Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Judge Rules Trump Violated Gag Order. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired April 30, 2024 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:02]

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: We have been tracking this important testimony this morning from inside the former president's hush money trial.

And banker Gary Farro, for two minutes, two hours and seven minutes, has finished his testimony, confirming that he has never spoken to Donald Trump. He is now off the stand.

CNN reporters, who -- were also in the courtroom as all of this is happening, as the judge notified Donald Trump that, yes, he did find him in criminal contempt of his gag order, fining him $9,000 as a result of that.

I'm here outside of that courthouse with CNN's chief legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid, and also former Manhattan district attorney prosecutor Karen Agnifilo Friedman (sic), who is of counsel, I should note, to a firm that represents Michael Cohen, but she doesn't have any contact with him, doesn't work on his case, and no astriction -- restrictions on what she can say about it.

We also are joined by Adam Kaufmann, a former executive assistant district attorney at the Manhattan DA's office.

And, Adam, let me start with you on what we have been watching this morning and who we believe could potentially be next on the witness stand, now that Gary Farro has finished his testimony.

ADAM KAUFMANN, FORMER EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes.

So, you know, prosecutors have been really sort of playing it close to the vest as to who they're going to call next. They have expressed concern that witnesses get identified on social media by Donald Trump.

So, they really -- typically, in a trial, you share your witnesses, the prosecution would share their witnesses, certainly for the day. And, here, prosecutors have been much more reserved. So it's hard to know who's going to come up next for the prosecution.

COLLINS: And what do you make of what the judge did decide while we're waiting to see who is the next witness on the witness stand, in this gag order?

Because, I mean, he had quite a blistering statement there at the end, saying, yes, I'm finding him $9,000, but these $1,000 fines don't have the same weight when someone can easily pay them, and the court doesn't have the discretion to make that fine higher than $1,000.

KAUFMANN: It's frustrating when you have statutes that were written so long ago with penalties that were set so long ago that don't really -- it's not really much of a penalty to be honest.

But at the same time, I think what's important here is that Judge Merchan, he set some rules, he made an order, the order was violated, and he held Donald Trump accountable for those violations. So, Judge Merchan has really sort of set a marker. He's laid down the law, if you will.

And I think the Trump team has to know that, in addition to fines, there's the possibility of jail. There's the possibility of sort of interim measures, where someone could be forced to attend the trial from a side room, not typically done.

But I think the important thing for Judge Merchan is, he has set down the law. He's made it clear that he won't tolerate anyone disobeying his orders, and that's significant unto itself, holding accountability for a judge's orders.

COLLINS: Yes. Adam Kaufmann, stand by. It's great perspective on that.

And, also, we know the judge here did say, Paula Reid, that if -- if a violation continues -- and we know there's another hearing on this on Thursday -- that jail time could be an option.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It's really astonishing. We're talking about possible jail time for a former president of the United States, logistically, symbolically, what that would mean.

That is a grave threat. But let's see if the former president heeds it. We know that there are a lot of conservative -- conservative pundits who have advocated to him that maybe you should stop violating the gag order, use your airtime, use all this attention to campaign and get a message across to voters.

And at least over the past few days, that is what we have seen him do. He's also found sort of a work-around, yet another one, this time having allies on the Hill make the arguments about this case, about the prosecution, about the judge that Trump can -- well, he can make comments about the judge, but he appears to want to have his allies on Capitol Hill make these arguments, that some of them would be a violation of the gag order.

Let's see if he sticks with that and keeps campaigning, or if he reverts back.

COLLINS: But, Karen, the issue here is, Trump in a way, from what we have heard, would relish having a jail time imposed on him by this judge, because he would be able to use it. I don't think anyone thinks Trump actually wants to go to jail, despite any bravado that we see publicly, but he could use it politically as a tool.

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, well this trial has a political aspect to it, as well as a justice aspect to it.

And the judge here really can only focus on the justice aspect of it and getting a verdict, whatever it may be, at the finish line. The political aspect really can't be considered by anyone in that courtroom.

[11:05:01]

COLLINS: And, Paula, we're getting an update right now.

There -- I should note there's no witness on the stand and the jury is not inside of the courtroom right now. But what we are hearing is that there are discussions happening between prosecutors, Trump's attorney and the judge. And prosecutors are arguing to get some text message into evidence as the jury is out on the break.

I mean, they have these conversations outside of the earshot of the jury, and then it's a decision whether or not the jury can hear them later on.

REID: Yes, that's exactly right.

So, here, prosecutors want to get some text messages in as evidence, but they need to make the decision outside of the jury so as not to prejudice them, especially if the text messages aren't allowed in. But I think a really important point is one that Karen made earlier, which is, a lot of the witnesses that we heard at the end of Friday, that we expect to hear today, this is all about moving evidence in.

This is about sort of validating paperwork. A lot of this could have been stipulated. So it's unclear why the Trump team is insisting on using up so much time to get a lot of this evidence in, when it could be stipulated to you.

But there are always going to be some issues that they can't agree on. So the judge is going to have to decide about these text messages. We don't know what they are, but if they're allowed in, we will.

COLLINS: I mean, and -- and what's the significance of the jury being able -- as, you know, they're hearing from bankers, they're hearing complex things about -- I mean, maybe some of them have taken down a home equity line of credit and are familiar with that, but they're hearing these efforts to go and get bank accounts, LLCs, and then not actually funding them and this, but then also being able to see the text messages themselves between people like Stormy Daniels, which we should note, this -- that's what this evidence that they would like to have entered into the record is.

Prosecutors want to get messages from Stormy Daniels' then-publicist to the AMI executive Dylan Howard. We know he's been at the center of all of this. And they want to be able to get them into the record, because they believe they will help contextualize other messages. It all goes back to the narrative that they're trying to paint here.

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Yes, texts -- things like e-mails, text messages, things that are contemporaneous with the time that these things happen, are great corroboration of witness testimony that is relying on things like memory that can fade over time.

Or if the cross-examination of a witness calls into question their credibility, you like to have that kind of contemporaneous exchanges that reinforce that.

COLLINS: What about this, where prosecutors are saying that -- and this is Matthew Colangelo, one of the prosecutors that Trump was attacking repeatedly before the gag order was expanded.

They want -- if Trump does get on the stand, if he does get up there and testify, they want to be able to use the gag order violations during the cross-examination. What would be the point of prosecutors doing that?

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: So, that's --what Matthew Colangelo is doing right now is, he's essentially asking the judge to revisit his Sandoval ruling.

And the Sandoval is the case that you have to ask permission in advance, what are the prior bad acts that you want to be able to cross-examine the defendant about if you should take the stand? And that's where the defense will weigh -- well -- I mean, sorry -- the judge will weigh the probative value versus the prejudicial effect.

And I think Colangelo wants to bring in the gag order violations because, A, the judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump did violate the gag order, that it was willful, that he did it intentionally and on purpose. And it shows that he puts his own interest above that of what someone else will tell him.

And that's essentially what goes to the heart of what committing a crime is, right? When you -- when you're charged with a crime, what you're saying to the jury, what you're arguing to the jury is, this is an individual who will put their interest over that of society's. They will break the law and say, what I want is more important.

And, really, violating a gag order willfully beyond a reasonable doubt is essentially that same thing. And so it's a pretty powerful thing that you want to show the jury, so that you can argue on summation that this is the kind of person who will put his own interests above that of society, and that's why you shouldn't believe him.

COLLINS: Paula?

REID: Yes, that would be incredibly difficult for the defense team if these are allowed in, because, remember, at least one of the gag order violations was directed at the jury and possibly imperiling their safety.

So...

COLLINS: That's a good point.

REID: Yes, this will be a really significant issue.

If the judge allows this in, I mean, I would consider that an enormous loss for the defense and something that could really hurt his case here.

COLLINS: Well, and how would the jury -- I mean, I think one question is, how would they see Trump attacking these witnesses as they are set to get on the stand?

REID: Yes.

COLLINS: And you are going to see them come forward and testify, and to be able to see that in hindsight. And they'd be able to ask Trump about his posts about Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels and others.

REID: Speaking of, the prosecution says it wants to introduce evidence to show that the defendant's attempt to dissuade witnesses like Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels through a public pressure campaign and retaliation.

Look, this issue was previewed in the defense's opening statement, that they believe that Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen have made a lot of money off of either attacking Trump or because of their involvement with Trump.

Now, the prosecutors go on to say that the defense opened the door to these arguments in their opening statement, criticizing Cohen and Daniels for saying their financial livelihoods depend on attacking the defendant.

[11:10:03]

So, the jury is going to see the whole Cohen-Daniels-Trump triangle play out through the prosecution's case and likely the defense as well. And I'm sure there's some jurors who may feel, yes, it seems inherently unfair that Cohen can call you names we can't even repeat on TV, but you can't punch back.

But, again, it wasn't just Cohen and Daniels who he has attacked in violating the gag order.

COLLINS: But that is -- the jury may not see it in a sympathetic way to Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen, or at least not all 12 of them. We don't know how they would see it, but they may see it as well, these are people who are attacking Donald Trump. Donald Trump should be able to respond to them.

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Exactly. It cuts both ways. And that's why the judge is going to weigh that and we will decide which one -- see, right there, he's saying the prosecutor says this would be evidence of Trump's consciousness of guilt, that he's going out and attacking these witnesses. And that's what the prosecutors want to argue. They want to be able to

argue that this shows that he's guilty, right? Because if he -- that he knows that what he did was wrong, and they want to be able to make that argument.

COLLINS: Why are they arguing this now, I mean, why at this point in the trial? Is it because the judge just found this morning that Trump did violate the gag order and they now want to introduce that, or...

REID: I would expect, yes, they needed to wait for the finding, and now that the judge has issued his finding on these gag order violations, they're bringing it up.

It was a pretty swift turnaround, I have got to say, on the prosecutors' part.

COLLINS: And Todd Blanche is saying he wants to know more about what prosecutors have planned to do, to ask witnesses -- or ask Trump if he does get on the stand about these gag order violations.

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Exactly. So, it -- that's exactly right.

This is -- the reason they're doing this now is because of the gag order violations. But, also, what Colangelo said, is that in the opening statements, Todd Blanche opened the door to some of these issues, meaning now they are relevant. Now we should be able to bring this up. Now this is something, Judge, I want you to reconsider your earlier ruling and let us put this information in.

COLLINS: Well, also, part of what Trump is -- one of the violations was where he brought up -- he said he just found the order from six year -- or the statement from six years ago from Stormy Daniels, where she denied that they had an affair, which that is something that we do expect she will probably get asked about. Why did her statement change, Paula, between now -- now and then?

Trump was trying to use that against her.

REID: Yes, absolutely. And they will absolutely use that against her. She sort of explains it away, if you have a chance to watch the new documentary that she put out.

Again, the defense is probably going to bring that up as well. Again, she's profiting off of this. She can talk about this part of her story, but, initially, she did -- she did deny this. She did not want the story to get out at the outset.

COLLINS: And the judge is basically saying, well, if that door has been opened, we will talk about it when these witnesses are on the stand themselves.

He is now asking the prosecution to explain their aims for presenting the evidence.

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Yes, so they're trying -- he's trying to find out, what's your purpose? What is -- what is your intention here and what are you trying to do with this type of evidence?

Interestingly, what this also tells me is, clearly, we knew that Michael Cohen is going to be called as a witness, but this also, I think, shows that they are planning on calling Stormy Daniels to the witness stand. And I think that's significant, because it was unclear. They haven't given their witness list, but it was also unclear, would they call Stormy Daniels?

Would they call Dino Sajudin, the doorman? Would they call Karen McDougal? They don't need to call these witnesses. I suspect they're not going to call the doorman or Karen McDougal. But this exchange is telling me that prosecutors are gearing up for Stormy Daniels to testify.

COLLINS: Well, and, basically, what prosecutors are saying is that they want to argue that these witnesses are not here to benefit from it, because-, obviously, that was something that Todd Blanche previewed, mentioning that documentary, mentioning Michael Cohen and his podcast.

They're saying that they have benefited from this. They want to be able to talk to the witnesses and say that they haven't benefited. The second, they say, is to explain why both witnesses initially denied certain facts, Michael Cohen's testimony to Congress, what Stormy Daniels has said in those public statements.

And they say the third is to show Trump's consciousness of guilt. Do those posts show consciousness of guilt?

REID: They're going to try to establish that, right? Why is he attacking them?

Now, I think the defense could also come back at that and say, no, he wants to punch back. He was attacked. I also want to go to this idea of Cohen and Stormy Daniels benefiting from this. I want to note that, for both of them, their livelihood, their ability to make money was seriously impaired by the fallout from their interactions with Trump.

COLLINS: OK, Paula Reid, Karen, stand by.

These are critical exchanges that are happening between these attorneys, as the prosecution is suggesting they want to use these gag order violations that the judge found this morning should the former president take the stand, as he has said he plans to do. They think that they can show Trump trying to intimidate potential witnesses through public pressure.

We have much more on this update as we wait for the next witness to be called to the stand.

Much more of CNN's special live coverage in minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:19:35]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Welcome back.

And we're waiting for the prosecution to call its next witness in the hush money cover-up trial of Donald Trump. Attorneys are locked in important discussions right now over what evidence they can use to question witnesses, including potentially the former president of the United States.

Let's bring back my panel.

And, Mr. Brennan, you have said that Donald Trump, when he was one of your -- when he was your client, you all -- he was not difficult to deal with at all.

[11:20:05]

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: But -- right?

(CROSSTALK)

BILL BRENNAN, FORMER TRUMP PAYROLL CORPORATION ATTORNEY: It's all relative.

(LAUGHTER)

BRENNAN: I mean, there were some passionate exchanges. There were some things we disagreed on.

But I really try to treat all my clients the same, whether -- it's the only former president I have ever represented, but, I mean, I treat them like the guy that runs the elevator that gets charged with a crime.

TAPPER: So, look, people have passionate opinions about wanting to be defended as zealously as possible, and attorneys pushing back, as you explained, that being strategic might be better suited for the client's interests.

But when we read about Todd Blanche, his lead attorney in this case, and Mr. Trump having disagreements, how do you imagine those disagreements playing out, given your experience?

BRENNAN: I don't think it's uncommon.

As Laura and Elie, as former prosecutors, know, and Elie said earlier, these are stressful situations. He's a passionate guy. And I think that it's -- I don't think you should read too much into impassioned exchanges, but the lawyer has to make those tactical decisions, other than the three that we talked about earlier, plead guilty or not guilty, judge or jury, and testify or don't testify.

The lawyer must maintain control of that trial. And I'm convinced Mr. Blanche will do that.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: And, Jake, to that point about the strategic decisions that a defense lawyer makes, let's look at the cross-examination of Gary Farro, the banker, which just concluded.

Todd Blanche went and did a very narrow, focused cross-examination. It took, what, a half-hour or so? And he established, I think, two key points that the jury will take away. Number one, Michael Cohen dupes everyone. He duped you. He lied to you, his banker.

And, number two, your contacts, Mr. Banker, were with Michael Cohen. You never had any communication with Donald Trump. That's it, two takeaways, simple. Didn't need to annihilate him. Strategic.

BRENNAN: Absolutely.

LAURA COATES, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: There was also a moment that you're hearing about in the courtroom while the jury was out of the room.

And that's the idea of the strategy of allowing essentially the defense counsel to open a door. In the opening statements and in the conversations surrounding what testimony they wanted to come in, defense, they're arguing now, has opened the door to essentially suggesting that Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, Michael Cohen, specifically, profited from their disdain for Donald Trump.

It's almost a very enticing feature for a prosecution to go, aha, good. Now how can I get some testimony in that I really want to get in to suggest that somehow you have -- you, yourself, have a bias against these people or that the statements you don't want us to hear are important to the case?

So watch for that, as the judge reentering the courtroom at some point soon, the judge to actually confirm whether he's going to allow testimony around that very point to come in.

TAPPER: So, very interesting.

And Kasie and Jamie, so the prosecution is trying to establish that Michael Cohen set up these accounts or account, singular, in Delaware, got a home equity loan, put that money in that account to pay off Stormy Daniels and later was reimbursed by Donald Trump.

And the question is whether the falsification of business records, which is a misdemeanor, was carried out in service to a different crime, even if it's a misdemeanor. And those -- and the combination of those misdemeanors makes the falsification of business records a felony.

But Donald Trump has not been consistent on whether or not he even paid Michael Cohen back. His argument today is, that was just like paying for a lawyer. He -- it was just a retainer. But even on that simple issue, he's been all over the map, Jamie.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: So, let's go back April 5, 2018.

This is to Bill's point of they're trying to perhaps say that Michael Cohen went rogue. So, on April 5, Donald Trump is on Air Force One. He goes back to talk to the press. He's asked about this. He famously says he doesn't know anything about it and then says you will have to ask Michael Cohen about it.

But less than a month later, on May 3, he actually says that he did know about it. He tweets about it and admits that he did know about it and pay Cohen. And I'm just looking back at our old coverage from that time.

"President Donald Trump is shifting his story about the Stormy Daniels' controversy following the revelation by his lawyer Rudy Giuliani."

(LAUGHTER)

GANGEL: So what happens in real time is, he says, I don't know. Rudy says, oh, yes, it did happen this way. And Donald Trump actually then admits it.

That doesn't have to do with the particulars of this case of falsifying business records. But this...

TAPPER: It's a case of unreliable narrator versus unreliable narrator.

GANGEL: Right. And it does not appear Michael Cohen went rogue. And the prosecutors have Trump on the record here.

KASIE HUNT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, and there's a little bit of a challenge too, I think.

[11:25:02]

You can see all the ways in which you can make an argument about Michael Cohen's credibility, right, and why it should be undermined. We have him on record lying to Congress. He's -- he's pled guilty to that.

TAPPER: He's -- although he -- if he were here, he would say lying in Congress in service to Mr. Trump.

GANGEL: Right.

HUNT: Well, so that's the second half of my point...

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: OK. So...

HUNT: ... which is that this idea that Michael Cohen has gone rogue...

TAPPER: Right.

HUNT: ... doesn't track, just because Michael Cohen was always trying to do everything he possibly could to please and execute on whatever it was that Donald Trump was doing. TAPPER: You see -- you see -- you see Mr. Trump walking back into the

courtroom after the brief recess. They took about a 25-minute recess.

HUNT: He didn't speak to cameras then when he left, and -- or just now either, which is kind of an interesting -- an interesting choice.

I just -- I get that it's a court of law. And, obviously, Laura, you and your colleagues and others can speak to the exact details of what they need to prove in the context of the case. But, as I think about this kind of politically and holistically in terms of -- and the jury is -- they're going to have to kind of make these -- weigh these things as well, is it plausible that Michael Cohen did this over the objection of Donald Trump?

You really think he would do this over the objection of Donald Trump?

COATES: Well, the thing is...

HUNT: I find that really hard to believe.

COATES: Yes. Well, that's -- that's going to be -- the prosecution has got to meet their burden, assuming that -- that Michael Cohen himself has not been able to yet articulate.

Remember his infamous comments at the hearing for Congress was that there was always intimation by Donald Trump, the idea of, this is a nice house you got here. But you really do need to show that there is the intent.

This is the person -- the person on your screen right now with this look on his face is the one who is the defendant in this action. And so you have to be able to show there was some sort of a direct order that was for political purpose to commit another crime or hide it. And they have got that burden.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Yes, let's go to -- Elie Honig is such a -- such a good commentator, we gave him a wall.

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: Elie.

(LAUGHTER)

HONIG: Jake, we're going to go through the gag order now, because we have finally gotten the long-awaited ruling from the judge.

Really important to understand what the gag order does and does not prohibit. It's actually quite narrow. The only things that Donald Trump is not allowed to comment on under the gag order are witnesses, jurors, and then courtroom staff, prosecutor staff, and their families. That's it.

Everything else is in play. Donald Trump is allowed to and has quite aggressively criticized the judge himself, the district attorney himself, the indictment itself, the gag order itself.

Now, we just got the first ruling from the judge a few hours ago on the gag order. There were 10 alleged violations. The judge found that nine of them had been proven, that Donald Trump had violated the gag order nine times. There's still four more pending. We're going to have a hearing on those on Thursday.

And let's look through what the penalty is going to be. Now, the judge has very limited options here. All the judge can do is the following. One, he can issue a reprimand. He did that. If you read the ruling, the judge really excoriates Donald Trump. The second thing he can do is levy a financial fine.

But the problem is, the max under an old New York law is only $1,000 per fine. Here, the judge maxed that out and fined Donald Trump $9,000. And, maybe most importantly, the judge does have the power to issue a sentence of imprisonment of up to 30 days. Of course, the judge has not done that, but he does have specific language in his ruling saying to Donald Trump, if you keep this up, I just may go down that road.

So we're part of the way now, Jake, through working through this gag order issue. The judge has come out with a very strong ruling excoriating Donald Trump for his violations. More to come on Thursday.

TAPPER: All right, Elie Honig, thank you so much. Interesting stuff.

Bill Brennan, what's your take on the gag order? Is it -- I mean, I know the judge is in a difficult spot on it, but how do you think is -- what would be an effective way to have it so that this trial can proceed without inappropriate comments made about the witnesses and the jurors and the like?

Right now, by the way, Judge Merchan is telling Todd Blanche, Trump's attorney, let's try to keep the break short, adding that he doesn't like to keep the jury waiting. "Let's do better," the judge said. I guess the defense took a too long a break.

(LAUGHTER)

BRENNAN: That sounds very familiar. I'm having flashbacks. Judge Merchan moves it along.

I think the problem is that the -- as Elie points out, the gag order really has no teeth. There's not a lot that he can do. The jail possibility is really fraught with problems because of the -- this particular defendant.

But I wanted to just say one thing, Kasie's point. I don't think it's mutually exclusive that Cohen could have gone rogue and still tried to act not at the behest of, but on behalf of Trump, because Cohen, like Willie Cicci in "Godfather II," Cohen provides a buffer.

You remember that scene? The family's got a lot of buffers, Senator. Cohen is a buffer. And that was a great question that Blanche elicited a response from Farro, that, you never talked to Trump. You never saw Trump. You talked to -- deal with Turnbull. You -- you talked to Cohen.

And I think if -- because you must remember there's vitriol between these two guys now. But, at that point in time, Cohen made

[11:30:00]