Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Now: Fourth Day Of Testimony In Trump Hush Money Trial; Trump Lawyer Cross-Examinees Former Tabloid Executive; Now: Prosecution Begins Redirect Of David Pecker. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired April 26, 2024 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: We're following breaking news in New York. Another day of Donald Trump's hush money trial underway right now. I'm Boris Sanchez, following the trial from here in Manhattan just outside the criminal courthouse, where a former president is standing trial for the first time in American history.

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: And welcome back to more of CNN special live coverage. I'm Dana Bash in Washington. Right now, defense attorneys for Donald Trump are trying to chip away David Pecker's credibility and undermine the former tabloid executives' testimony.

I'm back with my all-star panel. And Kaitlan, just bring our viewers up to speed on what we have seen so far this morning.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: It's interesting because the Trump's attorneys are now cross-examining David Pecker. This tabloid king who was the one who revealed all of these details yesterday about how they would suppress these negative stories against Donald Trump by paying people who came forward with those negative stories, whether or not they believe them to be true or not.

And so, they've been doing this cross examination clearly trying to take away from David Pecker's credibility, his memory. They're not being nasty. Trump's attorney has actually been quite polite and trying to be charming in front of the jury, as you would expect. But he is certainly trying to say, well, you told investigators this -- and this year, and now you're saying this, you're publicly. David Pecker has stood up for himself and saying, I remember what I said. This was what was said to me. This is what I heard at these meetings.

Right now, they're in a bit of confusing line of questioning where Emil Bove Trump's attorney is questioning David Pecker about that agreement that he struck with the federal government that provided him immunity and is the reason he's on the stand right now and doesn't face any kind of jail time potentially as a result of this. It's not totally clear to me where Trump's attorney is going with this line of questioning. And I do wonder if the jury can follow up.

BASH: Well, the reporters in the courtroom are saying that jurors have been paying attention. Their eyes had been followed -- have followed the back and forth between Bove and Pecker. And it seems to be -- I'm going to go with our J.D.s over here. That Bove is -- when he's emphasizing the first paragraph of the non-prosecution agreement, that says they will not prosecute.

It seems like what they're continuing to try to do is say, OK, guys, jury -- this is why he's on the stand right now. He's on the stand, because he got a promise that he wouldn't be prosecuted.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Right. So, prosecutors are both trying to undermine David Pecker's truthfulness, as Kaitlan said, and with this agreement, they're trying to undermine his motives. They said, first of all, when law enforcement came to you.

It was this vulnerable moment when you were about to sell your company, make a lot of money. And they had you -- you had to tell them whatever they wanted to hear. You had to do whatever they wanted to say. OK. There's a sidebar now, which means they're arguing over and whether some question is admissible or not.

And then the second part of that is -- and as a result of that, you got a free pass. You got a walk. They just read the first line that says, you will not be criminally prosecuted for this. And as a result, you're still indebted to them, not financially, but you still have an incentive, a motive to tell them what they want to hear to shape your story, maybe even in subtle ways --

BASH: To tell the prosecution.

HONIG To tell the prosecution. Yes. To some of the prosecution what they want to hear, to give them little details to maybe shake things. So, they're not trying to paint Pecker as an outright liar. That'll come later with Michael Cohen. But they're trying -- they're trying to suggest these compromises.

BASH: Jim, you're nodding.

JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah. I agree 100 percent. They are trying to show that he cut a deal. He's trying to take care of himself and throw Donald Trump onto the bus in the process.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yeah. Something we haven't talked a lot about in the context of this. We focused so much on the criminal implications to AMI, but not the financial ones. And someone can have a financial motive for testifying, or even altering their testimony based on the fact that they're sort of in dire straits here. And what the defense is pointing out that he had a financial incentive -- number one to behave the way he did and maybe even for testifying today. Now, whether the jury buys it, who knows.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Can I just ask you a question. If you get an immunity agreement, and they find out you're lying under the immunity agreement. What happens to you? Because my understanding is if they -- you lose your immunity agreement, so doesn't that cut? I mean, we'll see when they do redirect, but doesn't that cut against why and you have an immunity. SCHULTZ: Jamie, you're doing the prosecution redirect right now.

(CROSSTALK)

HONIG: 10 minutes from now, they're going to ask that exact question.

COLLINS: We'll see if they're a savvy streaming game.

HONIG: But that you'll be hitting on the head, that will be the response.

[12:05:00]

BASH: I want to -- as we're waiting for -- what Trump just tapped Blanche, who is his attorney on the shoulder and whispered something to him after Blanche sat back down, following the sidebar. So, the sidebar is over. Let's see what happens with that objection. We don't know what the objection specifically was over.

But if I may, Kristen Holmes, I want to remind people of the politics and what is going on here, very much outside the courtroom. And a new CNN poll, which asks people who are Trump supporters. This is a national poll. This is specific question to people who say they will support Donald Trump right now in November.

Would they still support him if he is convicted of a crime? 24 percent say they might reconsider. How worried is the Trump campaign about that figure?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think they're very worried. I mean, one of the things that Donald Trump's team repeatedly says when they're comparing him to Joe Biden is that Donald Trump has a solid base that no matter what people who liked Donald Trump will show up for Donald Trump. Their belief being that if President Biden stays -- if they lower popularity, and people don't show up, that Donald Trump could become president again in November.

So, looking at a poll like that is actually very alarming to people who believe that every single person who supports Donald Trump will show up to vote in November. 24 percent might not seem like a lot, but just that number when they're banking on those people showing up.

BASH: And just looking back at what's happening in that courtroom. Bove is now focused on paragraph three in the non-prosecution agreement, which discusses the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting.

COLLINS: Can we do that section that they're talking about as we're trying to fill in the blanks following along here, which I get is not easy. And that part of the section says, in about August 2015, David Pecker, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of AMI met with Michael Cohen and attorney for a presidential candidate, and at least one other member of the campaign.

And at that meeting, Pecker offered to help deal with negative stories about that presidential candidates' relationships with women by among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased, and their publication avoided. Pecker agreed to keep Cohen apprised of any such negative story.

BASH: Thank you so much for finding that. And so, Jim, to you. What does it tell you about the strategy right now? By and of the Trump defense team, reading that paragraph that Kaitlan just found. And I should say, as you respond to that, I want to say that Bevo asks Pecker, whether he recalls that his lawyer said at a 2019 meeting, that part of paragraph three was quote wrong and inaccurate. Pecker says he does not -- maybe that does answer my question.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. It's just going to go back to memory, it's going to go back to -- back to the credibility of the witness. What he remembered. What he said. Again, it's just chipping away. This stuff is chipping away. I think the bigger one is the nonprofit agreement generally because they're going to hammer away on that, but we are getting to the end.

This is the best stuff they have because that's what they want to leave the jury with. Can I go back one second to the part? So, in Pennsylvania -- I'm native of Pennsylvania. Nikki Haley was on the ballot in this last election. She took 17 percent of the Republican vote. This is a low turnout primary, not allowed on the ballot -- reliable, right, closed primary -- only Republicans and these are reliable Republican voters.

Folks that come out for primaries are always kind of that -- of that, ilk. I think, you know, you couple the 24 percent with the 17 percent that's already kind of drifted towards Nikki Haley. We don't know what they're going to do. This matters.

BASH: And Kristen, look at what's happening right now. Trump is leaning forward, staring at the screen as Pecker reviews the record from the 2019 meeting. That's really interesting color.

HOLMES: Yeah. He's been really engaged in this. I mean, we know that part of the reason that he goes to these various legal proceedings is because he actually does want to be here. And obviously he doesn't have a choice here. But in the past, he wanted to see who was testifying. He wants to engage in what's going on. He doesn't want to actually be in a courtroom, being charged with anything.

But once the legal stuff starts happening, he's been engaged. And we saw that also with the jury selection. He was very riveted on listening to them at times, turning your head around, particularly someone said that they read the art of the deal. That was one that perked him up a little bit, but he is following this closely to try and kind of glean what is going on here.

HONIG: If I can give a little color about this statement of facts that we're talking about. This is a document that's attached to the non- prosecution agreement itself. It's a public document, anyone can Google it. And the reason defense lawyers are trying to dispute it -- once as Pecker says there was a dispute over one word in paragraph three of that agreement, quote, selling and purchasing is the same thing. Someone has to buy them quote, he -- and Pecker says. So, here's what's happening. This statement of facts was written by prosecutors, not these prosecutors at the D.A.'s office, but the Feds across the street in Southern District of New York. So, it has a very pro prosecution. This was a crime slant to it. And what Donald Trump's defense team right now is doing is trying to undermine it. Undermine the truthfulness of it, undermine the motives because the jury will see this, and it reads like an indictment.

[12:10:00]

BASH: But are they trying to undermine the motive of the prosecution that has nothing to do with this trial or trying to undermine Pecker's credibility? And are they kind of hitting the same two things with the same stuff?

HONIG: Yeah. I think the last part. I think they're trying to do both things at once. They're trying to suggest the statement itself is not accurate. And they're trying to suggest that as a result of this agreement, David Pecker has bad motives.

GANGEL: The big picture that we -- it's not done yet. These feel like very small inconsistencies and reasonable ones that someone might forget or who's in the room. I'm also curious from the lawyers. This trial is going to go on for, let's say, six weeks. And I'm sure from your experience, it ebbs and flows.

Yes, the jurors take notes. But once you get to week five or six. Once you've seen Michael Cohen testify or Stormy Daniels testify. I just wonder whether these small inconsistencies fade into the background.

BASH: You know, I was thinking the same thing. It does feel a little small ball when you think about the whole thing and the totality. And by the time you get to the end, it's going to look even smaller than the rearview mirror or is it about building the full.

SCHULTZ: The little inconsistencies are small ball, but what they're doing is hammering again and again, again, this nonprofit agreement, and they're going to say that David Pecker was trying to save his own skin.

BASH: I'm just going to call it the nonprofit agreement because it sounds --

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: You sound so poor. And you just play one on TV. We're going to take a quick break. Coming up. We are looking ahead to the next phase of this trial as David Pecker's testimony draws to a close. We're going to go inside the strategy for the defense team and the prosecutors. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SANCHEZ: Welcome back to our special live coverage of Donald Trump's hush money trial. Former tabloid executive David Pecker is on the stand right now. As defense attorneys appear to be nearing the end of their cross examination.

And as this goes down, we have CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid with us, as well as retired New York Supreme Court Judge Diane Kiesel. Thank you both for being with us. Paula, a tenant of a successful cross examination is undermining the witness's credibility. And much of today, Donald Trump's team has tried to poke holes in David Pecker's testimony from yesterday, right?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: What's interesting about David Pecker is he's not really a witness that you have to destroy on the stand. If you're the defense team here. So, we have -- we have an update here defense -- the defense team is reading from this agreement. This is a non-prosecution agreement between the government and Pecker is saying. So, they're talking about the things that's different from an admission, right.

So, what's happening here is they're drawing attention to this non- prosecution agreement that Pecker and AMI, the company that owned the National Enquirer entered into where they -- you know, they did acknowledge campaign finance violations for paying Karen McDougal to suppress her story.

And so, they're trying to get at the fact that Pecker was under a lot of pressure to close this deal. We're trying to kind of take some of the bite out of this agreement in the eyes of the jury. So that's what they're focused on right now. But throughout the Pecker cross examination, they're not so much trying to undermine his credibility. They have called up some questions about his memory.

Instead, they're trying to poke holes in the prosecution story, noting that it wasn't just the National Enquirer doing this for Trump, right, catching, killing stories, buying unfavorable stories and suppressing them. And they weren't just amplifying bad stories about his opponents like Hillary Clinton to help him. This was just the way business was done at the National Enquirer. So, they've been really focused on undermining the prosecution's case. Not so much going at David Pecker, but we're going to see something different with some other witnesses.

SANCHEZ: Potentially, you see those three dots bubbling on your screen, that means that there's an update coming, so stay tuned for that at any moment. Diane, from your perspective, this effort to talk about the agreement that Pecker struck, and we've actually got an update. Bove noting that Pecker was also accused of a campaign finance violation, asking you certainly did not admit to a campaign finance violation. Pecker saying no from the stand.

What do you make of this effort by the defense and whether it's been effective to sort of say that he had to move forward with this testimony as part of this agreement?

DIANE KIESEL, RETIRED NEW YORK SUPREME COURT JUDGE: You know, it's very hard. If there's any trial in the world that cried out to be televised, this one certainly was. But of course, Judge Merchan is limited by what he's allowed to do under state law. It is very hard for us to be able to ascertain what is Pecker like when he's on the stand. When he answers these questions. When he says no. Is he saying it forth -- in a forthcoming manner? Is he being furtive about it? All of that is so important when trying to judge his credibility.

SANCHEZ: It's very tough, especially when we're giving these updates. Bove noting that Pecker was not part of the AMI conciliation agreement with the FEC. As Pecker no longer worked at the company. Some of this boils down to a question of the intent. And Pecker's ability to make deals -- business deals right, as he was being potentially prosecuted. How does that play into this pool?

[12:20:00]

REID: So, really taking this back big picture, we're a little in the weeds right now in terms of the actual case itself. The reason David Pecker is significant is because he's laying out a pattern and effort to suppress negative stories about candidate Trump to help them get back in the White House. Story from a doorman, who falsely accused with of having a child out of wedlock.

Karen McDougal, who allegedly had an affair with him, suppressing those stories. Until we hear is about a woman named Stormy Daniels. And he says, I want nothing to do with that. And there are a lot of reasons. But then he hands that off to Michael Cohen. So, he is really a polygamist that the prologue to the story because at the heart of the criminal case here, right.

So, now the defendant's attorney is noting that David Pecker provided a signed declaration that stated that he sought legal advice related to the Karen McDougal that that payment I was just talking about to suppress her story. And he's asked her lawyers relied on a sworn declaration to argue to the FTC -- FEC that there wasn't a violation. He says, yes.

Now this is significant because when he was buying Karen McDougal story, he consulted -- Pecker consulted with lawyers and said, hey, is this a campaign finance violation? Are we going to be in trouble? And he's testified today -- here that they've said no, you will not. But this is not the criminal conduct that is charged, right?

This is setting the stage for Michael Cohen to learn Stormy Daniels is selling her story at a critical time in the campaign. Access Hollywood tape has just come out. And then the way that payment is handled and reimbursed. They are charged with a campaign finance violation. So right now, getting into the weeds of David Pecker's non-prosecution agreement, it's not necessarily going to make or break the case. But it is an important detail to get across to the jury.

SANCHEZ: It's largely table setting.

KIESEL: Right. But it's important to know, everything that a lawyer does in a trial is a setup for summation. So, they've got a raise all of these little points and they may seem insignificant now, but a good lawyer is going to get up there in summation and wrap them all up. SANCHEZ: We also have an update now. Donald Trump apparently is sitting back in his chair slightly turned toward Pecker and appearing to watch him. We're obviously monitoring what the former president is doing in court because every little thing is a signal as to how he feels about the proceedings as to how his attorneys might approach the proceedings. I'm wondering how that weighs on the jury, his movements, and your experience.

KIESEL: They are watching him like -- you know, like a cat watches a little hole for a mouse -- they are -- look, they don't take their eyes off them. Jurors do two things. They look at the defendant. They of course, look at the witness, but they also look at the judge which is what makes being a judge. They're difficult because you can't -- your faith has to be a complete blank slate. They want to know how everything is being reacted to.

SANCHEZ: Standby because we're going to take a quick break. Coming up shortly. Stormy Daniels, Hope Hicks, Michael Cohen, they are all expected to take the witness stand. The question is who's coming up after David Pecker. We're going to bring you the latest from inside the courtroom. Stay with CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: Welcome back. David Pecker is on the stands right now. Cross examination of the former tabloid executive has now ended. Prosecutors are starting their chance to redirect. Back here with our panel. Kaitlan, we know that Steinglass who is part of the prosecution -- team Joshua Steinglass is asking about the campaign lawyer who was consulted about the MacDougal deal. Pecker says, he never spoke directly with the attorney.

When we learned that Pecker was -- when he revealed that he talked to an attorney about this deal. Some of our colleagues thought that it was very noteworthy that he discussed this deal with Karen McDougal with lawyers.

COLLINS: Well, an important moment just happened where it was actually -- it would be a win for the prosecution. I should note. And this is the prosecutor right now asking David Pecker, if he told the AMI, the company general counsel about the arrangement that he had made with Trump at that meeting between Michael Cohen, David pecker, and Donald Trump.

And Pecker says that outside counsel was asked to review the Karen McDougal contract, talking about who had eyes on this. But an important moment just happened when he was being cross examined where Trump's attorney was trying to say that his attorney David Pecker's once said years ago was all this was playing out. That David Pecker never agreed to suppress stories of Donald Trump's behalf at that August 2015 meeting that is really the center of all this. David Pecker clarified, no, we never agreed to buy all of them. But as we know, David Pecker has testified. They did offer to serve as the eyes and ears. That doesn't necessarily mean they were buying every single negative story that came their way. But as we do know, at least two of them.

BASH: So, what does that mean? Is this again, just another attempt to chip away at his credibility? Is it as simple as that?

HONIG: So now the prosecution is --

BASH: Right, that was across.

(CROSSTALK)

HONIG: Right. And the point -- the point that they're driving right now is there is a dividing line in the history between AMI and Donald Trump. Before this famous August 2015 meeting, they were involved together. They were putting out hit pieces, stories that were harmful to political opponents of Donald Trump.

But in August 2015, now Trump's running for office. He announced two months prior. Now it shifts and this is the meeting that we've heard about the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting. Cohen is there. Trump is there. Pecker is there. We believe (inaudible) was there. There are some potential inconsistencies. And then they said, OK, now we're going into campaign mode, and that's a really important piece of testimony for the prosecution.