Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Trump Lawyer Cross-Examines Former Tabloid Exec. Aired 11- 11:30a ET

Aired April 26, 2024 - 11:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:01:09]

DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: We are watching history unfold in New York, the criminal hush money trial of former president Donald Trump. Right now, defense attorneys are grilling a key witness for prosecutors. Trump's team is trying to undermine David Pecker's testimony about the alleged scheme to catch and kill negative stories about former President Trump. Welcome back to CNN's special live coverage. I'm Dana Bash in Washington.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Anderson Cooper outside the courthouse in Manhattan following all of today's major developments. Let's get back to our chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid, who is with me, as well as criminal defense attorney Adam Kaufmann. Adam, just in terms of what we have seen so far, it's been no real surprises. I mean, clearly the defense has the strategy of just trying to show any inconsistencies in David Pecker's testimony and also kind of amplify the idea that what he was doing for Donald Trump, he was doing for many other people as well.

ADAM KAUFMANN, FORMER EXECUTIVE ASST. D.A., MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: I think that's it. He, I think in the cross examination, they haven't really gone after him. And they don't need to because Pecker is establishing points that help the defense, talking about other examples of where he did exactly the same type of activity in other stories for other people, that this was business as usual. This is what the National Enquirer did. And so there's really been no need for the defense to go after and cross examine him in a harsh way.

COOPER: Joining us also is Bill Brennan, criminal defense attorney who's represented the former president, both in a 2022 criminal tax fraud trial and also Trump's second impeachment trial. Bill, what do you make of what we have heard thus far? And what do you, as would they move into Stormy Daniels, now Trump's attorney is walking through Pecker's previous testimony that Reince Priebus, Mike Pompeo, Sean Spicer and James Comey were in Trump's office when Pecker walked in. Let me -- just big picture, what do you -- to you is the biggest weakness about Alvin Bragg's case here.

WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, FORMER TRUMP PAYROLL CORP. ATTORNEY: Anderson, the biggest weakness in this case is they have to get to the finish line of motivation. Was this done to affect federal campaign laws? And it's a long stretch. You know, you've got -- if you think of it in terms of a Venn diagram, you know, if you look at this defendant's case or I heard Pecker talk about Governor Schwarzenegger and Mark Wahlberg, the difference is this defendant and Governor Schwarzenegger have celebrity circles in the Venn diagram, and they also have political circles.

So if this was done to avoid an embarrassing situation and shame to the former president and his family, and that's the motivation, the case is over. They have to get to the motivation of election fraud, federal election fraud, to make this felony stick. And I agree with Adam. You don't go after a witness like Pecker as a pitbull. Pecker in many ways is making the defense's case. I think also when Ms. Clifford testifies, it would be foolish to go after her hard. I think you saved that for Cohen.

COOPER: Let me just tell you what's going on in store. The court, Pecker is saying that, Bove, the attorney for Donald Trump, has been asking Mr. Pecker for more details about walking into the meeting with James Comey and others and Mike Pompeo. Bove asked Pecker if he knew there was another consequence of that meeting. It was when FBI Director James Comey told Trump about the Russia dossier. So it was actually quite an important meeting that David Pecker walked in on.

David Pecker is trying to give some more details to his prior testimony about walking in on that meeting. That's a meeting where they were all assembled. Donald Trump said to all those in the room, this is David Pecker. He probably knows more than most of you in this room. The prosecutor objected. The lawyers went to the bench. The judge has sustained the objection. The president's lead attorney whispered to Trump after returning to the defendant's table, explaining probably what went on at the bench. So again, we're going to be hearing more details from David Pecker as the cross examination continues.

[11:05:26]

Paula, what do you -- what stands out to you about this?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So this feels like a hard left turn, right? Suddenly we're talking about James Comey and we're talking about the dossier, what happened? But while we're on commercial, for the first time, David Pecker on cross has been asked about Stormy Daniels. He's testified that they caught and killed, so they bought and suppressed the story of a doorman who falsely claimed Trump had a child out of wedlock. They did the same for Karen McDougal, who had an affair.

But when it came to Stormy Daniels, when Pecker heard about her story, he said, I don't want anything to do with that. I'm not going to pay for her story, which is how she ended up getting passed off to Michael Cohen. Now, I want to note that Trump's defense attorney, Todd Blanche just whispered to Trump after returning to the defense table.

The judge sustained an objection from the prosecution who objected to another question about that meeting, the one in the Oval Office where James Comey and Sean Spicer and all these folks are in. The defense wanted to ask if Pecker had learned after that meeting about what was discussed, specifically the dossier. Now, prosecutors didn't want that brought in. They objected. The judge agreed. So it's unclear what defense attorneys are going to do from here if they're going to continue this line of questioning. They're clearly trying to get at something by bringing up this meeting.

COOPER: Why would -- what is the importance for -- to you what stands out? What's the importance that Blanche is -- that Bove is trying to accomplish here?

REID: So he's trying to figure out if Pecker had learned about what happened in that meeting. So it appears that maybe he's trying to suggest that once Trump was in the White House, he wasn't sharing information or he was. It's not clear to me what they're going to do now that this objection has been sustained, how he's going to pivot. Because what he wanted to do, clearly he's going to have to find another way to do it or he's just going to have to move on.

COOPER: Adam?

KAUFMANN: It suggests to me that what they might be trying to establish, because the question was that whether Pecker did not overhear what was being said, that they're trying to put some distance between Trump and Pecker in this. And so that while Pecker did have a relationship with Trump and this sort of media operation, he wasn't part of the circle that was learning about all of the inner details of what was going on inside the government part of it.

COOPER: Let's go back to Dana in D.C. Dana?

BASH: Dana, thank you so much, Anderson. And as we wait for the questioning to continue, the cross examination by the defense of David Pecker, Kaitlan, can you just kind of look big picture at what we have seen as we are on the final day this week of a very, very intense, unprecedented hour after hour after hour in this New York City courtroom and whether going into this, we know what the Trump legal team and maybe more importantly, his political team were hoping for, whether at the end of the week, they feel that it's where they thought it would be or accomplish what they needed to accomplish given the circumstances.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. The testimony today has been a little bit harder to follow than I think in other days, a little less sensational. But really what it's clear, and this is what we had expected that Trump's team is trying to do, is kind of pick away at what prosecutors had been asking David Pecker this week. And right now, Trump's attorney is moving on from what Paula was just talking about there, that bizarre meeting that we heard about where James Comey is there, Reince Priebus, Mike Pompeo, all of these high ranking officials, and David Pecker stops by and he's now moving on. And he's asking about Trump, thanking David Pecker for handling the Karen McDougal situation and the doorman story.

That was one of the biggest things that we learned about yesterday, where basically, Trump invited David Pecker for a thank you dinner and was asking him, how's Karen doing? Referring to Karen McDougal. What Trump's team has been trying to do today, and it may seem in the weeds, but it's important, is to undermine what they were saying about the McDougal agreement, saying, actually, she did benefit from it because she had these columns published by AMI publications that had her name on it, so it benefited her career.

They're arguing -- they're saying that they believe they misled Michael Cohen on whether that agreement with Karen McDougal was bulletproof. They're basically trying to undermine these all this big cover up.

BASH: And Bove is asking Pecker about that testimony we were just talking about yesterday when Pecker said Trump thanked him for the doorman story. Kristen, you talked to Trump sources all day long. What have you been hearing from them as they watch? By the way, because obviously there are no cameras in the courtroom, my impression from some Trump people is they're watching what we put on the screen and what we put on CNN.com, Bove to Pecker, quote, was that another mistake? Pecker responded faintly, no.

[11:10:03]

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Likely going to bring up some of that former testimony that Pecker has given, because clearly this is a guided question, saying, is this a mistake here? But I would say when talking to these Trump senior advisors, I mean, you're right, a lot of them are learning about this in real time. They're watching the coverage. They have no idea what's going inside -- on side the courtroom.

Trump is there with a couple of close aides who don't have their phones. So they're following this. It is exactly as salacious as they thought it was going to be. There was no mistake. We know what is at the heart of this, an alleged cover up for an alleged affair with a porn star.

BASH: And we have an update now from inside the courtroom. Bove now raises Pecker's 2018 FBI interview asking if he recalled saying that, quote, Trump did not express any gratitude to Pecker and AMI during that January 2017 meeting. Elie, can you explain, put yourself in the position of a lawyer in that courtroom, why this is important?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So first of all, this is a common, what we call impeachment tactic. Impeachment meaning, undermining the credibility of a witness, not the kind of impeachment that Donald Trump was subjected to twice. You take the notes. As the defense team, you have all the interview notes. You know what the witnesses said to the FBI previously.

BASH: -- now looking at prior testimony.

HONIG: So that's exactly what's happening. And you can confront the witness. If the witness says, I don't remember that, you say, well, here's the FBI, what we call 302. Here's the police statement of what you said. Do you recall saying this? It's a way to bring the witness back. I think the fundamental strategic issue that's happening here, the prosecution wants to paint this as Trump and his team working hand in hand with Pecker and his team for campaign purposes.

And the defense is trying to muddy that up, is trying to say, well, there was much more to it. It was about other things in the campaign. There were other people involved. Trump was at a remove.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Even in the last hour, something had come up where they'd asked, the defense had asked the question. Wasn't it widely known that the National Enquirer supported former President Trump? That -- this is not and should not be a secret to anything. They are framing it as sort of a business as usual matter in the hopes of sort of undermining what the, you know, where the prosecutor was going.

And I think, you know, that's exactly it. There -- when you have these moments of contradicting a witness on their testimony, it actually makes for good theater in the courtroom because in order to look at his prior testimony, it's typically going to be silent in the courtroom as you're watching this man flip through these pages and find a statement that, where he's wrong and just -- and he has to admit, he will probably admit at the end of this, yes, I was wrong the time I said that. I was confused.

BASH: Yes. So they doesn't end up in jail for --

WILLIAMS: Perjury. Yes, exactly.

BASH: Yes. And what about when it comes to the jury, a moment like this that we're in right now, quiet in the courtroom, the drama that Elliot just described.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So I do think that it's going to have some impact, right? But this isn't hard hitting stuff, right? This is kind of, I think this year, I think it does, like Elie said, I think it does, you know, undermine his testimony a little bit. It goes to maybe he didn't remember everything the right way, but it's not stuff that's going to be like, you know, very impactful, I think, at the jury. It has to be a lot of hits in order to make an impact.

BASH: And Bove is working to get Pecker up to speed with interview notes in front of him, Jamie.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Just to underscore what Jim said, I completely agree. Yes, they're trying to chip away at his credibility, but we have yet to see any major part of his testimony contradicted in this. He forgets this. He didn't say that, whatever it was. But to the point of was this to help Donald Trump win the 2016 election, they haven't undermined that.

WILLIAMS: And, you know, we're -- just -- we -- by not being in the room, we're sort of limited here and relying on what other people are saying. But every account that has come out has been that David Pecker has been quite disciplined in answering yes and no and not really --

COLLINS: To see how effective all of this is, because obviously the argument had been, well, Trump is doing this to protect his family. One, people have been skeptical of that because you haven't seen his family inside the courtroom with him. Instead, he's surrounded by political aides. But as Trump was entering the courtroom this morning, he went in and wished Melania Trump a happy birthday and said that he wished he could be spending it with her. But instead he was at the courtroom and having to do with that.

I mean, what David Pecker most effectively did yesterday was saying that this was on behalf of benefiting the Trump campaign, that this was not to benefit Melania or to protect their relationship.

BASH: And both can be true at the same time inside the courtroom right now. Pecker pushes back on Bove and the interview notes suggesting the notes could be wrong. I know, let me just read the quote, I know what I testified to yesterday and I know what I remember.

HONIG: If this was an important enough issue, and I'm not sure it is, the counter move would be you get to then call the police officer or FBI agent who took that statement to the stand. And the police officer or FBI agent would say, no, actually, he did say this the first time around. I don't know that this is a big enough issue for that.

BASH: Well, the court is taking a break and the jury is leaving the room. Typical, I mean, we don't know. But is this a standard break or is this because there --

HONIG: -- seems about right.

WILLIAMS: Yes. It could be -- well, no -- it's probably a standard break only because if it were something where they had to work out the specifics of a contentious motion or something like that, they would have.

[11:15:06]

BASH: They're taking a break, so we're going to take a break. Just ahead, our special coverage will continue. Details continue to come in from inside the courtroom. The Trump team's cross examination is going on of David Pecker. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:20:03]

COOPER: This is CNN Special live coverage. Donald Trump on trial. Court is taking a quick break right now. There you see the former president exiting the courtroom just moments ago. We expect the court to return to session shortly. It's been a busy morning so far with Trump's defense attorneys cross examining David Pecker, the former tabloid executive who spent much of the week on the stand detailing an alleged scheme to bury negative stories about Trump to benefit his campaign.

Paula and Adam are back with me, as well as former Trump Organization attorney and criminal defense attorney Bill Brennan. Bill, let me talk to you a little bit about Donald Trump is now sort of tempering earlier comments he made saying that he would testify. Didn't say he will testify, but he said he would.

He told last night, told Newsmax he was, quote, more or less likely to testify, which I'm not sure exactly what that means. He said, if it's necessary. Do you imagine him actually testifying in this case? Would that make from a legal standpoint as an attorney, would you recommend that?

BRENNAN: No, I wouldn't recommend it. And I doubt very much whether his attorneys are recommending it. And, you know, that is really a battlefield decision. That's a decision in a criminal trial that's not made until the bottom of the 9th. It's really the last decision that's ever made. And I can tell you from, you know, three decades of trying criminal cases, you don't want any defendant to testify. And in this case, I predict that he will not testify.

COOPER: It would open him up to questioning on a whole variety of topics that, I mean, as you said, his attorneys would not have any interest in him opining on.

BRENNAN: Anderson, it would be a complete, unmitigated disaster. The prosecutors in this case I've tried against Josh Steinglass is a pro. He's been -- he's a career prosecutor. He's calm. He's cool. And he's as smart as a whip. And he would have a field day. I just -- I don't know what's going to happen, but I don't have a crystal ball. But I predict he will -- the former president will not testify.

And it sounds like the way things are going. We've only got one witness in the box at this point. But Pecker at this point seems to be fairly innocuous. This whole case comes down to, there's no real argument about what happened with regard to the doorman and Ms. McDougal. It really comes down to why it happened.

And unless the prosecution team can tie this to a motivation to circumvent federal election laws, the felonies out the window and then the cases out the window. So I really think at this point they should just continue the way they are. And again, really don't think that we'll be hearing from the president, from the witness stand at least.

COOPER: You represented the former president in a 2022 criminal tax fraud trials at Trump's second impeachment trial. Can you just talk a little bit about what he's like to work with on a case?

BRENNAN: I can tell you, and I think Jim would probably agree with me. You know, I had no political agenda. I represent criminal defendants. That's what I do. But I found the former president to be very easy to get along with. He was a client that really didn't give us any trouble at all. He's intelligent. He listens. He sees the big picture. So I had no issues at all dealing with him.

We had some run-ins and we had some great times. I really viewed it the way I treated, look, the guy's the former president. You have to take that into account. But I treated him as I treat any defendant. If he was running the elevator in this building and was charged with a crime, I treat him the same way. So I have nothing bad to say about him. And frankly, I spent seven weeks with Judge Merchan and that prosecution team. Same thing, they were just professionals, easy to deal with on their game. So really no bad experience on my part.

COOPER: We haven't heard from Judge Merchan about any ruling on the alleged gag order violations. There's going to be another hearing next week about what the prosecution said or new gag order violations. What do you think Merchan is going to do? And has it surprised you that he hasn't made a ruling yet?

BRENNAN: No, not at all. Judge Merchan is very experienced. He's very deliberative. And he's an intelligent guy. And he's really in a tough spot because if he -- the penalties, as I understand him in New York are $1,000 max fine, 30 days potential in jail. If he jails this particular defendant, it's going to cause huge ripple effects. I think it's really what we do contempt is kind of the way those of us that are parents deal with our children. You know, you do that again, I'm going to do this or, the threat is more effective than the action. And I think Judge Merchan is just looking to get to the finish line.

[11:25:09]

So he probably is holding the specter of a penalty over the former president's head and hoping he doesn't have to impose anything serious. And also, he's got a graduated scale. He can start with a fine. He can ramp it up. But he -- if he can run this out until the case is over, it's almost a moot point. And he can deal with it. He can certainly deal with the contempt decision after the trial if he can run it out that long.

COOPER: Yes. I'm here also with Paula Reid, Adam Kaufman. Paula, they're taking a short break right now. How much longer do we expect Pecker to be on the stand for?

REID: So the defense team says they have about half an hour of additional questioning, and then prosecutors will have a chance to do what is called redirect so they can go back at the witness. It's unclear how long that's going to take, but it is certainly possible that Pecker could wrap up today.

COOPER: Adam, do you think anything, there have been any headlines out of today so far?

KAUFMANN: It's the first day. It's the first day in a long trial. It's the first witness. We're hyper focused on everything that's going on in the courtroom.

COOPER: These are building blocks that they're doing.

KAUFMANN: Exactly the point. As we've said a few times today. We haven't gotten to the criminal conduct yet. We're just up to the point where Stormy Daniels enters the picture, where Michael Cohen comes in, where the payments are made. None of that has been before us yet. So we've seen some sort of slimy tabloid operations. We've seen sort of behind the curtain of some of how the campaign was run, but we haven't gotten to crimes yet. I think, if anything, if there's a big takeaway, the prosecution tried to set a very simple and straightforward collusive story, and the defense has tried to peel that away a bit and make it sound like this was nothing special, nothing collusive. This was how the National Enquirer operated.

COOPER: And if there is a redirect, if prosecution feels like they want to go back at Pecker, what would be the point of that?

KAUFMANN: Usually it's to clarify something that was perhaps, in the prosecution's view misrepresented or came out a little bit wrong on the cross examination. It's very limited. You don't get to go back and start asking new questions. It has to be focused on something that was asked during cross that you feel the need, that the prosecution feels the need to clarify on redirect.

COOPER: The criminal trial of Donald Trump. We're going to bring you the latest from the inside the courtroom as soon as they come back.

Also ahead, we'll share an exclusive CNN poll on how voters see the cases against Trump. Do Americans think the former president is being fairly treated? We'll have that ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)