Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Now: Prosecution Begins Redirect Of David Pecker; Pecker Admits He Killed Stories To Influence The 2016 Election. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired April 26, 2024 - 12:30   ET

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

[12:30:00]

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: 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 Hope Hicks was there. There's some potential inconsistency. And then they said, OK, now we're going into campaign mode, and that's a really important piece of testimony for the prosecution. So they're trying to bring that fact back to the jury's attention. This shifted from a sort of all-purpose protect Trump's interests to now protect his interest because now he's entering the political fray.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And to be --

DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: And do it for that reason.

WILLIAMS: Yes. Yes. And to pull back a little bit, the point of redirect isn't just to have another crack at the witness. It's to clean up --

BASH: To clean up.

WILLIAMS: -- something that went wrong, for lack of a better way to put it, during the cross examination. What they want to leave the jury with when the witness is done is the word campaign, the idea that there was a direct next to the campaign.

BASH: And Jim Steinglass is seeking to infer that the election law attorney reviewed the McDougal agreement without the context of Pecker's agreement to buy stories to benefit Trump's campaign. Can you take that from the way it's described here and what's going on there and put it into basic layman's terms?

JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: So I think what they're trying to establish here is that the, you know, that the election law attorney didn't -- you know, this agreement had nothing to do with kind of the --

BASH: The campaign.

SCHULTZ: -- the campaign part, right? That there was this shift, right? And I think they're trying to look at it from the McDougal and then distinguish that from, Ms. Clifford. BASH: And just another update, Elie, Steinglass has Pecker reconfirm that the purposes of the contract with McDougal was to acquire her life rights and to suppress her story to influence the election. It's that last part, those last three words to influence -- or words, to influence the election is the crux of what the prosecution is trying to do here.

HONIG: That in a sentence is what the prosecution wants the jury to take out of David Pecker's testimony. That this was an intentional effort to buy stories, to bury them for the campaign. And I see now we're getting an update. Pecker confirms, yes, saying the provisions about McDougal writing articles and appearing on covers were, quote, this is important.

Included in the contract as a disguise --

BASH: Wow.

HONIG: -- trying to disguise the campaign motive by making it look like she has a modeling contract and she's going to write for us.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Also as a sweetener for Karen McDougal.

HONIG: Yes.

COLLINS: It was something to offer her who was -- she was focused at this time on restarting her career. And so that's also part of this. And David Pecker is saying he never told the AMI general counsel that the true purpose of the deal was to influence the election. But that doesn't mean -- you know, he made very clear how he is trying to keep all of this very small circle.

He had a separate email that his assistant didn't use. He spoke to the editor-in-chief of the National Enquirer, David Howard, and made clear to him -- sorry, Dylan Howard, that they wanted to keep all of this small circle and highly confidential. That's important here.

And David Pecker also said that he never told the attorney that he planned to transfer the rights to Michael Cohen, who pledged to reimburse him. That's also a key part of this, because that was a big fight that they had, where he was worried Michael Cohen wasn't going to pay him the money that he was paying to Karen McDougal.

BASH: Jim?

SCHULTZ: This really shows that it was an obfuscation effort, right? That's what they're trying to show here. That they -- that this was -- they was trying to obfuscate it with the internal lawyers, to the -- to Karen McDougal, to everyone involved trying to keep it as closely held as possible, that the reason that David Pecker was doing it, was to help Donald Trump's campaign.

BASH: Yes. I mean, which is in a nutshell, the entire point and the -- that whole premise, the hypothesis --

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. BASH: -- is what Trump's attorneys are trying to chip away and it's part of the allegations, the charges against Donald Trump.

GANGEL: So I took two things away from this. When I first saw the testimony, I thought, well, he's not reaching. You don't want to create a reach. But, you know, following up on what Jim said, it also says, we know that he was worried about campaign finance and triggering that.

COLLINS: He researched it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

GANGEL: And he researched it. So by keeping it a small circle, by keeping it away from the lawyer, nobody knew about that.

COLLINS: And Kristen, the update from in the courtroom now is that Pecker also said he never told the attorney that he planned to transfer the rights to Michael Cohen, who pledged to reimburse him.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. So isn't this also undermining the fact that, I mean, Pecker has said he had a lawyer look at this and say it was fine, but if you don't give the lawyer all of the information, then how can it be fine? I mean, I feel like that's really like the bottom line here.

BASH: And just putting a little bit more meat on the bones, reviewing records on the stand, Pecker says the election law attorney billed AMI for 30 minutes of work -- it's not a lot of work -- reviewing the McDougal contract. I won't ask what 30 minutes of work is for you guys.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He didn't cut his bills at least.

[12:35:01]

COLLINS: It wasn't that what the defense was trying to get at by saying that David Pecker told Michael Cohen this agreement was bulletproof. But actually, just because an attorney said that, the attorney didn't know that it had an election purpose driving it.

WILLIAMS: Absolutely. And so -- so there's a few things happening here. Number one, you're pulling out the election purpose. Number two, in the absence of a direct conversation or a direct quote where Donald Trump says, please do this to cover up a campaign. Something they can try to get in is, number one, knowledge that this touches campaigns, but number two, that they know they're doing something wrong and are trying to cover their tracks.

Knowledge of criminality and attempts to hide are valuable --

HOLMES: And 30 minutes --

BASH: Not even telling his own attorney.

WILLIAMS: His own attorney. HOLMES: And 30 minutes is the standard work to review the wording in a contract, not to go through an entire background of story. I mean, ironclad, bulletproof. Again, if you go to the hospital and you don't disclose what your issues are and you die, then you cannot sue because you haven't disclosed what your medical issues are.

COLLINS: Can we also be very clear here that they were trying -- as David Pecker himself has testified, to cover something up, to suppress a negative story, you're not just going to write down your crimes in a contract and put them on paper and say, by the way, can you please sign this?

There -- the whole point of this is that it was a cover up --

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: You wouldn't write it in a contracts, but the fact that he --

HOLMES: Didn't tell you're aware.

BASH: -- he is saying he didn't tell his own attorney.

HOLMES: So the lawyer said it was bulletproof based on the information that the lawyer was given not based on the actual testimony information that surrounded the event.

COLLINS: It's exactly what Donald Trump is on trial for, though --

HOLMES: Right. Yes.

COLLINS: -- because he put in the letter that Michael Cohen did legal work when actually it was the allegation that Michael Cohen was paying money to a porn star. It's the exact same thing. They're just trying to say --

BASH: You know, Donald Trump doesn't have immunity.

SCHULTZ: I think you need to segregate the two. The cover up that they're talking about here is the cover up at AMI, the cover up for Pecker, right? It's much different than what we're talking about in the business records case.

So what this all goes to is that Packer himself thought that this was a problem that he was unlawfully helping the campaign. That doesn't necessarily equate to Donald Trump knowing that Pecker was unlawfully helping campaign or gave directive to it. And I think this is all going to hinge on the one guy that can put all that together is Cohen.

BASH: Update from the courtroom. The prosecutor noted that the contract that the outside counsel reviewed had no details about Cohen, the campaign, or Trump. Now, our reporters there say every juror is watching Steinglass as he's asking questions. Elie?

HONIG: So Jim's exactly right. This doesn't necessarily establish that Donald Trump was engaged in a crime, but it does establish that that Pecker was involved in a crime. And then, as Jim said, they're going to have to link that to Donald Trump.

And also, this is very much of a Trump world, AMI world --

SCHULTZ: Yes.

HONIG: -- way of handling lawyers, using them as useful dupes. And the thing that came to my mind was -- I mean, Kaitlan, you're reporting from Mar-a-Lago on the classified documents case, what they did with Evan Corcoran, the lawyer who has now left the team, is they gave him very careful information, but they withheld other information for him.

He, in turn, unknowingly, made incomplete representations to the FBI. That's why there's a DOJ --

COLLINS: There's Christina Bobb.

HONIG: Christina Bobb and Evan Corcoran, yes.

COLLINS: Who just was indicted in Arizona. She signed it. But she made clear in that to say, to the best of my knowledge.

HONIG: Right.

COLLINS: Because as attorneys around Donald Trump know --

BASH: You know that.

HONIG: They know.

COLLINS: -- don't always know everything.

BASH: All right, we're going to sneak in a quick break.

Coming up, more from inside the courtroom as prosecutors get one last chance to question David Pecker.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:42:57]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Donald Trump's hush money trial is picking up steam here in Manhattan as the prosecution is now going through its redirect examination of David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer.

Our panel is back with us now. And Paula, there are signs that the prosecution is moving through this redirect pretty quickly.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, they're already talking about AMI's non prosecution agreement, and remember that came pretty late in the cross examination. So this is something that could wrap up, wrap up pretty soon, which raises the question of, all right, will we hear another witness and who will it be?

SANCHEZ: Judge, what do you think of how quickly this potentially is moving, the redirect? DIANE KIESEL, RETIRED NEW YORK SUPREME COURT JUDGE: I think it's amazing. Well, the redirect -- are you talking trial in general or just the redirect?

SANCHEZ: Of David Pecker.

KIESEL: The redirect is -- Steinglass is doing exactly what he should be doing. Moving in, hitting all the most important points, and hopefully sitting down. You don't want to prolong this. You just want to be sure you've plugged the holes.

SANCHEZ: We did get an update a moment ago. Pecker apparently responding yes to a question from prosecutor Joshua Steinglass. That previous question about whether AMI admitted to violating federal campaign election law. They're moving to this the FEC agreement. A minor, but important part of Pecker's testimony.

REID: Yes, this is something that we've gone over a few times, AMI and David Pecker entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the Justice Department. And on cross examination, I think they were trying to muddy the waters on whether Pecker had actually admitted a campaign finance violation. We have another update.

Now, the prosecutor is revisiting that the McDougal agreement and Pecker -- the McDougal agreement and that Pecker only agreed to enter into it because Cohen promised to reimburse him. So this goes back to the fact that they -- the National Enquirer paid Karen McDougal $150,000 to buy her story, which of course they never published. This is the story of an alleged affair with then candidate Trump.

Pecker expected to get paid back. He was not. Now, we have another update from our colleagues inside the court saying they had drawn up a transfer agreement and you went so far as to sign it.

[12:45:05]

Now Pecker says after speaking with the general counsel, he called up Michael Cohen and told him that the deal was off and to rip up the agreement. So they're going through what happened after Pecker paid Karen McDougal.

SANCHEZ: All of this again, just table setting for the explanation of why this relationship between Trump and Pecker was so important for the prosecution to prove that this was in their eyes a campaign, an attempt to sway the 2016 campaign.

Let's take a look at this update. Steinglass apparently has returned to the Sajudin source agreement, and he recalls that Bove had Pecker testify that this was a standard source agreement. This is in regard to that doorman that allegedly had information about an illegitimate child that Donald Trump purportedly had.

There's another update now, or rather -- yes, Steinglass is bringing up the agreement to the amendment to the agreement, which changed the length of the agreement from 90 days to in perpetuity.

Judge, back to my previous question, all of this, just table setting, that we really haven't talked about Stormy Daniels all that much.

KIESEL: Right.

SANCHEZ: And she's key to the prosecution proving criminality in this case.

KIESEL: Right.

SANCHEZ: How do you think this first week of testimony is gone for David Pecker so far?

KIESEL: Well, so far, David Pecker has done what the district attorney, it seems to me, hoped he would do, which is set the scene, but also to make sure that the jury understands that this was an agreement designed to protect Donald Trump.

And I think all of this testimony about, well, you did this for other celebrities too. Well, you know, so what? You don't -- whatever their motivation was for entering into this agreement is not an issue here. The issue is, what was Donald Trump's motivation for entering this agreement? And the people of the state of New York maintained it was to protect him so he could get elected president. Whether they can prove that, is another question.

SANCHEZ: We have another update now. Steinglass is asking if it is standard operating procedure for AMI to consult a lawyer, for a presidential candidate about a source agreement, Pecker answering no to that. We haven't seen in this redirect, the prosecution talk about the distinction between some of those other celebrities, Arnold Schwarzenegger, I think Mark Wahlberg was another one.

REID: Yes.

SANCHEZ: And Donald Trump, who was running for president, who in August of 2015 had this meeting that Pecker testified about, basically saying, hey this would be a great arrangement between the three of us.

REID: Well, what Steinglass is trying to do here is undercut what the defense was trying to do on cross, which was established. This wasn't just a Trump thing that you did to help him get in the White House. You did this for a lot of people. This is the way you do business.

Now prosecutors going back at that saying, hey, this is the way you do business, right? Is it standing -- standard operating procedure to consult a lawyer? So they're trying to show that this was different. Now, the prosecutor is now seeking to tie Cohen to Trump's campaign, because there was a time when Pecker testified that he didn't really see Michael Cohen as part of the Trump campaign.

SANCHEZ: Right.

REID: But, again, it was -- they have laid the foundation, the prosecutors, that there was a meeting to help Trump get into the White House and that this was done for the campaign. Pecker confirms that Cohen was known to work his media contacts for the campaign. While Michael Cohen may not have officially had a campaign title, it is very hard, given his close, consigliere relationship, personal attorney relationship, to Trump to really separate him from candidate Trump at that time.

And he was the go between, right --

SANCHEZ: Right.

REID: -- between Trump and Pecker to facilitate these payments. But that's why prosecutors are going back and they're like, wait a second, you said you didn't associate Cohen with the campaign, but come on, that's what they're doing right now.

SANCHEZ: Yes. Cohen, who referred to himself as Donald Trump's fixer at one point, the two of them obviously were close. One of the outstanding questions now is when we might see Michael Cohen testify. An outstanding question as we go back to Washington, D.C. and Dana Bash.

BASH: Boris, thank you so much.

And what we're hearing from our colleagues inside the courtroom right now is Pecker confirms that Cohen was known to work his media contacts for the campaign. My professional one word answer to that, Kaitlan Collins, is duh.

COLLINS: Yes. I mean, no surprise whatsoever.

BASH: Can confirm is another answer.

COLLINS: I think it's because you -- there was -- they were trying to draw some distance between Michael Cohen and the inner workings of the campaign. What the prosecution is doing now is getting David Pecker to clarify, yes, Michael Cohen was seen as in the Trump campaign.

BASH: Right.

COLLINS: He was not on the payroll, never officially. But as anyone who covered the Trump campaign at that time knows very well, when something went wrong, or they didn't like how you reported something, it wasn't unusual to get a call from Michael Cohen.

And that's what David Pecker saying -- is saying here, that essentially Michael Cohen went on TV and defended the campaign. He was on CNN multiple times and other networks and that he was essentially seen as this arm of the campaign. There was not a real distinction between his legal work and the campaign.

BASH: And I should say in many moments, much to the chagrin of Corey Lewandowski, who was the campaign manager back there and others. There was not -- there was some tension about Michael Cohen being involved in the campaign in those early days in 2016, but he was.

[12:50:10] And the question is, why and how is this relevant to the underlying prosecution argument? Steinglass asks Pecker, if Cohen was part of the 2015 agreement, he and Trump had for his company to help the campaign, yes, he was. That answers the question.

They're using Cohen as part of the campaign to, once again, tie, use another thread to tie this issue back to the campaign. Right now, Steinglass asked, quote, "In this case, did you suppress stories to help a presidential candidate?" Pecker says, "Yes."

COLLINS: I'm sensing a thing --

WILLIAMS: Final question.

BASH: That's -- and that's a headline.

GANGEL: Right.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

GANGEL: That's -- and, you know, that's exactly where they're going to. Jim talked earlier about how do you tie Donald Trump into all of this and we have not seen everything yet. But I think it's worth just reminding everybody that David Pecker paid this money for two of the stories.

He expected to get paid back by Donald Trump. It did not happen. And that was the line. I am not the bank or somebody -- I mean, so there is a context here, certainly, and a setting that Donald Trump know about these, that this had a history.

BASH: And if one of you three was in there, and you, and you heard him say yes, do you say, Your Honor, no further questions, that's it.

WILLIAMS: No further questions. We are out of there right now.

COLLINS: But no, actually, I --

WILLIAMS: It's still going.

COLLINS: There's an update coming that I think will show why they are continuing to ask questions --

WILLIAMS: OK.

COLLINS: -- to David Pecker about what --

BASH: So don't get out of your seat on that.

WILLIAMS: This is a tease.

BASH: Yes.

WILLIAMS: I won't say --

BASH: Keep talking while those three dots. WILLIAMS: What I like about no further questions there is that he's in effect making a legal conclusion. OK.

COLLINS: OK, there he is.

BASH: Forgive me, Elliot. Steinglass asks Pecker if he ever spent close to $150,000 for a story linked to Arnold Schwarzenegger when AMI suppressed stories about him. No.

WILLIAMS: So --

BASH: That means is Arnold Schwarzenegger was at that time. Yes, he was a candidate, but in this particular case, not running for president.

WILLIAMS: Right. It's in effect a legal conclusion. They -- what he is saying here is that this operation paid money to suppress stories on behalf of the Trump campaign. That's the argument they're trying to make.

GANGEL: And big money.

WILLIAMS: Big money.

BASH: Big money.

GANGEL: Not the kind of money --

WILLIAMS: And --

GANGEL: -- that was typical for them. Not the kind of money even in other cases.

WILLIAMS: And it's also important -- I'm sorry Jamie -- it's also important that it came out of the last line of questioning, trying to understand what Michael Cohen's role was, because these people didn't have official campaign titles. They had to establish that they were connected to the campaign and made the decision.

HOLMES: Right, that he wasn't a rogue actor.

WILLIAMS: Right.

HOLMES: He wasn't just doing this on his own because he loved Donald Trump, which is what we've obviously seen them trying to paint him as somebody who would do anything for Donald Trump. This could -- you know, he would have gone out there, but tying him to the meeting, tying him to Pecker, all of these conversations in relation to the campaign, that shows that he didn't just do that on his own or is that what they're trying to show.

BASH: Forgive me. I'm sorry, Kristen. If you were -- you are a former Trump attorney. If you were at the defense table right now, would you be concerned about what's happening?

SCHULTZ: Sure. Right. This is a good narrative for them. This is their best narrative. $150,000 --

BASH: That's narrative for the prosecution.

SCHULTZ: Yes. $150,000 paid for by AMI. You know, is that an illegal corporate contribution to the campaign? That's the fundamental question here. What did the campaign coordinate with it? That's another question that goes to the campaign finance issue there.

We're going to hear more about that from Michael Cohen. And I -- and if, again, if Michael Cohen's really the only one that ties all this together, he's got a lot of issues. I'm anxious to see what else they use other than Michael Cohen.

WILLIAMS: But the other thing is you let this go if you're the defense. Just don't fight it. Don't object. Don't -- because they knew this was coming. This is the central part of the prosecution's case.

BASH: You would let it, Jim?

SCHULTZ: 100 percent.

WILLIAMS: Yes, I mean, you know, don't -- because I think the more you kick and scream about it, the more you draw the jury's attention to it. They have other ways they can attack the credibility and the memory --

BASH: It goes back to what you were saying about small ball at the end of the day.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

GANGEL: It's just there were these little inconsistencies.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

GANGEL: Michael Cohen is coming. We don't know what else is coming. I mean, let's just remember that Lanny Davis, who was Michael Cohen's lawyer, has said that this case does not, quote, "rise and fall" on Michael Cohen's testimony, that there is other evidence, but we haven't seen it yet.

HONIG: Prosecutors are trying to answer the question for the jury, why was the Donald Trump situation different from the Arnold Schwarzenegger or Mark Wahlberg situation. And the reason is the amount of money and the timing and circumstances around the campaign. Another --

COLLINS: And the person who it was for.

[12:55:00]

HONIG: And the person who it was for, exactly. But what the prosecution does not want to happen is the jury to go, I don't know, they did this for everyone. All sorts of famous people are engaged in this stuff. What's the difference? This is their attempt to answer that question, what's the difference? The other thing to keep an eye out for is we're coming up on lunchtime, you -- seriously, jurors care about their lunch.

BASH: Yes.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

HONIG: And so I think prosecutors are aiming to wrap, so do I. Sure.

BASH: Yes. Thank you, Kaitlan, for ordering us lunch.

The prosecutor confirms Pecker's earlier testimony that because he was friends with Trump, he didn't run negative stories about him even before the campaign. We are continuing to monitor all of this news coming out from this testimony that continues from David Pecker.

And this note to our viewers, se sure to watch Kaitlan Collins again tonight at 9:00 p.m. Eastern on her program, The Source. Kaitlan's guest is former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr. I am excited for that.

COLLINS: A lot to ask him about.

BASH: Yes, you think?

Coming up, more special coverage as this prosecution gets their final shot at questioning tabloid king David Pecker. And we stand by to see who takes the witness stand next. New details from inside the courtroom are coming up every single second.

Look for those three dots. They'll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)