the time.

SCHULTZ: I mean, you have to look no further than negative campaign ads. People generally think political campaigns are sleazy. So, now they're going to try to conflate that with kind of a sleaziness and dirtiness of the Enquirer to muddle this all up before a jury so that it comes back, to your point, right, that, you know, how is there a campaign finance violation here? He was never charged. There was never any charges associated with it. And isn't this all dirty?

ACOSTA: But, Kaitlan, I mean, there's a political question in all of this, and that is, okay, you know, we can talk about what took place at the Supreme Court yesterday, and those very important constitutional questions at play. This is solidifying, I would think, in the minds of some voters, that what was going on behind the scenes during the 2016 campaign was just unseemly. You can call it criminal, you can say, oh, this is just what all politicians do, but people are getting more details about what they were doing behind the scenes during this campaign. And that can't be a good thing.

COLLINS: Yes. There's kind of been this conventional wisdom that, which maybe is not conventional wisdom, that this isn't going to have much impact because all of these details were already known. But as we're looking at this, including this latest update that David Pecker is confirming that AMI's business, which, of course, owned the National Enquirer, included cultivating a network of sources, and Trump's attorney said, but that's not what was happening with these articles, essentially trying to make this argument that this was something that other outlets had published, places like the Guardian, about Ben Carson, they were just simply regurgitating it, that it wasn't necessarily this plot. That's what they're trying to downplay.

ACOSTA: And there's another one here. Bove notes, Pecker testified he wanted to keep the Trump Tower meeting discussions highly, highly confidential, but says it became public before the election. Pecker agrees, kind of a nothing to see here defense.

COLLINS: right? And to your point, though, I think having all of this trotted out into the public domain again and having people be reminded of just how crazy the 2016 campaign was and learning details that we didn't even know about how this stretched into the White House and taxpayer funded officials were involved, that's something that -- it's not clear the impact it will have, but the idea that we know for sure that it will have zero impact on this, I don't think is a given, and I don't think the Trump campaign is believing it's a given.

ACOSTA: Yes. Kristen, I mean, these, these revelations, so-called revelations in the Enquirer, weren't just, oh, just coming out organically, you know.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's why when you talk to some Donald Trump's senior advisers, yes, you have people who are --

ACOSTA: And it says Pecker's voice becoming softer as he's responding and agreeing with the defense. HOLMES: Right, you have people who are like, rah, rah, this is going to do exactly what it did in the primary. We are going to raise money. We're going to become more popular. But then when you talk to some of his more seasoned advisers, you hear a lot more skepticism as to what this is going to do. They know that this is not good for Donald Trump, right?

What's the outcome? We don't know, right? And we know he raised money off of it. But the question is, what does this actually do for voters come November?

[10:10:00]

ACOSTA: Right. The campaign is the courthouse, the courthouse is the campaign, Elliot, in a lot of these cases.

WILLIAMS: My question for all the political heads here, though, I'm actually curious if you have any sense as to what do people think about how campaigns are run? And does the public tend to believe that they're just all nasty, disgusting business where this is all completely normal, or are people watching this around the country saying, oh, my God, that is absolutely the most disgusting thing I've ever heard. I'm just curious.

GANGEL: Can I just say quickly, there's nothing normal about Donald Trump?

ACOSTA: A lot of abnormality here, yes.

GANGEL: Not to take away from other campaigns, but this has its own bar.

ACOSTA: Yes. And with that, Anderson, we'll toss it back to you on that question of normality.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Jim, thanks very much. I'm Here in New York, outside the courthouse with Paula Reid and Adam Kaufmann, former prosecuting Manhattan D.A.'s office.

Clearly right now, Bove is showing the Wall Street Journal story about Karen McDougal that was published just before the 2016 election saying that it shows AMI's help for Trump was public. Adam, clearly what the, what Bove is trying to do for the defense, is essentially say, this information was already out there, and the National Enquirer was doing this for a number of people and in a lot of different ways. Bove cites the story reporting that the Enquirer, quote, has supported Mr. Trump's presidential bid, endorsing him and publishing negative articles about some of his opponents.

Bove is pointing out that Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, all these people were targeted by the National Enquirer even before this 2015 meeting.

ADAM KAUFMANN, FORMER EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT D.A., MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: Right. So, he's taking the wind out of the prosecution's sails on that, the import of that 2015 meeting and showing there was this relationship that had nothing to do with sort of quid pro quo.

COOPER: And Bove is asking Pecker to confirm that the concept of catch and kill was not talked about at the August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower, that's correct, Pecker says.

KAUFMANN: Right. So this goes to the point we discussed earlier, where if you have a witness on the stand who you're crossing, who's sort of a friendly witness, you don't need to go after that witness and destroy them and raise your voice and make them look like a liar. Bove is doing a great job of just bringing out facts that undermine the government's theory.

COOPER: Pecker confirms that Trump and Cohen did not pay AMI any money in connection with the story from a former doorman at Trump Tower, and then Pecker confirms that AMI has executed, quote, hundreds of thousands of source agreements, like the ones used for the former doorman, Karen McDougal, over the years. Again, it's this drum roll of this was business as usual for AMI, for the National Enquirer.

KAUFMANN: This is just another, another example of, of undermining the prosecution's theory and normalizing the conduct.

COOPER: It's also something that we heard a portion of yesterday's cross-examination when Trump's lawyer talked about AMI making deals with other celebrities. Again, this is a practice that AMI was doing with other people as well.

KAUFMANN: 100 percent. And remember, we're not even talking about anything criminal right now, right? We're talking about publishing stories about background relationship, a backdrop to what's going to come later. But we're not talking about illicit payments or a cover up. We're just talking about the relationship and the defense is doing a good job of normalizing it.

Brian Stelter is also standing by outside the courthouse covering this from Vanity Fair. Brian, talk about Dylan Howard, because that's a name we've heard a lot. He was under David Pecker, essentially, I believe, running the National Enquirer, and he's the one who had a lot of the -- he had a face-to-face with Karen McDougal. He was in communication with Michael Cohen.

BRIAN STELTER, AUTHOR, NETWORK OF LIES: That's exactly right. He was the editor in chief at the time reporting directly to Pecker. And for some of the day-to-day operations, Dylan Howard was the one in charge. There had been speculation that maybe he would be testifying here, but he has a medical issue, and likely will not be here and will not be called. But he was very much in on this, just like Pecker, working hard on behalf of Trump.

You know, I feel like, Anderson, we're getting an unintentional lesson on news literacy today. You know, it's so interesting to hear about all this tabloid nonsense, how the smears, how the recycled stories work. These stories were junk food, and it's okay if you know what you're eating. But a lot of people don't know what they're eating. They think this is nutritious.

It reminds me of a famous Enquirer headline, Donald Trump, the healthiest individual ever elected. Anderson?

COOPER: And, Brian, just in terms of the power of the National Enquirer, it's obviously greatly diminished. By the way, here's an update. Bove asked what was happening in Pecker's mind when he learned about the former doorman story that Trump had allegedly fathered an illegitimate child.

Bove, Brian, is essentially trying to get David Pecker to back up this idea that this was common practice. This was not something that he was only doing with Donald Trump. Bove is asking Pecker if the former doorman's story was true. It could be the biggest National Enquirer article ever. Pecker agreed with that.

STELTER: And I think, you know, obviously, the defense has a logic to this, but I don't think it relates to what we're going to hear weeks from now but the actual criminal charge.

[10:15:00]

So, I don't see how it's going to be relevant down the line.

You were saying the Enquirer, by the way, is greatly diminished. That's absolutely true. But, you know, at its heyday, David Pecker was having a lot of fun, right? This was fun for him. He was taking care of his friends and punishing his enemies. And he's such a diminished figure now, just like his old magazine.

The company that owns the Enquirer has been trying to sell it for years and can barely even find a buyer. And, by the way, all of this testimony, it's not going to help with that either.

COOPER: Yes. Brian Stelter, thanks very much.

Pecker confirms that it took several weeks after the source agreement was signed for AMI to try to vet the former doorman story and previously said that if the story was true, it would have been a big seller for them.

David Pecker, though, has previously testified that even with that doorman story, which they believe turned out not to be the case, that Pecker's plan was to hold it, catch it, kill it, but hold it until after Trump got elected and would then run it.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I suspect the defense right now is trying to do a little cleanup on that exact statement. So, I'm guessing that's where the defense is going to go here because they're trying to undercut this idea that they were helping Trump in order to help him regain the White House, because a lot of this is just setting the foundation for the prosecutor's case, right? The focus of the criminal charges here is someone who really hasn't even come up yet today, which is, of course, the money paid to Stormy Daniels by Michael Cohen and reimbursed by Trump.

So, right now, what they're focused on is trying to undermine the idea that Stormy Daniels was paid and that that payment was really covered up, allegedly, to help Trump win the White House. That's what they're trying to attack right now. So, I would expect that the defense is definitely going to want to revisit what Pecker said about wanting to hold that story until after Trump was elected.

COOPER: And, Adam, it certainly also seems that they want David Pecker -- well, here we're saying Pecker confirms that it took several weeks after the source group was signed for AMI to try to vet the former doorman story. Walking away from Sajan's (ph) story would not make business sense. Sajan is the doorman who had these allegations. Bove says, Pecker says, no, I don't want it would not have made business sense. Why is that important?

KAUFMANN: Right. So, I think it's establishing that, that the National Enquirer had its own interest in pursuing these stories, one way or the other, and that they weren't just acting as sort of an agent, a press agent for Donald Trump all the time.

COOPER: And Trump's attorney is now moving on to talk about Karen McDougal's agreement.

What's interesting from the testimony yesterday with David Pecker is that it seems like Donald Trump was very concerned about Karen McDougal, was very upset with the interview that Karen McDougal did with me on CNN, called up angry about why is she able to talk, and checked in with Pecker repeatedly.

There's a picture we have of the two men at the White House. Donald Trump has been elected president. It's a black and white photo. They're walking by the rose garden. And Pecker testified yesterday. This is the picture. We now know, according to David Pecker, what they were talking about at that very moment.

Donald Trump, the president of the United States, said to David Pecker, how's Karen doing? Previously, he had also called her our girl with, with Pecker, according to Pecker's testimony. And Pecker said, oh, she's fine. She's keeping quiet. You know, she's doing articles for us. Bove is emphasizing that Karen McDougal's main interest was that she didn't want her story published, Pecker agrees.

REID: It's such a significant moment. And I did think it was incredible yesterday that Trump was asking about Karen McDougal. And, again, clearly, his interest was in making sure that she kept quiet. But it was a moment, you know, where he checked in, he was clearly following this very closely.

And in terms of the legality, here prosecutors are interested in that moment because they want to show how Trump was actively involved in and aware of these efforts to suppress stories about his extramarital affairs. And I think one of the reasons was we reported that he was so upset about these stories because the impact it could have on his marriage. This was not just a one night stand or a physical relationship that lasted a few weeks, sort of something more transactional, like the Stormy Daniels encounters.

This was a romantic relationship that lasted about a year, and it's unclear what his feelings were for Karen McDougal, but she clearly said that she told you, I believe, that she loved him. So, it's a different thing than Stormy Daniels, which is why it upsets Trump so much.

COOPER: The prosecutors objected repeatedly when Trump's attorneys referred to Trump as President Trump when talking about him in 2016. The judges sustained that the objection.

Just to add one more special coverage, we're going to dig deeper into the Trump's defense team strategy as his attorneys try to poke holes in the prosecution's case.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:20:00]

ACOSTA: You're watching CNN's special live coverage, Donald Trump on trial. Court is now in session in Manhattan, where defense attorneys are cross-examining former tabloid executive and Trump ally David Pecker, a major witness for the prosecution.

And we're back with the panel. And, Kaitlan, I mean, one of the things that we've been seeing all morning long is, I mean, obviously the defense attorneys are trying to poke holes and the prosecution strategy here by saying, okay, this is just what the National Enquirer does. It's not exactly something bad that Donald Trump did here. What do you make of what we're hearing so far?

COLLINS: They're essentially trying to completely undermine the idea that this was a plot to benefit the campaign. How that works and how that works given what we saw yesterday, where David Pecker was saying this was explicitly done to help his campaign, and we saw that.

I should note that right now, David Pecker is on the stand. He is being questioned by Trump's attorney as part of cross-examination. And we are now told that David Pecker is recounting his previous testimony where he said that Trump told him he did not buy stories because, quote, that always gets out.

[10:25:00]

And, really, what the prosecution had tried to do was show that David Pecker was this mechanism, this lever, that the Trump campaign, through Michael Cohen, used to suppress these negative stories because they were worried.

And I think what the prosecution did effectively yesterday, and we'll see how the defense counteracts that, is that this was not done to benefit Trump's family, to try to protect them, that it was done explicitly to help his campaign.

ACOSTA: It kind of comes down to whether or not the National Enquirer was essentially an arm of the campaign.

HONIG: Yes, that is the operative question here. I think the evidence that there was a campaign motivation here is overwhelming. I don't know how the defense is going to convince the jury that at least some portion of this wasn't campaign related.

And think about some of the details that David Pecker provided on that, even a little thing like David Pecker was there in Trump Tower when Trump came down the escalator and declared his candidacy, that photo that we've seen of David Pecker walking in the White House by the columns with Donald Trump, that's going to stick in the jury said. Photos resonate with jurors so strongly.

And the other thing that I want to point out just to maybe give a little color, because we don't have cameras inside the courtroom, when cross-examination starts, the whole atmosphere in the courtroom changes because direct examination is generally friendly. It's smooth, it's been, prosecutors hate this word, rehearsed. Prosecutors will always say, we don't rehearse, we prepare, but rehearsed. And then when the prosecutor says no further questions, and we do actually say that, then the defense lawyer stands up, and it doesn't necessarily have to get explosive. Sometimes it does. But even it sounds like what's happening here is he's pointing out specific facts that are going to undermine the prosecution's case.

ACOSTA: Yes. Well, I do want to get more perspective on all this. I want to turn to retired New York State Supreme Court Judge Michael Obus. Judge Obus, thank you so much for being with us. We appreciate it.

What do you make of what we've been witnessing so far? As Elie points out, we don't have cameras in the courtroom. I will die on this hill that there should be cameras in the courtroom. But how this has been unfolding today and your sense of things so far?

MICHAEL OBUS, RETIRED NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT JUDGE: Well, I haven't followed the proceedings this morning under the circumstances, but I have to say that I've been impressed and not terribly surprised that things have gone as relatively smoothly as they have given the notoriety and the hoopla that surrounds the trial, especially out here.

I haven't been down to 100 Center Street in a while, and I don't remember standing out in the cold this much. But the trial is moving smoothly.

Judge Merchan, who I know well, he was a colleague of mine for many years, is a very serious, hard working, knowledgeable, calm person, and I think that is what is pervading the entire trial. I think he'll do a good job, and I'm sure his primary interest is protecting the integrity of the proceedings, and the jurors, of course, and getting through this with a verdict, whatever it may be.

ACOSTA: And, Judge, I have to ask you because Trump says this nearly every day, he said it again this morning, saying that the judge is, quote, highly conflicted. When you hear that, what's your response to that? You said you know him well. What do you think of that?

OBUS: I don't think he's conflicted at all. I am certain there's no ethical problem with his serving on the case. I know that he received an advisory opinion from the committee that is set up for the purpose of advising judges on any ethical questions. And I have also read the judiciary law again. And it's clear that his relationship with his daughter and whatever work she does not pose a problem for his serving on the trial as long as he feels in good conscience that he can do so fairly. And he has said that, and I have no doubt that that is his honest view.

ACOSTA: And Judge Merchan has yet to issue a ruling on whether to hold Trump in contempt for allegedly violating a gag order. How do you think the judge should proceed here? I mean, the prosecution has been asking for fines. Should the judge go further? What's your sense of it?

OBUS: Well, he's been proceeding very carefully, which I think is a good thing. I've heard some second guessing about how he should have summarily punished the defendant. But, of course, this is not a summary contempt proceeding at all. It has to do with activities outside of the presence of the court that would not have been lawful. And he's taking his time. Everybody is having an opportunity to have their input.

I think the fact that this potential contempt finding is pending has its own bearing on the matter. And I'm sure that Judge Merchan will come up with some measured response. As most people are saying, I sincerely doubt there will be any kind of incarceration anytime soon, and that would probably interfere with the trial more than it would help.

ACOSTA: Yes.

OBUS: So, I don't really think that's an issue.

I have to say that judges don't go to trials thinking I'm likely to hold anybody in contempt or I want to have a chance to show how tough I am or anything like that. I was in this court for about 28 years and I never held anyone in contempt. I never had a hearing on that. I wouldn't have wanted to, and it wasn't necessary.

[10:30:00]

I can see how, in some cases, certainly where a person acts up in the courtroom and is interfering with the proceedings that you have to do something summarily.