Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Now: Prosecution Redirect Of David Pecker Resumes; Trump's Former Assistant Rhona Graff Called To Witness Stand. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired April 26, 2024 - 14:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:31:14]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Welcome back to our special live coverage. Former President Donald Trump's New York hush money trial. Former tabloid executive, David Pecker, is still on the stand for the redirect examination.

And Pecker just reiterated that when it came to the Stormy Daniel story, he wasn't going to print it or be associated with it.

Our panel is back with us now.

And it looks like notes from the interview confirm that Pecker told the FBI that when he visited Trump Tower in January of 2017, Donald Trump thanked him for handling the doorman and McDougal stories.

And I want to get back to what we heard moments ago, a name that has only come up sparingly, but that is at the center of this case, and that is Stormy Daniels.

Why is it important in the redirect for the prosecution to ask David Pecker about him staying away from that story?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Because they spent so much time setting up the two stories that he was willing to pay for and suppress the doorman who alleged -- falsely alleged affair out of wedlock, McDougal who alleged an affair.

But then you get similarly -- a similar story, Stormy Daniels offering to sell her tale. And he said, I want nothing to do with that.

And there were a lot of reasons for that. A big one was that he was not paid back for the $150,000 that he paid Karen McDougal. And this sort of brings us up to the beginning of the falsifying business records story.

Because Stormy Daniels, her contact, they get passed off to Michael Cohen, who we now know facilitates this hush money payment that is at the center of this case.

So that's why they're just revisiting exactly what his connection was to Stormy Daniels and the fact that he wanted nothing to do with that particular payment.

SANCHEZ: Does it surprise you, Karen, that, about a week into testimony now, we haven't heard that much about Stormy Daniels. This is really one of the only occasions that her name has even come up.

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It doesn't surprise me because really what this case is actually about is this whole election conspiracy to try and influence the election by doing this catch-and- kill and other all the things Pecker has been testifying about.

Yet Donald Trump focused on criticizing all his -- all his criticisms where Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels. And that was the more salacious -- those are the more salacious facts. And so that's what everyone focused on.

But what the trial's doing is really refocusing everyone on what it's actually about, which is not just a hush money porn star case. This is about trying to influence an election and committing crimes in doing so.

And so that's -- the trial is actually much more, or much less salacious, I should say, than we were led to believe it would be before.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

REID: I think Pecker made a great first witness for the prosecution to set the stage, this broader pattern of coordinating, and Trump's direct involvement here, to suppress these negative stories ahead of November 2016.

SANCHEZ: So what does Trump thanking Pecker for handling the McDougal story and the doorman's story, how does that fit into their effort to link the two?

AGNIFILO: So what's going on right now? This is redirect. And the fact that Josh Steinglass, the prosecutor, is focusing on these things like thinking that the thank you, et cetera, is two things.

Number one, that's significant because it shows an acknowledgment that Donald Trump knew what this was about.

But it also shows that what -- that Josh Steinglass thinks that the points that were scored on cross had to do with dates and little things, little inconsistencies from -- from what he told the FBI versus what he's saying on the stand.

So what Steinglass is doing is he's refocusing, let's talk about the consistencies, and let's talk about the consistencies about the things that really matter. Whether something happened in July or August isn't as important as a thank you.

SANCHEZ: Yes. This is significant here. Because, per the transcript, Pecker told the grand jury at the time that during his conversation with Donald Trump, Trump said, Karen is a "good girl," quote.

[14:35:07]

And we've got another update. Pecker confirmed that in his 2018 grand jury testimony, he testified that Trump told him the McDougal and doorman stories could have been damaging.

Karen McDougal could potentially be a witness, but there's some question as to whether it should actually be called the stand.

REID: Yes. She's certainly within the realm of possibility. But what does she really add to the story that they can't get from someone else?

There's also some concerns about a recent decision on the Harvey Weinstein case that was overturned. It could be complicated with her. It's unlikely, I think at this point -- I don't know if you agree -- that she'll be called to the stand.

But it's certainly within the realm of possibility she could be called to talk about her -- not her -- her catch-and-kill agreement.

SANCHEZ: She kind of fits -- actually, we just got an update. The prosecution has finished it's redirect of Pecker.

Quickly, to the question of Karen McDougal, she kind of fits that mold of a throwaway witnesses we've describing on our Friday afternoon, do you think here?

AGNIFILO: I would think she's actually a pretty powerful witness because she's going to talk about -- if she -- if she testifies, she's going to talk about a year-long affair that she had with Donald Trump. She was in love with him. He was married at the time. So I would think that's a pretty that's a pretty salacious witness.

Yes, she's -- she's not that important to the case, but I think people would have a lot of interest in that.

I was thinking more of someone who could authenticate a business record or something like that, someone that you've just never heard of before. So let's see.

REID: I've always thought McDougal could actually always be a good witness for the defense because that, unlike the Stormy Daniels physical relationship, which was several occasions, very transactional, was nearly a year-long romantic relationship.

She talked about how she was in love with him. This was something that really upset Melania Trump. That could really help bolster the defense case. But we'll see what happens. In five or six weeks, she may pop up.

SANCHEZ: We'll see.

Paula, Karen, thank you both so much.

And we just got an update. Trump attorney, Emil Bove, bringing up the phrase "National Enquirer" gold. The defense now starting its re-cross of David Pecker.

Still much more to come on CNN. Our special coverage continues right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:41:53]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Welcome back to CNN's special coverage of former President Trump's criminal hush money trial.

I'd like to bring back my panel right now to discuss all the latest developments from inside the courtroom.

And, Laura, let's talk about the defense now cross-examining, re- cross-examining David Pecker, the former publisher of the "National Enquirer."

I thought it was significant that he really didn't want to get into the whole Stormy Daniels issue.

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR & CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: It is. It's one of those things -- well, first of all, in the Big Apple, how many bites at the apple will these prosecutors and defense get at this one witness.

You normally think about a direct, a cross, maybe going back, the way that, yet again, which alerts the jury that there were some unfinished business.

It can have two different effects. On the one hand, a jury could say, oh, something was really important here that they need to whittle down on. If they don't drill down, if they don't do so, I might miss something.

The other thing would be, is this sloppy attorneys? I don't -- they were not able to do the first time well and correctly?

But the important thing here in terms of why this is important, Stormy Daniels is the one case, it seems to be the one headline of all the "National Enquirer" headlines they didn't want to touch with a ten- foot pole.

Think about the types of things they've published in the past. This was the case that was different. Why?

Because they had already been burned not only with the discussion on Arnold Schwarzenegger and having him formally be the editor in chief of "Fitness" magazines, and then being some editor-at-large and those magazines and then having it discovered they had a catch-and-kill scheme, which was embarrassing to the organization.

Then you've got the idea of not being repaid by -- on the issue of Karen McDougal, having a back-and-forth going on there.

Then you've got the general counsel of AMI saying you don't do not want to be reimbursed by the Trump Organization or have that on your books. And then them saying, I want nothing to do with a porn star.

This doesn't really, in many ways, comport for people that the salacious headlines would make this sort of headline, not what you wanted, except for this, Donald Trump would not be the beneficiary of a publication or a headline.

Their relationship might take a hit and that's what they are trying to establish in this entire testimony.

BLITZER: It's really interesting because, at one point, Pecker said he didn't want to -- Stormy Daniels to be on the cover of the "National Enquirer" because she was a, quote, "porn star" and that would not look good for the "National Enquirer" to be highlighting a porn star over at various supermarkets around the country.

COATES: I mean, the idea of them looking down their nose at her, I'm sure is probably what the defense will hope to do as well. And ensuring -- actually David Pecker is now off the stand.

We know now, oh, who the new person will be. The prosecutors have now called Rhona Graff, Trump's former longtime assistant, to the stand. So that's now the person will go to next.

And it'll be interesting to see why they've chosen this person. But yet again, another person, a confidant, a friend, an employee of Donald Trump, taking a stand against him.

BLITZER: She is now in the court room, Rhona Graff, and Trump looks over at her as she's walking in. So she's going to be testifying. What do you think?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I can see two potential uses to the prosecution of Rhona Graff. First of all, assistants see things. They are there. They're seeing who's coming into the office, who's leaving, maybe the door is open, maybe not. So assistants can be very powerful witnesses.

[14:45:05]

The other thing is they may -- prosecutors may use Rhona Graff as a vehicle to introduce documents to the jury. Do you recognize this? Yes. What is that? That's our ledger that we kept. Those are our invoices. That kind of thing.

So sometimes you do this. You call a witness to get documents in front of the jury, and then you use those documents to support the key witnesses, including Michael Cohen.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: She was also referenced earlier. I believe, in David Peckers first day on the stand.

COATES: Yes.

CHALIAN: First of all, Rhona Graff did not appear to glance at Trump's table on her walk to the witness. She was a real gatekeeper. Anybody who covered Donald Trump, even before he was a politician in Trump Tower, she was a real gatekeeper to Donald Trump.

But I believe -- I don't have it in front of me -- Pecker testified that he observed her coming in with invoices and bills, checks to sign, and that Donald Trump took a personal specific interest in knowing what the invoice was being paid and putting his signature on the checks that he wanted paid.

And that that was in her custody that David Pecker observed in Trump's office.

(CROSSTALK)

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: -- that prompted him being a micromanager., detail-oriented.

COATES: Right.

BORGER: To get to Donald Trump, you always had to go through Rhona Graff. I know this personally.

And Rhona was somebody, I believe -- you know, she made phone calls for Donald Trump. I don't know if she listened in on phone calls that Donald Trump had. That could be very useful testimony if, in fact, that was the case.

She was very close to Donald Trump. And she was sort of beyond a gatekeeper. She--, she was almost somebody people would go to and say, well, what do you think Mr. Trump would say about this or would say about that?

So I think that she could be quite a valuable witness in terms of talking about how much attention he paid to detail, whom he was talking with, what his relationship with Michael Cohen was.

(CROSSTALK)

HONIG: But even the relationship now between them. Have they had a falling out?

BORGER: I don't know. I think she's retired. But I don't -- I really don't know.

BLITZER: The prosecution clearly thinks she's going to be beneficial to their case against Trump.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Absolutely, and a lot of mundane things you can do.

So even to your points, Gloria, she can-- so if there are phone records, she can say, do you remember a phone call -- hey, look, this is many years ago -- but do remember a phone call happening? Do you remember Hope Hicks being in this room at the time that -- of the August 2015 meeting.

So in addition to the broader relationship issues that were talking about here, she can just literally authenticate documents and records. BORGER: And she placed his calls for Donald Trump. So he'll scream out, Rhona, get me so and so on the phone and she would do that. So she'll know --

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: -- very useful for the defense though, if -- if, in the event that she's able to describe similarly to the way -- and she's here are testifying, by the way, pursuant to a subpoena. She's not walking in voluntarily and saying sign me up to testify against my old boss.

But she can be very helpful for the defense in the sense of establishing the motives of, say, Michael Cohen. You heard David Pecker even make that statement of, I told Donald Trump that he is willing to go in front of a bus for you, go in front of a bus for you.

And it almost seemed to be capitalized on by the defense trying to suggest that he had his own motives, his own reasons for wanting someone who worked for Mark Cuban at one point, was brought up, wondering if the paparazzi present when he was around to make sure you can buttress his own credibility, in his own esteem.

And so she might be able to talk a little bit about what he was like and whether he was somebody who was an opportunist or somebody who is actually at the behest of Trump.

WILLIAMS: And we're forgetting the perhaps the biggest and, I'd say the most obvious -- but we don't know if she can do it -- can she say with certainty, did you hear President Trump say the words that he was interested in suppressing these stories for the purpose of benefiting his campaign.

You know, perhaps she'll be asked about that if she was in --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: It's interesting, the Trump Organization, where Rhona Graff worked for 34 years, is paying for her attorneys right now. That --

(CROSSTALK)

HONIG: Yes, that's a really interesting dynamic. That does not prohibit her or prevent her from telling the truth. But it does make it a little dicey.

This is common practice, I should say. Frequently, when a corporation comes under investigation, the corporation will pay for and provide attorneys for everyone who was an employee.

And Donald Trump is a master of doing this. We've seen examples of him doing this, everybody from Cassidy Hutchinson, people involved in the classified documents case.

As a natural result, it does make it more difficult for people to come forward and tell the truth. But I'll tell you this. Prosecutors would not be calling Rhona Graff unless they believed she had come fully clean.

BORGER: She can -- she can --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: She would be helpful to their case?

HONIG: Absolutely.

BORGER: She can tell you how the Trump Organization worked. She can tell you how much attention Donald Trump paid to detail.

She can talk to you about the relationships between the children and Donald Trump and Michael Cohen.

CHALIAN: Sorry. That she was in charge of his calendar.

(CROSSTALK)

CHALIAN: Like every -- his goings of comings.

BORGER: Right. And he would always say --

(CROSSTALK)

[14:49:59]

BORGER: -- ask Rhona. You know, somebody wants to go see him, ask Rhona, she'll set it up, making the phone calls for him. I mean, she was probably with him more than anybody else during an average day.

COATES: Also 2:49 on Friday with no court on Monday. And so a strategy for prosecution will be thinking about, what witness do I need to call and want to call that I could maximize the amount of time, but not necessarily need their testimony to linger and carry through all the way until Tuesday when court resumes?

It's not going to be -- you don't want to end, say, or that introducing Karen McDougal or Michael Cohen on this day and allow things to fester and just marinate. He wants someone who might be just there to move along the introduction of documents and beyond.

And not have such a problematic credibility issue at the end of the day.

BLITZER: And it's interesting, the prosecution attorney, Susan Hoffinger, is questioning Rhona Graff right now. She's answering questions on a whole range of issues.

And this is a woman who knows a lot about what was going on at the Trump Organization and what was going on in Trump's life.

WILLIAMS: Right. So right now, we're seeing a courts scared officers hitting Rhona Graff with thumbs.

Number one, it could be just simply documents that they're asking her to review or confirm.

I still get -- get back to, if there are electronic schedules and she can attest that she was aware of them and, frankly, made them, they can likely be brought in as evidence and she can say, on this date, this meeting happen.

And frankly, for a witness like this, you could even use her for a very limited purpose, only have her up there for a couple hours just to get in a few documents, as Elie was saying a little bit earlier, a few documents, schedules, and so on.

And then turn to Monday where you call her, on Tuesday where you call her.

BLITZER: She just said that, as far as she could remember, Trump never used email to communicate. I can -- I can confirm that.

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: I interviewed Trump several times before he became president of the United States. And whenever I would go to Trump Tower to interview him, I could see that he was into paper. He was not a big email guy or nothing like that.

HONIG: These are called business records. Not a super technical title. But that is the legal word for what these are. They will be admissible.

Think about anyone you know who relies on an assistant. Think about how much that assistant knows about the day by day, the play by play.

And especially, because prosecutors have a challenge here. This conduct happened eight years ago, almost. It's really hard to reconstruct what happened eight years ago. People are not going to remember day by day.

But if you can pull off an electronic calendar, if you can pull up call logs, it can really help reconstruct the history here.

BORGER: You know, this is not a large organization, Trump Organization. She knows everybody really well. And she knows every relationship there and how Donald Trump regarded people.

And what he really thought about Michael Cohen, and how he used Michael Cohen as his fixer. And what the children thought of Michael Cohen, which was apparently not much.

And so I think she's -- she's good for the document part of this. But she's also an important witness, I think, to talk about the sort of ethos of the Trump Organization and how Donald Trump ran it and how much attention he paid to the receipts. And to what was going on.

And also, she can talk about the relationship with David Pecker.

COATES: Can you imagine though just taking a step back on what this must feel like for Donald Trump in this moment. I mean, we know the witness list includes people like Hope Hicks, Michael Cohen.

Michael Cohen clearly, no love lost in the sense that we are all very clear at the status of their relationship.

Rhona Graff, somebody who would have been his right-hand woman, thinking about her important role.

David Pecker, a long-term friend. We've seen the pictures outside of the White House. We've seen David Pecker was invited to sit in meeting with Mike Pompeo and Jim Comey. And then told in front of all them he knows more than anyone in this room.

That all of these people are being paraded in front of him, and essentially while he has to sit there in front of a jury of 18 people, where he's under a microscope. This is not the comfortable space that Donald Trump is accustomed to being in.

And by the way, we're nowhere near even close to the middle of this trial. And so just think about what the optics was like. No wonder you're hearing different reports about how he wants to have the muzzle off and the gag order off to go at the different witnesses who are talking.

But the witnesses we're talking about now are people who is very close to.

BORGER: And Rhona is one of them, very close.

BLITZER: And she just testified that, as far as she could remember, Trump never communicated via email at all. He was sort of low-tech, I guess, not high-tech.

Prosecutors also asked Graff just now to verify several exhibits that are emails she exchanged with Madeline Westernhart (ph), who worked in the Trump White House. That's going to be interesting as well.

COATES: Yes. I mean, obviously, he didn't use emails. It doesn't mean that no emails were in the universe of Donald Trump, which is why you're having other witnesses come in to talk about what they were sending perhaps on his behalf, and otherwise.

We're -- also we're seeing a little bit more about how he's sitting back and closing his eyes as she's going into detail about the emails that are being sent, which seem to be a common demeanor in the court.

Which, by the way, it's interesting to me that he has not yet formed a relationship with this jury. We're not hearing a lot about reports about how he is using his body language or otherwise to try to convey how he's feeling in the moment.

[14:55:08]

And we don't have cameras in the courtroom. But it's clear that he will have to demonstrate his disdain at some point.

Also, Graff is confirming that two contacts she maintained at the Trump Organization were for Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels.

BORGER: There you go. Did he call Karen McDougal?

WILLIAMS: Yes, and I think --= and I'm also curious as to -- about two updates ago, these emails, were they simply mundane? Maybe scheduling matters wherever else? Or did they talk about the campaign or did they talk about any of these individuals? Not out of the question.

BLITZER: This testimony from Rhona Graff is going to be significant. And very, very interesting. We're going to stay on top of it.

Everyone stay with us. Much more of our special coverage coming up right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)