Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

David Pecker Continues His Tesimony; Cross-Examination Tactics; Prosecution's Redirect; Gag Order Issues; Next Witnesses and Strategy; Biden's Willingness to Debate Trump. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired April 26, 2024 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back to our special live coverage of the first ever criminal trial of a former president. I'm Boris Sanchez outside the Manhattan courthouse where Donald Trump is on trial and Wolf Blitzer is with us from Washington, D.C. In just minutes, longtime Trump friend and former tabloid executive David Pecker will be back on the witness stand to wrap up four contentious days of testimony. The prosecution's redirect has tried to illustrate that Pecker entered into this unorthodox catch and kill deal with Trump with the express goal of influencing the 2016 election in Trump's favor. Wolf.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: On the other side, during today's cross examination, Trump's attorney tried to trip up Mr. Pecker by highlighting inconsistencies in his answers. Let's go to CNN's Kara Scannell. She was in the courtroom for everything today. Kara. So what did you see today?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, that's right. Part of the theme of the cross examination was trying to find some inconsistencies in David Pecker's testimony. One of the areas they focus on was this meeting in January of 2017 at Trump Tower. And during that meeting. David Pecker had testified that Donald Trump had thanked him for taking care of the doorman story and Karen McDougal's allegations of an affair. David Pecker has testified that the American media had his company had bought those rights to those stories, stopping them from becoming public.

Now, on cross examination, Trump's attorney was pressing Pecker and saying, well, that was a mistake, wasn't it? And Pecker's voice grew faint. He said, no, it wasn't. Then Trump's attorney confronted him with notes that were taken at an FBI interview that Pecker had given. And during that interview, the notes said that Trump had not expressed any gratitude. Well, David Pecker said those notes were wrong and that his testimony today was correct. Now, Trump's lawyers also tried to use the moment to discredit Michael Cohen, asking David Pecker if he thought that Michael Cohen was prone to exaggeration. And David Pecker testified that, yes, he did believe so. They tried to follow up with another question. There was an objection by the prosecution. And the judge sustained it. So they moved on. Then on redirect the prosecution was trying to address some of these

areas and some of the themes of the cross-examination, which was also that David Pecker's company would have done this anyway, because it was standard operating procedure for a tabloid to buy stories and to kill some stories, to write negative stories about politicians' opponents. But then one of the final questions that he asked before the break, he asked David Pecker if on that Karen McDougal story, he said to him, if you would have published it, that would have been National Enquirer gold, because it would have sold through the roof. And David Pecker testified, yes, it would. So underlying the prosecution's theme that the reason why he was buying some of these deals and to bury them was to benefit Donald Trump and not his company. David Pecker will be back on the stand. The prosecutor said he has about a half an hour more of redirect he has for him. There will be a little bit of recross, and then we'll get into the next witness, the second witness in this historic case. Wolf.

BLITZER: And do we know, Kara, who this second witness, who will testify after Pecker?

SCANNELL: The prosecution has not stated publicly who that witness will be. We did learn that they informed Trump's attorney just before the break. There had been some tension between the two over getting a heads up about who the next witness would be because of concerns that Donald Trump might make social media posts about that witness. This all, of course, subject to that gag order that is being challenged. And prosecutors say that Trump has violated now at least 14 times. Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, we'll find out fairly soon. Kara Scannell, thank you very, very much. Boris, back to you.

SANCHEZ: Let's expand the conversation now with CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reed and former Manhattan district attorney prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnefilo. Thank you both for being with us. We should note Karen counsels for a firm that represents Michael Cohen. She has no contact with Cohen, does not work on his case, and there are no restrictions about what she can say about the case as well. Now that that is out of the way.

[14:05:09]

Paula, right before we took a break for lunch, the prosecutors were trying to tie Michael Cohen to the Trump campaign. Help us understand why.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So at one point, Packer testified that he didn't associate Michael Cohen with the Trump campaign. Now, that's a statement that sort of strains credulity because at the time, Trump was running for the White House. Cohen was his really consigliere, his personal attorney. He would call and scream at you if you were doing a story they didn't like. They were completely in lockstep. And the idea that you can separate yourself from someone who's running for the White House, again, it's hard to believe. But the reason that was significant is because, remember, the core of

this case is an allegation that this hush money payment to Stormy Daniels was covered up because it was done to help Trump win the White House. And that's part of the prosecution's case. So that's why prosecutors went back at this question. And they're like, hey, you testified when defense attorneys asked you questions that you didn't really associate Cohen as being part of the campaign. That's why they're focused on that, because they just want to they want to button that up that like, of course, anything he was doing to help Trump was part of an effort to win the White House.

SANCHEZ: So, Karen, during the cross-examination of Packer, the defense was seemingly trying to do two things. They were trying to poke holes in his story or make the jury question his credibility or at least his memory at one point. And also they were trying to sort of normalize the process of these catch and kill stories. Right. How well did they succeed? And how do you think the redirect is going so far as the prosecution tries to fix that?

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, cross-examination can do one of two things. Either you're going to go in and destroy the person if you have the goods. Right. If you have a way to really destroy them and destroy their credibility, that's what you do, because you want to get some reasonable doubt in there. Well, either they don't have that on David Packer or they made some kind of calculus not to do that because maybe he has something on Donald Trump. Who knows? What they decided to do instead was really embrace him. And use him to advance their theory. And their theory is very much that this was normal. This was not campaign related. This was your business model. This is what you did all the time.

And so they're right. And that's a really effective technique because they're not attacking the prosecution's witnesses. They're using them to advance their story so they don't have to necessarily call their own witnesses. Right. They're putting on a defense through the prosecution. And so I thought they did an effective job at that. At really starting to put forward their defense. Now, what Josh Stein Glass is going to do and has been doing on redirect and continue to do is remind people, no, this was different, right? Yeah, you did catch and kill. But you never paid $150,000 before, like you did Karen McDougal. That was unusual. You consulted an election lawyer because what you were doing was dicey, unusual, and you were concerned that that was in violation of election laws. Isn't that true? So Josh Steinglass is sort of, okay, they made some good points. I'm going to focus on those points, and I'm going to neutralize them by reminding people, because, you know, the details get lost. So you've got to remind them of the real important points at this stage, and then you'll see another recross after this probably.

SANCHEZ: The details get lost, and there were so many details. Getting into the weeds of these financial dealings of David Pecker and AMI and National Enquirer. Paula, you're getting some guidance on the timing of this. It sounds like we're going to see some redirect wrap up relatively quickly when we get back.

REID: Yeah, they said in a court, they said they have maybe less than half an hour to do redirect, and then you're going to get some recross, a little bit of that. So that translates to saying maybe about 45 minutes to an hour more with David Pecker, and then that next mystery witness. And I will say this entire courthouse is crawling with reporters. We're on the phone. We're asking. I mean, the fact that we haven't spotted anyone, because not all of the witnesses here are household names, but many many of them are. I mean, it just keeps us guessing. Who's it going to be? How are you going to use this little bit of time on a Friday afternoon?

SANCHEZ: And to that question quickly, Karen, if it is a Friday afternoon, the jurors are looking at the clock. The judge might be looking at the clock as well, thinking the weekend is almost here. They're off on Monday, right? Who could the prosecution call next that you think would be effective in that context?

AGNIFILO: So what the prosecution's analyzing is they're saying, okay, I don't want to put someone really significant on for an hour on a Friday afternoon when there's no court for three days because, first of all, at a minimum, the jury's going to forget anything they said, right? So you'd have to start over again after three days of being away from this stuff. And also, you don't want to give the defense three days to kind of get a preview of how they'll be, and they'll get to prepare and comb through all the discovery and find every little thing. So you're going to try to, if they can, if there is some throwaway witness that they can just put on the stand that doesn't matter one way or another, while they all take the long weekend to prepare their more difficult witnesses, that's what they're going to be doing. We'll see how they approach it. Karen, Paula, thank you both so much. Appreciate it. Wolf, we'll send it back to you.

BLITZER: Boris, excellent discussion. Thank you. We're following more breaking news right now.

[14:10:09]

In a brand new interview with Howard Stern, President Biden was asked whether he planned to debate his predecessor, the former President Donald Trump. Listen to this, his response. This is Biden.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

HOWARD STERN, AMERICAN MEDIA PERSONALITY: I don't know if you're going to debate your opponent.

JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: I am somewhere. I don't know when. I'm happy to debate him.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

BLITZER: Let's bring in our White House correspondent, MJ Lee. She's joining us right now. And Alayna Treene is joining us with more on this as well. MJ, what more are you hearing from the Biden administration and from the Biden campaign, for that matter, on these comments from the president that he's ready to debate Trump?

MJ LEE, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, up until now, President Biden had never given a definitive answer to the question of whether he would be willing to debate Donald Trump. And in this lengthy interview with Howard Stern earlier today, he said he doesn't know when this will happen or where it will happen. But he said, quote, I'm happy to debate him, as we just heard. You know, this comes, I should note, on the heels of a dozen or so news organizations, including CNN, earlier this month, writing an open letter urging both Donald Trump and President Biden to participate in televised debates before November's election day.

Trump, of course, for his part, who skipped the Republican primary debates, has said recently that he is willing to debate President Biden anytime and anywhere. And I think it's just, it's worth pointing out, given the focus of some of our coverage today and in recent days, you know, we're at a moment where President Biden's White House and the campaign are sort of trying to have to figure out and confronting the reality of finding ways to really break through, as there has been a lot of overwhelming focus on the Trump trials. You know, advisors, I've spoken to say that he is continuing to govern. He is continuing to campaign and that is going to continue. But it is interesting that he decided to have this lengthy sit down with Howard Stern, who obviously has a very big audience.

BLITZER: Yeah, it was very interesting indeed. I want to go to Alayna Treene right now. You've been covering the Trump campaign for us. Alayna, what's the reaction, at least so far from this news that President Biden has announced he's happy to go ahead and have a debate with Trump before the election?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN REPORTER: Well, shortly after the interview, Wolf, one of Donald Trump's top advisors, Chris LaCivita, said, let's set it up. And then, moments ago, we heard from the former president directly. Currently, they are on a lunch break in his trial. And he posted to Truth Social. I'm going to read you part of that post. He said, quote, Crooked Joe Biden just announced that he's willing to debate. Everyone knows he doesn't really mean it. But in case he does, I say, in all caps, anywhere, anytime, any place. The post went on to say that he suggested Monday evening, Tuesday evening or Wednesday evening at my rally in Michigan. And then later in the post, he said, in fact, lets do the debate at the courthouse tonight on national television, all wait around.

So, Wolf, as you can see, this has become a bit of a shtick for Donald Trump and his team. We're told actually by some of the pool reporters at the courthouse in Manhattan that another one of Donald Trump's top advisors, Jason Miller, had actually handed out printed copies of this Truth Social post while they're on this lunch break. So clearly, they're trying to get attention for this. And part of that shtick as well, Wolf, has been at many of Donald Trump's most recent rallies, he's put up a podium on stage, which is supposed to symbolize an empty spot for Biden, where they've really been criticizing Joe Biden for not willing to come out thus far and say, let's do this less. Let's debate. Now I also want to remind you that earlier this month we did see a memo from two of Donald Trump's campaign managers, Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita. They had called on the presidential commission on debates to host more an earlier debate. So this is really something that they have been pushing for. They think from my conversations with them that having Donald Trump and Joe Biden on stage, side by side, would be a good contrast for their campaign. Wolf.

BLITZER: Very interesting indeed. And we're just told that Trump is now back in the courtroom getting ready for the next round. Just was seen walking back in this video from moments ago. Alayna Treene and MJ Lee, guys, thank you very, very much. And to our viewers, don't go anywhere. Court is about to resume. Our special live coverage will continue right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:15:09]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: You're watching special live coverage of Donald Trump's first criminal trial. We're told the jury has now re-entered the courtroom. The former president and his team are also back in court after a lunch break, and we may soon learn who will be the second witness called in this truly historic trial. Prosecutors will finish first of all questioning David Pecker, he's the former publisher of the National Enquirer, who testified that he killed off stories to help presidential candidate Donald Trump. I want to bring back my panel right now to the National Enquirer. Laura Coates is joining us right now. Laura, what's your main takeaway so far of what we've seen in the testimony so far today?

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, what's so important when you're talking about a witness like this, is your lead- off witness, kind of like your lead-off hitter. You want to make sure that you're going to maintain their credibility throughout, and this is over the course of several days now. Since Monday, we've been hearing from David Pecker. Of course, he had a couple of days off, but if you're the prosecution, you want to make sure the credibility is intact; that they are part of a jigsaw puzzle. That this witness can't give you everything, but certain parts of it. The catch and kill scheme, and not try to have the cross-examination undermine any of that.

[14:20:09]

So far, they've tried to land some pundits with inconsistent statements and pointing out documents in the prosecution agreement to not prosecute him in that context, but they haven't landed fully a blow that has undermined fatally his credibility. And remember, you can't go by and judge David Pecker based on the type of articles they published in the Enquirer. The Enquirer is not on the stand. It's not on trial. What matters to this jury is, do they believe the statements about the conversations that he had with the person who is the defendant, Donald Trump? And so far, we're seeing a lot of this continue to play out.

BLITZER: And it's interesting, just now, one of the prosecutors, Joshua Steinglass, said to Pecker, I'm going to try not to keep you here too much longer.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, JUSTICE DEPT & CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And it's not a joke. He should not at this point. And just to underscore what cross-examination is versus redirect versus what comes after. Cross-examination is where the opposing party picks apart and leads the witness. And then on redirect, you clean up whatever bad dirt got dredged up on cross- examination. But as Ellie had said, maybe in the last hour, you want to narrow down over the course of these three things. And by the time of the redirect, the attorney who's doing it should really only ask a few questions. What the prosecution probably needs to do here is just end on one clear, understandable point that you can send David Pecker home with and have the jury thinking this was the point of David Pecker's testimony. You've got to end on a question, you know, did you see Donald Trump direct X or Y or Z? Yes, period, full stop, and then get out of there.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, the whole point is that Donald Trump got special treatment, that it wasn't standard operating procedure, that you don't normally pay someone like Karen McDougal $150,000. And I think they've been driving that point home, that this was a conspiracy that was hatched with Donald Trump. Michael Cohen and David Pecker. And that this was out of the ordinary, even though, yeah, they did stuff on to protect Arnold Schwarzenegger and whatever. They never went to these lengths to protect someone as they did with Donald Trump.

WILLIAMS: And it's easy to overdo it here and sort of gild the lily with the questioning. At a certain point, it's time to pack up and go home. The jury just got back from lunch. They're likely going to be start getting tired. It's Friday. They're as mindful of the clock as anyone else. And it's just worth it. To wrap up, cut your losses and go home.

COATES: They're going back to the Wall Street Journal article, though, published on November 4th, 2016. I think this is around the time when they're exposing, I think, the conversation between Trump and Pecker, where he's irritated that something has gotten out. He's accusing Pecker at one point of having someone on his team leak the information. He ends the call by not saying goodbye, which was unusual for Trump to do, he says. Probably the beginning of the end. But again, this is all going back to the timing of it and why it was important not to have this come out yet.

BLITZER: I'm wondering, who do you think, Ellie, the next witness will be, the second witness in this historic trial--

ELLIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: -- after they wrap up with Pecker?

HONIG: So, I have no idea. But more relevantly, Donald Trump's team has no idea. And that is really unusual because ordinarily the last thing that happens in a trial day is the judge says to the prosecution, OK, prosecution, who are you calling tomorrow? Who are we going to have on the stand tomorrow? Often it's more in advance than that. You have to say who's coming in next week. But Donald Trump has himself to blame for his attorney's lack of visibility here when his attorney's asked for that notice, the judge said, not right now, not the way you've been tweeting about witnesses, not the way you've been violating the gag order. Now, if I'm Donald Trump's attorneys, you need that. You need to know who's coming. You need to know who you're prepping for. I mean, they have a witness list that's dozens of witnesses long. How do you know who to prep for? And so I think what I would do is wait for the judge to give his gag order ruling, which is going to be bad for Donald Trump, I would say. Lesson learned. We now have clarity. And I really, Judge, need to know. I mean, defense lawyers always need to know that.

WILLIAMS: Can I just--

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: Yeah. It's not just who it is in terms of strategy. What gets lost on people is the name and the prep also talks about the order. The order in which you present these witnesses demonstrates are you going chronologically here? Do you want the jury to believe that here is a pattern of behavior and then up next is Carrie McDougal and then Stormy and then you have the full chronology? Or is it that you're going to go in a direction I didn't anticipate, that your real theory of the case is about a conspiracy distinct in a different way or some other way? They want to know not just the name. But they want to know what is the strategy here to guard against that and then be able to effectively cross over the days to come.

WILLIAMS: And I would add to both of these excellent points, there's a nuts and bolts, just logistics matter to it. The court needs to know how much time to set aside and be prepared for trial wise. Most judges have other proceedings, maybe even other trials going on or whatever else. But the judge, you know, often there will be an estimate. We will call David Chalian to the stand next. I anticipate.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Please don't.

WILLIAMS: But I anticipate his spellbinding testimony will be three days and the judge might say, well, wrap it up in two and a half or whatever. And it's for the court's own planning. So everybody benefits by knowing who the upcoming witnesses are.

[14:25:09]

But as Elliot said, former President Trump, sort of got in his own way here with his conduct.

CHALIAN: Well, if we should note that, you know, when we were talking about the November 4th, 2016 Wall Street Journal story, which is where this started after lunch, that's largely about Karen McDougal. There's a passing reference to Stormy Daniels in the story, but that is a story that was published in the aftermath of Access Hollywood right before the election that was really about Karen McDougal. Now the prosecutor is getting back into the notion of Stormy Daniels. And that is why so much of David Pecker's testimony is about McDougal or the doorman, because that's what AMI was involved with. And actually, the Stormy Daniels thing, as we know, Pecker said he wanted no part of that. You know, his magazine is at Walmart, and that won't look so good or what have you. And if this is on Michael Cohen and Donald Trump itself. And so they want to, I guess, the prosecutors now, if you look here, Pecker says of Daniels' story, that he wasn't going to print it or buy it or be associated with it. They want him to reassert that this issue, Stormy Daniels, which is what all the paperwork in this case is about, those payments, that's squarely in Donald Trump's lap via Michael Cohen.

BLITZER: We're standing by to get more information who will be the second witness in this historic trial. We'll see if the judge makes a decision on the gag order, the punishment for Trump for violating the gag order. A lot of our special coverage is still coming up. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)