Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Now: Longtime Trump Asst, Ex-SR. VP Of Trump Org Testifies; Trump's Longtime Assistant Testifies That Two Of The Contacts She maintained Info For Were Stormy Daniels & Karen McDougal; Judge Hasn't Ruled Yet Whether Trump Has Violated Gag Order; Set To Hear Four More Allegations Thursday. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired April 26, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:13]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: We're tracking the very fast-moving updates in the unprecedented hush money trial of the former President Donald Trump. I'm Wolf Blitzer here in the nation's capital. And Boris Sanchez is outside the Manhattan courthouse. And after questions all week about who the trial's second witness would be, we now know it's Rhona Graff.

Graff was Trump's former assistant for many years. She worked at The Trump Organization for decades, working directly for Donald Trump. She's now facing direct examination by the prosecution. Boris?

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Yes, Wolf. Graff just testified that she was the person in charge of Donald Trump's calendar and contacts. A reminder, she's now the second longtime Trump confidant to testify. She's on the stand after roughly 10 hours of testimony from former tabloid executive David Pecker.

We just got an update from inside the courtroom about a calendar entry being shown by the prosecution. Teleprompter practice session on the 25th floor of Trump Tower on January 16, 2017. Let's walk through that minutia and put it in context with CNN Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent, Paula Reid, and former Manhattan district attorney prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo.

Thank you so much for being back with us. Rhona Graff, we - not a name that you would expect would come early on in witness testimony.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, but absolutely anticipated that she would come up eventually. I mean, this woman had the keys to the kingdom. She saw everything. She knew pretty much everyone. And you can see here prosecutors, just as Karen predicted on this show about an hour ago, they're using her to help introduce documents, lay the foundation for the fact that she knew Stormy Daniels, knew Karen McDougal. The contacts were in there now going through his calendar.

So she can really help them confirm a couple of key dates, contacts and events. So I think that's why they're going through the calendar. But that's exactly what Karen said they do with their last where they have two hours, hour and a half.

SANCHEZ: Karen, indeed, predicted we would see a witness like this. What's the significance in this kind of case to have a witness that was so close to Donald Trump that had access not only to his calendar, but to who he's communicating with?

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So it's clear that what the prosecution strategy here is, which is Michael Cohen is obviously adverse to Donald Trump and there's a lot of animosity and hostility between the two of them. Same with Stormy Daniels, somebody who he denies having any contact with whatsoever.

So the prosecution is literally proving their case through people who are closest to Donald Trump first, people who he has no adverse relationship with, no hostility with, no animosity with. These are his people. These are the people closest to him. And they're going to establish as many of their facts to their case through witnesses that are Donald Trump's inner circle.

So I think it's a very effective strategy, because as we saw from the cross-examination of David Pecker, it was not very aggressive. It was - there wasn't much that they could do because the two of them have mutual admiration for one another still.

SANCHEZ: And as we're getting updates, it looks like they're going through calendar entries about January 2017 or so.

REID: And I'll say I know they don't like it when I get ahead of the sidestream, but we know from our colleagues inside the courtroom that this is already wrapped up. The prosecution's questioning. Now, this is Necheles and the defense team is doing cross. So this is, again, exactly what Karen said would happen. They'd put on a witness to introduce some documents. They want to use this 90 minutes for Friday in this particular way. I mean, this is the best way instead of bringing on a significant witness.

SANCHEZ: And before we get into the cross-examination, there was a question asked during the direct examination that I thought was interesting. They asked her about Donald Trump's use of email. Why is that significant?

AGNIFILO: I think because you're not going to see a paper trail between Donald Trump and anybody. In this day and age, most criminal trials involve some form of electronic footprint that will corroborate information, whether it's text messages or emails or other communications between people. And I think the prosecution's theory here is that Michael Cohen spoke on behalf of Donald Trump to David Pecker and others, including via email and text message.

And so it's not unusual that you're not going to see, although you have statements from David Pecker that he spoke directly to Donald Trump and Donald Trump told him to do certain things. The only documentation of it that you're going to see via email and text, message are going to be through other people because he didn't - Donald Trump himself didn't utilize that. So I think that's what they're trying to establish there. SANCHEZ: A fact that we came to know well covering the White House during Donald Trump's administration, he's not an email guy, big paper.

[15:05:03]

REID: No, I mean, I want to touch on two updates here. Now, the defense attorneys are asking Rhona Graff about her work there. And it's actually a very warm exchange here. They're asking if she enjoyed her time there. She talked about how it was a very exciting, stimulating place to be. They also asked if Trump respected her intelligence. She said she wouldn't have worked there for 34 years if he didn't. And this is the first time Trump is apparently smiling, kind of laughing. He seems to be enjoying this now. Again, she worked for him for decades. He's also paying for her lawyer.

But to your question about emails, what's amazing to me is that the heart of this case are documents, business records, a paper trail, something Trump is famous for never leaving, the way he speaks, even that someone could recount a conversation and tie him to something. He's very careful. Not a texter, not an emailer, is always very careful not to leave a paper trail.

So the fact that we're here on a case about falsifying documents to help in a campaign, of all the criminal investigations into former President Trump, I'm surprised it's this one that brings us to trial for the first time.

SANCHEZ: It is significant. I remember reports of him tearing up pieces of paper. He never liked to keep pieces of paper. Paula and Karen, thank you both so much. Appreciate it.

Wolf, I'll send it back to you.

BLITZER: Okay, thanks very much.

Trump's attorney is now cross examining Rhona Graff, Trump attorney Susan Necheles. Laura Coates, so far what are jurors learning from Rhona Graff that stands out to you?

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think you're seeing that her role here is not to try to undermine the credibility of another witness, but just to be, well, the eyes and the ears in the way David Pecker said he was going to be in his catch-and-kill scheme, but in a much more friendly way.

This is not a time to, as cross-examining her, to attack her as if she is out to get Donald Trump. You're going to see a softer touch for this particular witness. She's talking about her experience with Donald Trump. She is the role for the defense to humanize him.

You hear a lot about the myth of Donald Trump and, of course, all the bravado and what you think might happen in Trump Tower. Her role is to demystify all that and portray him as somebody who is approachable, which she talks about saying of Trump sometimes he would peek his head into her office and say, go home to your family, which I thought was very thoughtful of him. Talked about him being a fair and respectful boss, that he respected her intelligence.

Now, you're looking at a woman testifying about this. Well, don't forget the power of optics. All this time we've been hearing about the tabloids of Karen McDougal, of a Stormy Daniels and the perception, of course, within the Access Hollywood tape that's being referenced, although not actually played because it's too prejudicial, according to the judge, is painting the picture of somebody who's not respectful of women, somebody who is, in fact, disrespectful of women, somebody who would have perhaps misogynistic viewpoints.

This is a woman testifying about a 34-year professional relationship where she is respected for her intelligence. Where she is being treated fairly. This is exactly what the defense wants to accomplish at this hour.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And being questioned by a female attorney.

COATES: Yes.

WILLIAMS: And I wonder - look, there's all kinds of reasons why on a trial team you pick one person to question one witness or another. But it is striking in terms of some of the points you're making, Laura, that this is, I think, the first time we've seen Susan Necheles doing - well, of course, this is second witness, but still.

COATES: And the prosecution who is doing - was also a woman ...

WILLIAMS: Oh, right.

COATES: ... in this context as well and the (INAUDIBLE) and she was also invited, apparently, her to the inauguration and she got to sit up close.

WILLIAMS: It'll be interesting to see just look at this gender question how they handle Stormy Daniels on both sides who doesn't (INAUDIBLE) ...

BLITZER: When she comes to testify.

WILLIAMS: When she comes to testify.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. Wolf, so clearly the Donald Trump's defense lawyers are using her as a mini character witness, which you're borderline allowed to do, but it's the kind of thing that can slide through in most cases. But the reason they called her as prosecutors is simply to get in these documents and it's also important to note when we're thinking, about the pacing of this case, witnesses can be four days long, we just saw with Pecker and they can be 20 minutes long, like we're seeing with Rhona Graff.

So there's going to be days where we get through not even one - one witness is on stand all day. There's going to be days where we could have three, four or five witnesses on the stand.

What prosecutors need to do now is present these documents to the jury in a way that they can understand. This is a - prosecutors are bad at this. Prosecutors do not know how to stage things. And so they need to - we used to say you need to think about it like you're putting on a theater production. How am I going to show these ledgers in a way where the juries can understand them, can make sense of them and you're going to need somebody to walk you through them.

I thought they might try that with Rhona Graff, but somebody else is going to be the tour guide through those documents. Would it be Michael Cohen? I'd be really reluctant to do that. But somebody has to say, yes, here's what the entry shows for this day. Yes. Here's what this phone record shows.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Why wouldn't they use her to do that?

HONIG: Sorry?

COATES: They could.

BORGER: Why wouldn't they use her to do that?

HONIG: I don't know. I don't know. Maybe she wouldn't be in position to do that.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

HONIG: There may be actual participants in the meetings who they want to show, okay, this shows that there was a meeting on January 17th 2017.

BORGER: Right. Right.

HONIG: Were you, in fact, at that meeting? Yes, I was.

BORGER: Yes.

HONIG: Is that reflected here? Sure. Who else was there? It was A, B and C.

BLITZER: Why was it important that - Rhona Graff said she - to the best of her knowledge, Trump never communicated via email.

[15:10:03]

Why should we care about that?

WILLIAMS: Well, it's a fact. And I think it's just getting out there the fact that you're not going to find facts related to the case via email. Other - you - anything damning about the former president in this case is going to come in the form of testimony from other people. To the point as to her and these documents.

Another thing to know about the mechanics of a trial is that unless both parties agree to a piece of evidence coming in, someone has to introduce, whether it's a ledger or a document or a schedule, and authenticate it, in effect, be able to say this is what we say it is and it is now admitted into evidence. It has to come in through a witness. These documents came in through her.

And then as Elie was saying, she can be - someone will be questioned about the way ...

BLITZER: Prosecutors also pointed out that Graff had the contact information, the contacts for both Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. What do you make of that?

WILLIAMS: Oh, it's a big - well, again, someone has to be able to testify to the fact that the white - that Trump Tower had the contact information and interacted with these people. And the person who can do that, who has that firsthand knowledge, is the gatekeeper.

COATES: It's also fascinating to me ...

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: But it looks like it's being connected here as to why Stormy Daniels may have been in Trump Tower and I don't know - but it seems that Trump's lawyer, after a series of questions about Trump's interest in casting "Celebrity Apprentice," prosecutors object. Lawyers are at the bench.

It seems that they're - this Stormy Daniels being in Trump Tower somehow got connected to the Trump team wanting to make the case that he was very interested in casting "Celebrity Apprentice."

HONIG: I think the natural question that jury - the jurors are thinking about when they hear, well, he's got Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels contact information is why. Why, right? It doesn't sound good for him. And - but what Trump's lawyers appear to be trying to do now is to give an innocuous why. And if it had something to do with Celebrity Apprentice or something else, then that takes it down a notch in terms of its impact.

COATES: Don't forget, though, it doesn't - I mean, for the purpose of the jury, what they have to prove as the prosecutors is about falsifying business records. They have to prove there was some intent to defraud, intend to commit another crime or aid to conceal a commission of and that they had a false entry.

They don't actually have to prove there was ever an affair. They don't actually have to prove that Stormy Daniels was not a celebrity apprentice, maybe casting call. They don't have to prove - they - all they have to prove is that there was some basis tied to the election that made Donald Trump's team nervous enough to try to pay and falsify business records.

And so the fact that there is contact information for not only Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels is important to buttress the credibility of the fact that there was a knowing relationship of some interaction of some kind. But, the ultimate question of whether they had an affair are different.

But then, Graff says that she vaguely recalls hearing Trump say that she was one of the people that may be an interesting contestant in talking about Stormy Daniels, but that it was all part of the office chatter. I mean, just keep in mind this person, Rhona Graff, sat on the platform for the inauguration. That's how important and how close she was to Donald Trump. And she says of the - of his - of her presence, that's why she assumed that she was even at Trump Tower.

Remember the prosecution tried to suggest that she was there as if there was an ongoing or leaving it out there to linger, there was some sort of ongoing relationship. She's cutting that down. So I would expect maybe an opportunity for a redirect if possible.

WILLIAMS: It's good defense work here because what they're doing is putting forward an alternate theory for the crime that's alleged. What is alleged here is that the - this conduct around these relationships was personal and not tied to campaigns. What they can say here is, no, we interact with these people merely because they were going to be on a show that the - for the former president.

BORGER: Well, Donald Trump ...

CHALIAN: But this - but the practice casting be another way for Donald Trump to keep Stormy Daniels quiet.

WILLIAMS: All you have to do as a defense attorney is provide plausible explanations that the jury can latch on to if they want to. I'm not saying I buy it either, but this - just to give a sense into what might be in Necheles' head as she's going through this question.

BORGER: What does this tell you about Donald Trump? I mean, here he is trying to cast "Celebrity Apprentice," and here he is thinking gee maybe Stormy Daniels would be somebody who'd be interesting to have on that show, forgetting about their past relationship, I mean it's so Donald Trump, right? He's thinking this would be interesting for people to watch and Rhona Graff observes everything.

She's talking about office chatter. She knew what was going on at the water cooler there at The Trump Organization. So I think she can be valuable in that way as well. She's the ultimate loyalist to Donald Trump. She likes him she worked for him for 34 years. He was good to her and let's see what the calendar reveals.

[15:15:00]

BLITZER: Do we know if the prosecution notified the Trump lawyers like Susan Necheles who's questioning Rhona Graff right now in advance that Rhona Graff would be the second witness?

HONIG: So we don't know about the sequencing question but they certainly notified the defense that Rhona Graff would be a witness. And also important to know we don't do trial by surprise in this country, all these documents that Rhona Graff was just shown and authenticated and are now in evidence the defense has had those for many, many months.

That's when we talk about discovery, we use that phrase, that means the prosecution's obligation to turn over all that evidence to the defense in advance. BLITZER: All right. Everybody stand by. Our special coverage of the former president's trial will continue right after this. We'll talk also with a retired judge who spent nearly 20 years on the bench. We'll get some special insight about how the judge in Trump's case is handling this landmark trial.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:20:14]

SANCHEZ: Welcome back to our special coverage of the New York hush money trial against former President Donald Trump we've just learned that Trump's longtime executive assistant Rhona Graff is done testifying and we're told just a moment ago that the court has taken a 15 minute break, an afternoon recess. Let's discuss this and more with retired judge, LaDoris Hazzard Cordell.

She spent 19 years on the bench in California. She's also the author of the book "Her Honor: My Life on the Bench...What Works, What's Broken, and How to Change It."

Judge, thank you so much for being with us this afternoon. First, I want to get your reaction to this testimony by Rhona Graff. It was fairly quick. It lasted, in total, I think less than an hour.

LADORIS HAZZARD CORDELL, RETIRED JUDGE, CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT: Well, she was called by the prosecution. And what the prosecution is doing is giving the jurors a story and building on the story. So the first witness was Mr. Pecker and he lays the groundwork kind of talking about how all this works with interacting with Trump and with the newspaper, the tabloid.

And so then that was the next step and so what the prosecution doing is doing what they should do what all prosecution do is they're telling a story. And this is the next person to reveal a little bit more information to get them where they're going. So that's why this witness wasn't on long. She was there for a specific purpose. Cross- examination wasn't long and off she went.

SANCHEZ: I just want to give our viewers a quick update from our reporters inside the courtroom. Apparently, Donald Trump has walked out of the room with a stern expression, clutching a stack of documents as he continues to scan both sides of the courtroom.

Judge Cordell, I'm curious to get your perspective on the pace of the proceedings thus far, because really we've had testimony from one witness over several days. That was the former publisher, David Pecker, and just about an hour of testimony from this longtime Trump assistant. Are things moving at a proper speed from your point of view?

CORDELL: Well, the speed of the trial is determined mainly by the trial judge. As you noted, I've presided over trials for a long time. And when you have a jury, you keep your eye, if you're a trial judge, on the jury. Are they nodding off? Are they not paying attention? And so you want to have the trial move along. And the people who can slow it down are the lawyers. So if the questioning becomes tedious and it seems not quite relevant, that can be a problem. So with this trial, things are moving smoothly, and they're moving as they should. They take more time with witnesses they think are more important than other witnesses.

So the groundwork is being laid and I think the pace is one - absolutely a good one. And I haven't heard any reports from those inside the courtroom that the jurors appear to be uninterested and not paying attention.

SANCHEZ: That is a good point. I do want to ask you about Judge Merchan not yet ruling on the gag orders or rather the gag order. These complaints, they're coming from the prosecution that Donald Trump has made repeated posts on social media, remarks before cameras, attacking witnesses, going after different folks, taking part in the proceedings.

There was a hearing earlier this week, I think on Tuesday, that took about two hours of time going into the details. There was an additional filing for potential new violations, prosecutors argue. What do you think the judge is delaying a decision on this?

CORDELL: Well, first of all, this is what's called indirect contempt. It's criminal contempt, but indirect because the contempt didn't occur right in front of the judge. So there was a hearing on 10 violations that the prosecution claims was committed by Donald Trump. And so now they have four more. They have filed for four more violations. So we're talking a total of 14.

So if we look at the first 10, the judge heard evidence. You have to have an evidentiary hearing when it's indirect contempt. Direct contempt would be if Donald Trump were to do something in front of the judge, then there wouldn't be an evidentiary hearing because the judge would be the eyewitness.

So in this instance, the judge has delayed giving a ruling, but - and the question is why. Well, I think one reason is that if you're a trial judge, there's tremendous pressure on you anyway, just generally every day when you go to court. But when you are presiding over a high profile trial, and I have done that in terms of high profile within my location in Silicon Valley in California, but this is just way over the top high profile.

[15:25:04]

There is tremendous pressure on the judge because everything the judge says, everything the judge orders is under a microscope. So when you're under that kind of pressure, you are deliberate. You don't do anything that's rushed. And in this instance, he has to - first of all, he has to make a decision.

You're not a good trial judge if you don't like making decisions. He has to make a decision and the key here is, a decision has to be one that punishes one if he determines there are violations. I can't imagine the judge will find that there were no violations. And he's already warned Donald Trump and Donald Trump has been fined before.

But here's what's unprecedented. What's unprecedented is if this judge decides that incarceration is appropriate, that's never been done to a former president. So if that is going to happen, I can appreciate the judge being very deliberate and likely have a written decision. The judge could sentence Donald Trump to up to 30 days in jail for each violation, and that's just the first 10.

So I can appreciate that, but he's going to have to rule. That's what trial judges do and he's going to have to make a decision.

SANCHEZ: LaDoris Hazzard Cordell, we very much appreciate the perspective. Thanks for being with us.

CORDELL: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: The trial of Donald Trump, a historic one, now on a quick break. We're expecting the trial to resume at any moment and waiting to see who could be called next as a prosecution witness. That is just minutes away. Stay with CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)