Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Pecker Admits He Killed Stories "To Help A Presidential Candidate"; How Americans View Criminal Prosecution Of Donald Trump. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired April 26, 2024 - 13:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:00:53]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: And welcome to CNN's breaking news coverage of the historic Donald Trump hush money trial. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. And Boris Sanchez is outside the courthouse in Manhattan. On this day eight of the trial, the first witness is nearing the end of his testimony. David Pecker is facing redirect by the prosecution after several hours of cross examination by Trump's defense attorney. Much of that cross detailed the former tabloid executive's history of purchasing stories so that he could bury them. Boris?

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: And right now, Wolf, the court is taking a break for lunch. The judge instructing the jury, as he always does, to not discuss the case outside of the courtroom. Day eight, the first witness testimony, as you said, Wolf, nearing the end, the defense trying to highlight apparent discrepancies in David Pecker's testimony. They included what was said during a 2017 White House meeting between Donald Trump and the former publisher of the National Enquirer. You saw that image there of Pecker at the White House.

We have CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid with us. Paula, so far, the center of Pecker's testimony has been his personal relationship with Donald Trump.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. The question of whether he used that personal relationship to suppress stories to help Trump get elected, the reason prosecutors chose David Pecker as their first witness, it doesn't really speak to the accusations at the heart of the criminal charges here, but it sets the stage for the idea that there was a concerted effort that Michael Cohen and then candidate Trump were involved in to suppress negative stories.

And so David Pecker was questioned about that by prosecutors. Then Trump's lawyers got a crack at him a little bit yesterday and then mostly today. And they had a few goals. The primary one, though, was to establish that this wasn't something special that they did just to help Trump get the White House in 2016, that this was business as usual, that they suppressed stories for Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mark Wahlberg, so that was a big focus of their cross examination.

The prosecutors are up now. They're trying to do a little bit of repair there, pointing out that, OK, you did this for other people, but did you pay $150,000 for an Arnold Schwarzenegger story the same way you paid Karen McDougal to suppress her story about an alleged affair? Well, no, we didn't. So they're trying to repair some of the damage to the case that may or may not have been done when the defense was asking David Pecker questions.

SANCHEZ: Let's walk through some of those inconsistencies that we mentioned a moment ago. There was a moment where they basically asked David Pecker if his memory was ok, right?

REID: Yes, because there's been details here and there that he has not gotten exactly right. But we're also talking about meetings, things that happened over a decade ago. So that is certainly something that you want to do with the defense to plant the seeds of maybe doubt about some of the things that he said. But then there were more significant issues that they had to resolve in terms of things that he said during an FBI interview and how that was different than what he said on the stand and explaining that out.

SANCHEZ: Let's talk about the defense team's questioning of Pecker regarding his agreement with the FEC, because we got really into the weeds. If you were watching earlier, you saw, we got really into the weeds about the details of this agreement. What was the defense trying to do there by bringing that up?

REID: So this has come up a few times that AMI, the company that owned the National Enquirer, and David Packer had what is called a non- prosecution agreement with the Justice Department, where they effectively admitted that they committed campaign finance violations by paying, for example, Karen McDougal $150,000 to suppress her story. And there's a little bit of a semantic game.

Well, you know, you weren't exactly charged, but you did admit it. So the district attorney, or excuse me, the defense attorneys were trying to establish that Pecker was doing this only because they argued that he was under business pressure. There were business transactions that had to go through and that he had to get the FBI investigation out of the way before he could do that.

They were trying to sew seas of doubt in the minds of the jurors about why AMI and David Pecker would have said something was a campaign finance violation. But when they had a chance to go back at him, prosecutors revisited that and had him, you know, confirm that, yes, you did admit that this was a campaign finance violation. And, oh, by the way, you even consulted lawyers who you didn't give the full story to about whether this was a campaign finance violation because you knew something may not be in the up and up.

[13:05:18]

SANCHEZ: They asked him even if at one point he fronted $150,000 for Arnold Schwarzenegger, trying to compare that scene, a celebrity trying to catch and kill a story through the National Enquirer, to former President Donald Trump in the heat of the 2016 campaign. Zooming out, Paula, the next witness will be who? REID: OK, so this is a big reporting project because right now we don't know. And that drives us crazy as reporters. This courthouse is crawling with the reporters and cameras. And so far, we haven't seen a glimpse of anyone. We don't know. They're not sharing who the next witness is. But if you're looking at the timeline of the way the prosecutors are presenting their case, there are some possibilities.

One, you could call Karen McDougal if you wanted to. It seems unlikely for a lot of reasons that they will even need to do that. She doesn't really -- she's not relevant to the heart of the charges, which are about money paid to Stormy Daniels. You could also call Kellyanne Conway. She was, of course, the head of the Trump campaign at that time. And the reason her testimony would be significant is to talk about the Access Hollywood tape when it came out, very close to the election, the impact it had on the campaign, the pressure they were under, particularly when it came to stories about Trump's sex life, the incentive to maybe suppress those, that would be relevant to setting up the Stormy Daniels payment. So she's a possible witness they could call next.

Hope Hicks, also a possibility, again, intimately involved with the campaign and involved in conversations with Michael Cohen and David Pecker about these hush money payments. So we haven't gotten to the real heart of the case yet. But as they walk through and set it up, these are two possibilities. They could also call someone that none of us have ever heard of to talk about paperwork, because at the end of the day, we got sex, we got politics. But really, Boris, this is a paperwork case.

SANCHEZ: Notable that the prosecution hasn't shared their plans for witnesses with the defense, in part because they're afraid that the former president is going to start posting on social media about them. We're still waiting for a decision on a gag order. Still a lot more to discuss. Paula, thanks for breaking that down for us. We'll send it back to Wolf.

BLITZER: Boris, we're going to have a busy afternoon, there's no doubt about that. At the same time, there's some brand new CNN polling and is showing us how Americans view the ongoing hush money trial and various other legal cases involving the former President Donald Trump. CNN political director David Chalian is joining us right now. He's over at the magic wall. David, what do voters think of the treatment of Trump in this hush money trial, and how do they see his behavior?

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Yes, Wolf, we are getting sort of a little insight into how Americans are perceiving what's going on in Manhattan. First of all, take a look at this. We asked voters in our brand new poll by SSRS, how is Trump being treated in the New York hush money trial? About a third, 34 percent say he's being treated more leniently than others would be. About roughly the same here, 34 percent say he's being treated more harshly than others. It -- doesn't that an American politics right now.

And this is interesting, Wolf, only 13 percent say that he is being treated like any other criminal defendant. Not many Americans believe he is being treated that way. You asked about his behavior. You know, this is the subject of the whole issue of the gag order and whether or not Donald Trump's been violating it. And obviously, Judge Merchan is yet to rule on that, 42 percent of Americans in our poll, Wolf, say Donald Trump's behavior during this hush money trial thus far, inappropriate, that's the plurality, 25 percent say appropriate, 32 percent no opinion on that. Wolf?

BLITZER: Very interesting numbers indeed. All right, David, standby. We'll get back to you. But let me ask you one quick question before I let you go. How confident are voters that Trump will receive a fair trial?

CHALIAN: Yes. So we did ask, are you confident that he'll receive a fair verdict? Can he get a fair verdict in this? Seven percent very confident, 36 percent somewhat confident. But clearly you see that the majority, 33 percent not too confident, 23 percent not confident at all, 56, if you add that up, the majority do not have confidence in whether or not he will get a fair trial.

And by the way, this hush money trial, 28 percent of Americans say if indeed these charges are true, it disqualify him from the presidency, 28 percent say cast doubts but not disqualifying. But 45 percent, Wolf, and this is now something we've seen on the rise say even if these charges are true, it's not relevant to his fitness for office.

BLITZER: Very interesting numbers indeed. What else jumps out to you from these new poll numbers that we're getting?

CHALIAN: Well, I would just say here we asked if indeed Trump is convicted of a crime, of any crime, not just in this hush money trial, would you still support him? So we asked this of Trump supporters, 76 percent, three quarters of Trump supporters in this poll, they're sticking with him even if he's a convicted criminal, 24 percent of Trump supporters in this poll say if he's convicted, Wolf, they might reconsider.

[13:10:06]

But I want to show you the difference in these Trump supporters, those that might reconsider versus those that are with him no matter what. Those that are with him no matter what, that's the Trump base as you know it to be. Those that might reconsider, that 24 percent, they're younger, half of them are people of color. Two thirds of them say Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 election. They're moderates. They're independents. These are the softer supporters. These are exactly the kinds of voters Joe Biden's looking to strengthen his support with as part of his coalition. And they're the ones that say if he's convicted, they might reconsider their support. Wolf?

BLITZER: Very interesting number. Significant numbers indeed. David Chalian, thank you very, very much.

CHALIAN: Sure.

BLITZER: Just ahead, we'll have much more of our special coverage of the historic hush money trial of Donald Trump. That's coming up. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:15:26]

SANCHEZ: We're following the latest in the criminal hush money trial of former President Donald Trump. And in the next hour, testimony is set to resume from former tabloid executive, David Pecker. That's coming up at roughly 2:15 p.m. So you want to stay tuned for that. But right now, we want to go to CNN's Kara Scannell, who was in court for this morning's cross examination and then the redirect examination. Kara, take us through what you saw.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Boris. So Trump's attorney started their recross or their cross examination today, continuing theme that they had yesterday, trying to say that a lot of what David Pecker and the National Enquirer was doing was, as he put it, standard operating procedure. He went through a number of the news articles that the Enquirer had published of Trump's political opponents, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, and Pecker agreed that they would have run these stories even if he didn't have that deal with the former president that was struck in August 2015 at Trump Tower to catch and kill any negative stories, as well as to publish negative stories about his political opponents.

He also tried to catch David Pecker in some inconsistencies in his testimony. David Pecker has been cooperating with prosecutors, both federal prosecutors and the district attorney's office for several years now. And so they were focusing on, remember the testimony about a January 2017 meeting at Trump Tower that David Pecker walked into while Donald Trump was finishing up a meeting with some -- with then FBI director, James Comey and others. And during this meeting is when David Pecker testified that there was -- that he had a conversation with Donald Trump and Donald Trump thanked him for taking care of the doorman story and the Karen McDougal story.

So Donald Trump's attorneys pressed him on notes from a previous interview had given with investigators. And in that interview notes, he said, according to the FBI's notes, that David Pecker told them that Donald Trump did not express any gratitude. Well, David Pecker dug in on that today, saying that the FBI notes were wrong and that his testimony over the past few days is the correct accurate testimony.

So a lot of back and forth over different inconsistencies in certain agreements and trying to get David Pecker off his feet. Now, we did see during the testimony of cross examination. David Pecker, some of his answers were very quiet. One answer was so quiet, it was barely audible in the courtroom. When the prosecutors began their redirect of him to try to address some of the issues that the cross examination raised, David Pecker began to grow more confident again. He was again turning to look toward the jury as he was answering those questions.

And prosecutors focus on the redirect was that David Pecker would not have done some of these things, but for the deal, he would not have entered into the agreement to pay $150,000 to Karen McDougal without the understanding that Donald Trump would have reimbursed him for it. He would not have ever allowed anybody on behalf of the candidate to get involved with amending some of these catch and kill deals.

So he's trying to reset the table with David Pecker there. That is expected to continue after the lunch break. Prosecutor said they have about less than a half an hour more questions. Trump's attorney said he will have a few more on cross examination and then we'll move on to the next witness in this case, which they've not publicly said who that is yet. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Kara Scannell, live outside the courthouse. Thank you so much. We want to go back to Wolf Blitzer in the nation's capital. Wolf?

BLITZER: All right, Boris, thank you. I want to turn to my panel. Elie Honig, let me start with you. Explain what the prosecution aims to do in this redirect.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So the goal of redirect is to try to minimize or undo any damage done in the cross examination. And just to give, like, a little visual representation, each of these has to get narrower and narrower. Your direct exam is here. Your cross exam has to be within and usually narrower than the direct exam. Then your redirect has to be narrower than and within the cross exam and so on down the line.

I think the main points that prosecutors are trying to reinforce here as we head into redirect are, first of all, this was an intentional, organized operation. It was AMI, National Enquirer, David Pecker working hand in hand with Michael Cohen and Donald Trump and the campaign in order to buy these stories, in order to protect Donald Trump's campaign prospects. That's the bottom line that they're trying to get back at.

BLITZER: Interesting. Elliot Williams is with us as well. Before this redirect, Elliot, what did you make of the defense's cross examination?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think the defense did what they had to do. The point of cross examination is to score as many points as possible against the witness. And the main things here in the absence of a major bombshell that they could extract are, number one, attack the witness's credibility. Do you remember these things that you said you did? And they pointed to a few instances where a statement he'd made didn't quite match a document and they sort of made those.

[13:20:08]

Again, the case won't rise and fall on them, but they can dirty up the witness a little bit. Also, a big thing they focused on were these catch and kill, or at least article schemes that involved individuals other than politicians making the case that, well, not just Donald Trump, but Arnold Schwarzenegger or Mark Wahlberg. Also were parties to arrangements with AMI in which we engaged in the same conduct.

You were accusing us of having committed a crime in doing. So, muddying the waters as to whether these payments were made to affect a campaign. They were made for all sorts of purposes, and that's what they're saying.

CHALIAN: Although, Schwarzenegger, of course, was planning a run for governor of California. So they not call him a politician at that moment, I think it very much was in the ether, that agreement, as part of a potential campaign.

WILLIAMS: It's not as good -- that is not as good an example for them as Marky Mark --

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: The whole point is that, you know, that what Trump's attorneys are saying is that this was standard operating procedure. This is what you did at the Enquirer. And what Steinglass is saying is, you know, he asked the question, do you normally pay people $150,000, you know, like they paid Karen McDougal? And the answer was, no, we don't normally do that. So it wasn't standard operating procedure.

And I think they were, you know, they were trying to make that point that this was different, this was hatched differently. This was intended to help a presidential campaign, and it cost money, bigger money than they were used to paying people.

HONIG: And Trump's attorneys have made a point of trying to argue to the jury, this is all just a big, sleazy business, and why does this become criminal? And the fact that it was done other times and consistently through many years is helpful on the margins but helpful to Donald Trump's team, because then let's imagine the counterfactual. What if they never did this for anybody until Donald Trump came along and then they said, OK, we're going to do this thing. We're going to pay people for their stories. We're going to put out harmful stories? That would be a lot more sinister and a lot easier for the jury to understand why does this cross the line? But, Gloria, you're exactly right. That's the line that prosecutors are trying to define.

BORGER: It's a different level, a different level.

WILLIAMS: But I would also note, that some of the final questions that just got asked a few moments ago were, do you remember an instance in which, number one, someone was paid $150,000 for this type of scheme, and he said no. After meeting with Donald Trump, did you have more of an interest in helping the campaign? Yes. And that's sort of where the prosecution sort of ended with their last round.

BLITZER: You know, David Chalian, a bunch of reporters who are in the courtroom are suggesting today that Trump's energy seems to have been a lot lower today, that he's been sitting back with his eyes closed for a lot of the testimony that was going on. What is that? How do you read that?

CHALIAN: I mean, I think it's got to be pretty grueling to be confined to your chair, sitting there day in and day out in court. It's not a stimulating kind of environment for him. So I can understand why he may be tiring of this process that may explain some of his lower energy. I think we have to be careful about reading too much into this kind of description because, you know, yesterday, I thought was a perfect example. We saw him in the morning, he was very energetic in his comments and taking on Joe Biden. After the long day of court, he was a little lower energy, as I think many people would be at the end of a long day.

I don't know that there's something we can, like, take away from that, Wolf, and say, oh, this is clearly killing him in some way. No, but do I think sitting in that courtroom, and again, so differently for Donald Trump than everything else in his life, this is a man who has dictates his own schedule, is ensconced in this special place of security and a bubble and billionaires and millionaires. This is not somebody who is inclined to have to just be told to sit still in a courtroom with all regular folk, nonstop, all day long.

WILLIAMS: You know, I don't think people realize how boring court is. The air is stale. It's a room in which you can't get up and walk around.

BORGER: It's very cold.

WILLIAMS: You know, the temperature may not be regulated in a way that's comfortable for everybody, but it's not. And in particular this sort of bonfire of the vanities 1980s courtroom is not -- does not come with the trappings of a modern environment. It can be very hard to sit in that environment, particularly if you're not the person who's arguing or speaking.

BORGER: Well, he's no control over it. He can't control thermostat even. He can't control what the judge is going to do. He can't control what's going on the witness stand. He can talk to his lawyers. He can pass some notes. He can't even look at his phone, which I think is very difficult for him. So he's used to being, as David was saying, he's used to being in control of everything and every moment of his day, and he is not in control in that courtroom.

[13:25:04]

HONIG: It seems somebody has had a heart to heart with Donald Trump about his in court conduct, because his out of court conduct has been abominable. He has, I believe, violated the gag order many times over. I think we'll potentially see such a ruling from the judge soon. But all of his conduct in court is exactly what virtually every criminal defendant does. Sometimes you whisper to your attorney, you pass notes, you look at some witnesses. Sometimes there's eye contact, sometimes there's not.

And if I was his lawyer, I would have tried to stress to him, this is all about self-preservation. That jury is looking at you. If you offend that jury, you are going to harm your chances of surviving this trial. If that jury feels like you're being respectful, you're going to marginally, but you're going to increase your chances of getting a good verdict. It seems we're a week in, so we'll see how long this can hold out. But it seems that message has gotten through with respect to his in court, in front of the jury behavior.

CHALIAN: Important caveat that we're a weekend, because --

HONIG: Yes. I'm not vouching for what happens next. CHALIAN: As I'm listening to you, I'm reminded of all the times of teleprompter Trump versus non-teleprompter Trump, and can he really change? And he proves time and again that he doesn't really change. But I take your point. I mean, he is clearly heeding some advice about how not to put his foot in his mouth in front of the jury.

BORGER: You know, when do you get to look at Donald Trump for hours on end? You never do. I mean, the reporters in that courtroom are not used to this either because you look at Donald Trump in sound bites or in an interview or whatever, but you don't look at him for hours. And that's what's going on in that courtroom. And so the journalists are looking for every twitch and saying, oh, is this meaningful? But they're not used to seeing him either like this. Nobody did.

BLITZER: All right, everybody stand by. We're going to have a lot to report on in the next few hours indeed. Much more of our special coverage coming up. Stay with us. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)