Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Any Minute: Testimony Resumes In Trump Hush Money Trial; Now: Fourth Day Of Testimony In Trump Hush Money Trial. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired April 26, 2024 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back. We just saw the former president reentering the courtroom after a short break in this trial that has been going on now for two weeks. We're on Friday, ending the second week. And it looks like, Kaitlan Collins, ending the -- getting close to entering -- ending rather the David Pecker testimony.

But I want to ask you about -- as they get ready to start again about what we saw this morning from the former president going before the cameras -- what we saw even throughout the week. He seemed to have focused less on his grievances, not that he didn't mention them, but less on his grievances, and finally started to listen to his campaign aides and use that megaphone -- use that microphone for some actual campaign business.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. He's kind of been airing his grievances everywhere else. I don't believe that he's not doing it -- (INAUDIBLE)

BASH: And he's doing it there too. It's just in addition to that, he also did.

COLLINS: Yes, simply because he's not saying it necessarily nonstop as he is -- typically been doing in front of the cameras. He's instead been focusing on things like these propellants -- Palestinian protests that have been roiling college campuses. He talks about the GDP. He's talked about Israel. He's talked about inflation.

That is a tactic by the campaign to try to use these moments where they know he is going to get media attention. They post moments beforehand and tell reporters that Trump is about to speak because they know it'd be those moments. Trump though is still on Twitter --

BASH: Oh, yes.

COLLINS: And on social media or -- not on Twitter, on Truth Social making clear his grievances. Complaining about the court. Just today, he's complaining that it's locked down. And I --

BASH: And it's cold. It's very cold.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: It's cold.

COLLINS: Judge Merchan is back on the bench in the courtroom. They just took a short break. But on David Pecker, you are right. They do expect to finish his testimony today.

It sounds like his cross-examination is about to be done. Then the prosecutors have another chance. But I was told this morning, they do expect a second witness to get on the stand today.

BASH: So, Jim, I want to ask you as we wait for David Pecker to get back on the stand and for this to resume. The defense says that they have less than an hour left, Kaitlan just noted this, in their cross- examination of Pecker. What do they have left to do?

JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: So, I think what you're going to see is a transition here. I -- what you haven't heard from David Packard directly is he was directed by Trump to do this for campaign purposes. He was directed by Cohen to do this for campaign purposes. And I think that's really -- I think some of this is going to sit around once you get Cohen on the stand.

You know, Cohen wasn't paid by the campaign. He wasn't part of the campaign. So, they're going to have a real struggle of trying to make that connection. Because if you're not a campaign -- if you're not part of the campaign, you're not part of campaign staff, what's the true connection here to the campaign? I think that's something that this -- that they're going to start to draw out. And I think they're going to focus on with Cohen.

[11:35:10]

BASH: And as David Pecker is returning to the courtroom --

ELLIOT WILLAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

BASH: Elliot.

WILLIAMS: I think one of the prosecution's challenges throughout the travel particularly with David Pecker is moving from well, we all had an implication and we all thought that what Donald Trump wanted was to affect the campaign, to a real understanding that that's what he wanted now. You can convict someone on the basis that well, we just thought this is what the defendant wanted, but it -- but --

BASH: And Trump is now seated between his attorneys Emil Bove and Susan Necheles. Go ahead.

WILLIAMS: But it's a stronger case to be made that there was some clear directive or so on. So really, it's just a question of overwhelming evidence or not.

BASH: This is a great detail, Elie. Pecker is smiling in the direction of the defense table --

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

BASH: A.k.a. Donald Trump.

HONIG: There are human moments at trial. I mean, it's a bunch of human beings that were once close. Apparently, David Pecker still thinks he has some sort of -- I mean, they haven't spoken in a while but doesn't harbor any hatred for Donald Trump.

COLLINS: Trump has been saying nice things about him.

HONIG: Yes.

COLLINS: It's only -- three other witnesses attacked. He's been saying David Pecker is very nice.

HONIG: Right.

BASH: Well -- but OK. I'm glad you brought that up because that's part of the argument that the Trump defense team is making about the gag order.

HONIG: Right.

BASH: Because saying nice things about a witness isn't just being nice always.

HONIG: Yes.

BASH: It's also -- you know --

HONIG: It could influence them.

BASH: Called for half by that.

HONIG: It could influence them.

BASH: Right.

HONIG: That's right. And that's part of the reason that I remain miffed that Judge Merchan has not come out with a ruling. Bigger picture. One of the most common mistakes that defense lawyers make is they try to annihilate every witness on cross-exam, and we prosecutors would go back to our office and laugh. We go, this guy thinks he's going to win the trial based on his cross-examination of some innocuous witness.

And Todd Blanche and Mr. Emil Bove are both former federal prosecutors. So, they've been part of those conversations. And it looks to me like they are choosing their battles.

They have not tried to destroy David Pecker. They're trying to pull out certain facts that are helpful. They're saving their fire from Michael Cohen.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I have a question for you guys later because --

HONIG: Yes. HOLMES: I was actually the person who asked Donald Trump about David Pecker. And he was -- he told me that he was nice, and etcetera. I'm curious, you know, how do you stop that kind of interaction?

BASH: Kristen, I think we're having a little bit of trouble with your audio. We're going to get back to you.

HOLMES: OK.

BASH: Hang on one second.

HONIG: So, Kristen asked --

BASH: Hold that thought.

HONIG: Oh, good.

HOLMES: Yes.

HONIG: Kristen asked -- Kristen asked Donald Trump about David Pecker, eliciting Donald Trump's response that he's a good guy.

BASH: And she was asking you why?

HONIG: Then Kristen said how do you control that?

BASH: Yes.

HONIG: I -- it's a tough one. Because all that Donald Trump could really say there to comply with the gag order is I can't comment on that under the existing order. And you made a really good point, Dana. You're technically violating the gag order, not only if you say something negative or intimidating, but also if you say something positive. The gag order doesn't specify positive or negative.

BASH: Saying something positive could be --

HONIG: Sure.

BASH: Very intimidating.

HONIG: Sure. And what a good -- yes. Intimidating or enticing.

BASH: No?

HONIG: Yes.

GANGEL: If you are Donald Trump --

BASH: Right?

GANGEL: You are sending a message.

(CROSSTALK)

GANGEL: And the question is, what is that message? I just add to what's coming next, Jim. I'm very curious to see whether they ever up their game against Pecker. Whether it ever becomes -- you're shaking your head.

I agree. I don't think it's going to happen, or we would have seen it. But I would like to suggest one other thought. David Pecker knows a lot about Donald Trump, not just the facts of this case.

Yes, to Elie's point, you pick your witnesses to go after. But this is someone who's had a lot of dealings. These are not the only stories they've dealt with.

BASH: And --

GANGEL: He may not want to antagonize Pecker.

BASH: And, Jim, as you -- as you answer Jamie, Bove asks Pecker to describe when FBI agents came to his house in 2018. What's that about?

SCHULTZ: Again, they're trying to establish that -- you know, that there were these other converse -- that they're probably going to get into some of the conversations that happened there perhaps further impeach his testimony. Again, this is just the chipping away and not the big deal issue. But chipping away piece by piece of the -- of Pecker's testimony.

And going back to the -- I don't think they're going to go after Pecker aggressively. There's no incentive to do it at this point. All he could do is maybe if he -- if he's incentivized is the pile on what Cohen's going to be.

BASH: And Pecker says that the FBI agents took his phone with a search warrant. They did not search his home.

COLLINS: Well, and this moment is important because they're getting to the part of the Trump-Pecker relationship where things deteriorated. This is when David Pecker signs that nonprosecution agreement. And you know, before that David Pecker had been showing up to the White House getting towards the Lincoln Bedroom.

This is the beginning of the end. They have not spoken since 2017. This is the first time they've actually been in the same room, we believe, ever and -- since that happened. And so, that's what they're kind of getting at here in this moment, where David Pecker starts cooperating with the federal government.

BASH: And That's exactly what is happening. Bove again confirms with Pecker that AMI, the company that owns National Enquirer entered into a non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors. Kristen, your mic is now working, go for it.

[11:40:10]

HOLMES: Yes. I think that all of this is, again, trying to undermine Pecker, but I do think it's interesting. I mean, it's not just that they're not going after him. But again, as we've said, Donald Trump himself has only good things to say about David Pecker. I think that goes to your point that Pecker has the receipts. He was around for a long time before. And you -- we talk a lot about Donald Trump saying this is all about the campaign and Pecker hearing him say that. It was really interesting also to see the evolution of how these stories came to be with Donald Trump. It was his family, then it became the campaign, which is --

BASH: And we're seeing part of the description of that evolution right now. Bove asks Pecker whether the meetings with FBI agents were stressful. "You wanted it over with though, right?" He asks. Yes, Pecker says.

HONIG: So, he's trying to undermine the testimony.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

HONIG: Yes, go on.

WILLIAMS: So, it's a couple of things. One, we know there's not much left. And the defense has saved sort of their most -- what they think is their most compelling material, which is impeaching his credibility a little bit. So, number one, they're building to talking about that non-prosecution agreement.

Also, there's a fallout with the defendant. And anytime you have a witness who has some sort of personal beef with the defendant, you're potentially planning in jurors' heads the idea that the witness is testifying out of a mixed motive that not just these -- there to tell the truth, but he wants to bring down this person for personal reasons. And so, I think they're building to a crescendo not you know, banging the table and screaming, but certainly leaving the jury at the end with their final point that they think hurts -- (INAUDIBLE)

SCHULTZ: And really that he -- that he wanted to get out of trouble, right?

WILLIAMS: Yes.

SCHULTZ: That he's tired of dealing with the FBI. I mean, nobody wants to deal with the FBI. It's stressful. That's what they're saying.

Like, I wanted to get them off my back. I entered this nonpros agreement. You know, that deteriorated the relationship with Trump. But it really goes to the heart of, you know, how involved was the government in coaching, if you will, or preparing the witness, if you will, first testimony in this case?

HONIG: Yes. So, it is standard that prosecutors will meet with and prepare or coach -- either characterization is fair, actually, a witness like this. But defense lawyers, it's absolutely fair game to say, look, you've met with them a bunch of times. And they'll usually say, and I asked to meet with you, and you refused, right? That can resonate with juries.

I think it's worth talking about the non-prosecution agreement, just so people remember what this is. David Pecker and his -- well, here we go. Bove asked Pecker if it's true that at the time of the non- prosecution agreement, AMI was in talks with another publisher to sell some of its tabloids.

So, a non-prosecution agreement is a deal between prosecutors and a witness that basically says, we're going to give you a pass. We are not going to prosecute you. And you are going to testify truthfully.

COLLINS: That -- well, this is really important because they're trying to get it a motive for why --

HONIG: Right.

COLLINS: David Pecker signed that because they're bringing up that, at this time as you can see here, AMI was in talks with another publisher to sell some of its tabloids. And in order for that deal to go through, these investigations had to be resolved. So, they are basically trying to get at the only reason David Pecker entered into this agreement was because he wanted to be able to financially benefit.

BASH: And Pecker -- forgive me. Pecker confirmed that the deal included a provision that investigations had to be resolved before the deal could be finalized. As you're saying, this is really a crescendo.

SCHULTZ: Right. And I think this also instills in the jury, this idea that the federal authorities were involved, right? Why were the federal authorities involved? Because they were looking at an F.E.C. type issue or a federal issue.

Donald Trump was never charged by the federal government. The jury's going to be sitting there thinking about that. Why were they involved anyway, and why wasn't this -- why wasn't this charged?

BASH: Yes. All right. Well, we'll see if there is a redirect from the prosecution after the defense finishes the David Pecker. We're going to take a quick break.

Coming up. We're going to continue to update you on this Pecker testimony. We're going to bring you the latest again, as we have been all morning -- all week from inside the courtroom. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:48:46]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: And we're back with more special coverage of the first criminal trial of Donald Trump. We're looking at new sketches from inside the courtroom. A lot of news so far as the former president's defense team has been questioning former tabloid executive David Pecker.

I want to bring in retired New York Supreme Court Judge Diane Kiesel. Thanks so much for being with us.

DIANE KIESEL, RETIRED NEW YORK SUPREME COURT JUDGE: Thank you.

COOPER: First of all, just how do you think has been going today in terms of cross-examination?

KIESEL: Well, the cross-examination is doing what it needs to do from the defense perspective, which is to chip away and little bits of Mr. Pecker's testimony. Now, whether ultimately that sways jurors against what he's had to say, it's an open question.

COOPER: So, they asked Pecker if that testimony was another mistake. Merchan sustained an objection from Steinglass over the question. You know, let's talk about Judge Merchan.

We have not heard from him on the gag order. There's another hearing next week about alleged new violations according to the prosecution of the gag order. What is he going to do?

KIESEL: I have no idea what he's going to do. His options are very limited.

COOPER: Does this surprise you, he hasn't made a ruling thus far?

KIESEL: It has, a bit. It has. It seems to me that I expected that after the hearing. And I understand why he wanted to do the hearing and why he wanted to take it under submission. He wants to be very careful in a case like this, and I assume wanted to issue some type of written decision.

[11:50:11]

I expected we would have seen it at some point this week. And now, we have three new alleged violations. So, now I suspect he'll put them all together and rule next week.

COOPER: Bove is emphasizing the first paragraph of the non-prosecution agreement that says prosecutors will not criminally prosecute American Media Incorporated. This idea that there's a non-prosecution agreement. Clearly, the defense wants to kind of raise questions in the jurors' minds about the motivation of David Pecker and how come he got a pass, whereas Donald Trump does not?

KIESEL: Absolutely. The idea is to do everything they can to undermine the motive and the credibility of Mr. Pecker.

COOPER: Is it common to have a non-prosecution agreement with a co- conspirator?

KIESEL: Yes, and no. It depends on how badly you need his testimony. And it depends on how culpable he may have been.

COOPER: But prosecutors make deals with people who have participate -- who are conspirators in illicit acts.

KIESEL: Sure, all the time. I mean, sometimes you know, you take your witnesses as you find them. That was always -- when I was a prosecutor, that was always a standard summation line I had.

You know, if I went to Central Casting, I wouldn't have picked this particular person to be my witness. This is the guy I'm stuck with, ladies and gentlemen. And sometimes you have to make these deals.

COOPER: Yes. Paula, what stands out to you?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So, it is interesting that they're going back to the non-prosecution agreement because even as someone who has covered this for years, I was at the press conference where they announced the non-prosecution agreement, it does help to suss out, OK, why did AMI and David Pecker kind of get off? Michael Cohen, of course, had to plead guilty for his role in some of these payments. And then years later, we're here with Trump in court.

So, this really is an important aspect of Pecker's testimony to clarify. But what they're trying to do is show that he was under pressure when he signed that. So, there were business concerns that the whole FBI investigation had to be remedied somehow had to be resolved before the company could move forward with some acquisitions that it wanted to do. So, they're trying to show to the jury that look, he was under a lot of pressure. This is what he had to do.

COOPER: There may be a redirect. Prosecutors may talk to David Pecker a little bit more. But do we know who the next witness is going to be?

REID: So, we don't know who the next witness is going to be. Now, just to guess I think if you're going to look at David Pecker's testimony, remember, we're in the very early stages of laying out this case, you could call for example, Hope Hicks. She came up a few times because he was in some key meetings with Michael Cohen and/or Trump and/or Pecker.

Another possibility is Kellyanne Conway because she could talk about -- remember, she was a very powerful official at the White House. But before that, she was leading the Trump campaign. The first woman to lead a successful presidential campaign.

She could come in and talk about the Access Hollywood tape. And what a bombshell that was for the campaign. I've read her book where she talks about just what a difficult time period that was. That is significant -- that could be a significant piece of testimony because it sets the stage for why Michael Cohen and Trump were in a hurry to suppress Stormy Daniels' story. So, we don't know who's going to be called. But I think those are two possible --

COOPER: But the court is in session throughout the day. So, whoever is going to be called it, would likely happen today.

REID: It is likely. You know, a lot of cases, and a judge, you might be able to speak to this. They don't necessarily want to start a new witness with 30 minutes to go and you have a weekend, no court on Monday. But we've lost a lot of time this week because of Passover, a dentist appointment, no court on Wednesday.

So, the judge wants to keep this moving along. He could allow that next witness to take the stand and allow prosecutors to begin questioning him or her by the end of the day. KIESEL: I suspect it depends on how long the redirect examination is going to be. And redirect examinations are tricky because they really are limited to anything that was brought out that hurt your case on cross. And very often, lawyers will try and expand what they want to talk about on redirect. But I suspect Judge Merchan, who's trying to keep this moving, will keep it tight.

COOPER: What are the other options for potential witnesses?

REID: So eventually, of course, we're going to get to Michael Cohen. That's going to be the biggest thing that happens on the witness stand because he is the Nexus, right between Trump and Stormy Daniels? He was the one who received the checks that were allegedly falsified.

And then the cross-examination of Michael Cohen. I mean, it's going to be fascinating to watch because you have so much to work with there as a defense attorney, not only is he an admitted liar, right? In the criminal sense, he's admitted to lying.

He also has a vendetta against the former president. He's named his books things like Revenge. He talks about the former president all the time.

And a few days ago, he suggested that he's going to dial that back. But -- I mean, they could easily fill a week just reading back portions of his podcast and his books and his tweets, trying to show that maybe you shouldn't trust what he says. So that's, of course, the witness we're all waiting for.

[11:55:08]

There's also going to be, you know, some other -- some other witnesses that they're not household names. They're folks who worked with the Trump Organization, right? People like Jeff McConney.

Folks who can talk about the accounting practices, they're going to be critical to the defense's case because the defense is going to be like, look, Trump wasn't involved in paperwork. He wasn't -- he didn't know what invoice was set. Like, he might have signed the checks, but he didn't know. So especially in the defense case, you're going to hear from a lot of folks who are just on the corporate side of the Trump administration. Stormy Daniels is also a likely witness at some point.

COOPER: Yes. Paula Reid, and Judge Kiesel, thank you so much. Cross- examination of David Pecker appears to be coming to a close. We'll tell you what to expect next. Stay with us. You're watching CNN's special coverage of Donald Trump's first criminal trial.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END