Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Columbia University Protesters Breach Academic Building; Soon, Fifth Day Of Testimony In Trump Hush Money Trial Resumes; Trump Removes Social Media Posts That Violated Gag Order. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired April 30, 2024 - 13:30   ET

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

[13:30:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: School officials are now urging people to vacate Columbia's journalism building, citing what they call safety concerns.

The White House also responding today, saying that protesters who occupy campus buildings are taking the, quote, "wrong approach."

Let's get right to CNN's Polo Sandoval. He's joining us from Columbia University.

So what's happening there now, Polo?

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, over 12 hours now since a group of individuals actually occupied the building that you see behind me. And we are now beginning to get a better idea of who likely may still be in that building.

That's according to what we just heard from a member of Columbia University, Apartheid Divest speaking to my colleague, Jeff Winter, who confirms that, among some of the occupants still of that building, are members of that organization, commonly known as Quad.

Now if this sounds familiar, Wolf, if you remember, is that this is the organization that had a couple of their representatives that were actively engaged in days-long negotiations with members of Columbia University.

Negotiations that basically stalled, that led to yesterday's deadline, and eventually led to escalating tensions. And of course, those dramatic pictures of Hamilton Hall, an historic building that has served as a stage for previous protests, being occupied by these students.

Now Macklin Kalio (ph), in his conversation with CNN, adding that he has been informed that he has also been suspended. He said that he had already previously left the university campus when this took place.

And he, at this point, according to Kalio (ph), that it is up to the university to determine exactly what will happen next. And calling on the university to, once again, resume negotiations.

So this is the first time that we are essentially hearing from one of the people who were at the negotiating table with Columbia diversity trying to resolve the issue of divestment. This is now one of those negotiators calling for those negotiations to pick back up again.

Now, in terms of what we have heard from Columbia, just in the last few minutes, they have reached -- they have issued a statement right now threatening anybody who is currently occupying, especially their students so obviously, occupying the building that you see behind me, threatening them with expulsion.

So you certainly do get a sense the university also taking a different position here as they continue to restrict access on campus.

All morning long, we have seen numbers of the university community walk up to that gate with a majority of them being denied access. Only those essential personnel and students who live on campus are being allowed on it this morning.

BLITZER: So I just want to be precise, Polo, while I have you. Some of those students who actually broke into that building on campus and broke the windows and crossed through the doors, they wouldn't just be suspended. They would be expelled from Columbia University? Is that right?

SANDOVAL: That's according to a spokesperson for the university, Wolf, that just issued a statement just a few moments ago. We had heard those threats of suspension, particularly when it comes to those that were occupied or at least taking part in that encampment for days.

But now you really do get a sense of that escalation with the university issuing a very direct warning to the people inside that building without permission, that if they do not leave, they risk expulsion -- Wolf?

BLITZER: Expulsion is different than suspension. And there was a lot of video cameras showing who was breaking in through those doors and those windows. So I assume the Columbia University authorities have evidence if they are going to go ahead and start expelling students, Columbia University students.

Polo Sandoval, thank you very, very much. We'll stay in close touch with you.

We'll stay on top of this story and our special coverage of the Trump trial. We'll be back in just a few moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:35:06]

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: And welcome back to CNN's special live coverage of Donald Trump's historic first criminal trial. Day five of testimony in his hush money case is now in a break. And I just got out of the courtroom myself.

CNN's Paula Reid and Phil Mattingly are back. And I mean, so much to talk about, about being in that room. But I will say Keith Davidson, obviously, a crucial witness, came to the stand, Stormy Daniel's attorney.

And at the very end, some really crucial points. They're showing all these text messages back-and-forth between Stormy Daniel's attorney and AMI Dylan Howard, the editor-in-chief.

And the point-blank question asked by Mr. Steinglass, if you were to close this deal, basically paying Karen McDougal for her story from Ami, did you have an understanding that this would help Candidate Trump, question mark.

Keith Davidson, one word answer, yes. And that's what they're trying to establish again and again. And it was very clear, trying to establish that connection that they knew that this was to help the election.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Because, of course, this is charged as 34 counts of falsifying business records. What would elevate the entire case to a felony is the idea that this hush money payments specifically to Stormy Daniels was covered up -- was made and then covered up to help Trump in the 2016 campaign.

And then there was, of course, that exchange with Davidson. He's texting someone, sort of joking about that, if Karen McDougal does this deal at AMI, her story is suppressed and not told, that he would be interested in an ambassadorship.

Sort of acknowledging that if AMI is to suppress McDougal's story that would likely help Trump's chances at the poles.

BURNETT: And that's exactly right. When they were talking about that ambassadorship to the Isle of --

(CROSSTALK)

BURNETT: And he should get --

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: -- really which normally is thrown out --

(CROSSTALK)

MATTINGLY: -- of Rome.

BURNETT: Well, it's funny because Davidson's comments -- and you know, he's got there under subpoena. But his point was, well, it's not even really country. It was just a joke. And he doesn't offer up, this is why I made the joke until he was actually pressured by Steinglass.

[13:40:03]

And then he said, OK, if Karen did this deal, that would help Trump's candidacy. I knew that and I guess this was my reference to say, well, I should get an ambassadorship out of it. So he did -- it had to be pulled out of him, but he was very clear on

what he thought --

(CROSSTALK)

MATTINGLY: You're seeing on the screen right now where they're talking about this. It was a reference to Mr. Trump's candidacy that somehow, if Karen did this deal, Karen McDougal did this deal with AMI, that it would help Donald Trump's candidacy.

A candid acknowledgment of what he said was a joke. But I think it underscores kind of the entire build to that moment, making very clear, as policy, we talk constantly about -- you mentioned the earlier text messages.

Extraordinary to go inside what one of these deals looks like. Give me $1 million, give me a column, wants to rectify the career because he doesn't want anything to become public --

(CROSSTALK)

BURNETT: -- doesn't want to be --

MATTINGLY: -- a business consultant.

BURNETT: -- for AMI magazine.

MATTINGLY: And things, for a normal person, I imagine the jury, are extraordinary to actually see play out.

But getting back to what the core prosecutor -- what the prosecutors have alleged and what they're trying to prove, that not only is this falsification of business records, but it is elevated to that in order to try and go after the felony charges that they've put on the board here.

BURNETT: Right. And you know, it is interesting, too, the jury themselves, they're watching. And one of the things in the room -- it's a small room, right?

(CROSSTALK)

BURNETT: And it's an intimate space. You only have about nine rows of reporters and lawyers. And then, it's right there. So I was about 25 feet from Trump himself.

The jury, though, they sit there and you hear this frenetic typing of the press. I mean, it's ugh. I mean, it's like it gets your blood pressure up for people.

And then the jury, they're -- they're just taking it in. And I don't mean to imply that they're bored or disengaged. Quite the contrary. They're very engaged.

But they really were engaged in taking it in. There wasn't a lot of note-taking. They were watching the witness, watching the questioners. Interestingly, not watching Trump, nor did they look at him when they came and left the courtroom.

I mean, as a lawyer, what do you read into that? Does that instruction on what they should do or --

REID: Well, some of it is instruction. Because, at the outset, the judge told them that their notes should not serve as a transcript. If you want an actual transcript of what was said, we will get you a transcript.

Because, imagine, you'd have 12 different people trying to read their own handwriting, argue about what was said. So he really encouraged them not to take too many notes, or to rely too heavily.

Instead, just take it in like you observe them doing. And if you need something read back, you need a transcript, we can do that at the very end.

Now it's interesting to me that they're not looking at Trump because I think, anywhere he goes, he's probably one the most famous people most people have seen in their life.

(CROSSTALK)

REID: Yes, you look at him. So that's interesting that they weren't looking directly at him, but good that they're paying attention to what they're putting out as evidence.

MATTINGLY: We should note, if any transcript, they could also get your notebook.

BURNETT: Yes.

MATTINGLY: Because you came back and I believe took word for word the entire morning of procedures.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTINGLY: Can I ask you a question though? Because we were focused this morning about Eric Trump actually being in the courtroom. We saw him walk out. We've seen him come in and out with the former president.

But of course, you haven't seen family up to this point. Is there interaction? Where does he sit? How does that all work?

BURNETT: Yes. This was the first time, I understand, that Eric Trump had been in the room. So what it is, is that the press comes in, they're seated. Lawyers sort of come in. And then it's like a -- it's like a wedding procession. OK? In comes the defense.

I mean, this is literally how it goes. There's an order of affairs. And you come in. And he doesn't look one way or the other. He comes in and then he went -- Eric Trump was sitting in the front rows where family and lawyers can sit.

And Eric Trump was there and Donald Trump turned to talk to his son, a personal moment, and had a chance to ask me, how are you doing? Having interaction. And did turn to interact with the son.

And then he goes in front of a little low barrier and sits in his seat where he basically remains the whole time. I mean hours sitting there.

REID: Yes, hours. And it's got to feel good to have at least one family member. Being a criminal defendant, as I've said, it's one of the most stressful things you can possibly go through.

And all the prosecution alleges, all of these hush money payments were made to help Trump in the 2016 campaign. His defense attorneys will argue that they were done to protect his family.

Of course, Eric is now one of his four adult children. Baron, I guess he's now technically adult, about to graduate from high school, which Trump will be able to attend.

BURNETT: Right.

REID: But it is notable that he finally has one member of his family. Because, of course, his wife has not attended any of this. Understandable, given the -- given the subject matter and also her overall nature. But it's the only one of his children we've seen so far.

BURNETT: That's right. Of course, Melania's name was brought up today, Stormy Daniel's name, Karen McDougal, all of it.

And we should say, as you see on the bottom of your screen, Trump removed the social media posts that violated the gag order from Truth Social. It was one of the first things the judge did today, was to rule on that.

And I believe it's $9,000 in fine for each of the violations, which he found all of them, except for -- but there were a couple that he said did not violate. But the large majority of them.

And I will say that went without fanfare or reaction from Trump. Nobody even batted an eye at that. But he has removed them in compliance with that gag order.

[13:44:53]

So of course, Paul, Phila - Paula, Phil and I are going to be here through the afternoon. Stay with CNN, please, for our special coverage.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:49:36]

BLITZER: Welcome back to CNN's special coverage of Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial in New York. The former president just deleting social media posts that had violated the judge's gag order.

Now we're back with analysis. And, David Chalian, what, there were 10 violations, nine violations, but one -- the judge thought one was not necessarily a violation of the gag order. But he did say that the violations of the gag order had to be deleted.

[13:50:05]

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: That's right.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: And Trump did that within a half an hour --

CHALIAN: One thousand -- $1,000, one for each of the nine violations fine assessed. And they had to be taken down by 2:15 p.m. Eastern today. Meaning --

BLITZER: It's now 1:49.

CHALIAN: That right. So our intrepid embed reporter with the Trump campaign, Kate Sullivan, scrubbing the Truth Social Web site and everything throughout the day to see when they come down and is reporting now they have been taken down, specifically, all nine instances that Judge Merchan intended to.

And this is because, if you follow the logic through the order of the violation of the gag order, it would be a repetitious process of continuing to violate the gag order if this -- if these comments remained in the public domain.

And potentially could be -- I know the jurors have been sworn to stay away from everything. But talking about jurors, they could get in -- into their viewpoint somehow. Certainly, some of the other people that were -- that fit the violation order.

If this remained in the public domain, it was as if the violation was ongoing. So not just the fine, but also removing it.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: And they have a hearing come up --

CHALIAN: Yes.

BORGER: -- too, on Thursday.

BLITZER: Thursday. Thursday.

And how does this play into Thursday's hearing on four additional alleged violations of the judge's gag order?

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Well, presuming that he does not -- Trump does not violate between now and then the idea -- and this might be the presumption.

But the allegations that predated the judge's order of punishment right now, I would find it very unlikely that he would punish him additionally, for these four -- maybe the fines of $1,000 each, as a finding of a violation of the gag order.

It wouldn't be a graduated step beyond the fine. Because he has to first, in most cases, give notice to the defendant of what you're -- you heard from a judge talking earlier about this continuum or the force continuum, meaning I'm going to begin here, and as you begin to violate my now order, I'm going to accelerate and heightened what your exposure is.

These are already in the past, already having been stayed, which gives pause to understand why the judge would have taken even this long to decide, which clearly had not been an issue in contention.

Except for the one post. That was about what the judge is saying, you're able to respond to political attacks. All of them are not. But if it's a political attack, you're able to respond.

Which is probably music to Trump's ears. Say, well, I'm a candidate. I want to be able to respond to these things. But I wonder if there's enough clarity for him to go forward and say, well, hold on, this is political and this is not.

BLITZER: Why did the judge actually threaten incarceration -- incarceration for Trump if he continues to violate the gag order?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: The judge is putting him on notice. He's telling him this is in play, right? I think he's making a point here.

And the line in the sand, to Laura's point, was drawn today. Anything that Donald Trump does from the time that that order was issued at 9:30 this morning, on, I think is going to be treated differently by the judge.

The judge did not say I definitely will lock you up. The judge is being careful here. But the judge is reminding Donald Trump I do have this enforcement tool in my tool belt and I might use it if necessary.

Also, I should say it's good to see order prevail here. The judge said, you have to take them down by 2:15. They were taken down. I'm not saying Donald Trump deserves bravo for that.

But it's good to see that when the judge issues an order, it's actually complied with. That's the way an ordinary trial does and should work.

BORGER: The question is, what happens going forward?

HONIG: Yes, yes.

BORGER: And Michael Cohen has said he's not going to do social media anymore until --

BLITZER: Attacking Trump.

BORGER: Attacking Trump. So we'll see if that holds.

And then Trump won't be -- won't be responding to Michael Cohen.

BLITZER: Right.

BORGER: But the question is, what does Donald Trump do? Can he police himself late at night? I see often, you know, tweets or those on Truth Social.

And his attorneys seem to have no control over this. And so the fine of $1,000 per post doesn't really mean much to Donald Trump. So I think incarceration would.

But the question is, how does he start behaving? And does this really have any impact going forward?

(CROSSTALK)

HONIG: Sorry.

CHALIAN: His behavior didn't seem to help him so much in the civil trials --

(CROSSTALK)

CHALIAN: -- against E. Jean Carroll.

And it seems to me, since this -- while we've been waiting for the judge's decision on this, it does seem that Donald Trump has started, in his public comments, being much more in the political realm than in the attacks related to this case.

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: And remember, his big grief or one of the grievances was that, look, I'm running for office and I can't attack those who attacked me politically?

On the one hand, by the judge, not really splitting the baby. I mean, nine saying you violated and one thing you did not. It does, in many ways, undermine some of the rhetoric that Trump is going to say about this judge.

He is allowing you to engage in a retort of a political attack, to your larger point, but you cannot engage in behavior that is going to threaten and intimidate a witness, which is as it should be.

[13:55:06]

BORGER: Or -- or speak about the jury.

COATES: Right.

BORGER: I mean, you know, who would Trump be responding to if he criticizes the jury as a bunch of liberal Democrats? Nobody. So that is the most serious offense, if you asked me.

And there's no political reason that he would be doing that other than to make a point in case he loses the case.

BLITZER: All right, guys, everybody standby.

There's a lot more we're watching right now. Court set to resume in a matter of just a few minutes. Our special live coverage will continue right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)