Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Testimony Continues in Trump Hush Money Trial; President Biden Delivers Address on Campus Protests. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired May 02, 2024 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:01:29]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: And welcome back to CNN special live coverage.

We are waiting for President Biden at the White House. We are told he plans to make remarks about the chaos we're seeing on college campuses with these anti-war, anti-Israel protests across the country.

Biden has really said very little to this point about the protests and the arrests and all the rest we have seen on college campuses night after night.

We're also getting some updates from inside the courtroom in New York, where our reporters are following every detail of Donald Trump's hush money cover-up trial, the prosecution dispensing with some potentially bad facts for their case.

Keith Davidson, the attorney for Stormy Daniels, is now detailing for the jury how Trump's former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen was furious over Donald Trump refusing to pay him back in a timely fashion. Also, we had learned that he was furious that Donald Trump had not tapped him to come with him to Washington, D.C.

We're joined here in Washington by former Trump attorney Tim Parlatore.

And, Tim, as you watch this play out, the jury being shown the January 18, 2018, statement from Stormy Daniels, Davidson, Keith Davidson, her attorney, being asked whether he prepared the statement in which she denies the affair. He said: "I believe so."

Steinglass asks: "How would you categorize the truthfulness of the statement?"

This is -- do you agree with the assessment this is the prosecution trying to get some bad facts out of the way, so that, when the defense introduces them, as they no doubt will, because they undermine the case, the jury won't: "Oh, I didn't -- I didn't know that."

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: It's already been established.

TIMOTHY PARLATORE, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: That's absolutely true. It's something that prosecutors do a lot. It doesn't change the cross-examination. And, certainly, you would try

to bring that out and try and make it sound that much more salacious than that which the prosecutors tried to blunt it. But that's absolutely what's going on right now.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And one more thing about that. It's not just the surprise factor for the jury hearing it the first time. It's also because the prosecutor can control the questioning and ask it in such a manner that it comes out in a positive way.

When the defense has a crack at him, it'll be leading questions, saying, you said this, didn't you? And he can only really answer yes or no. So it's really just -- it's almost like a stagecraft thing, as much as it is a surprising the jury.

TAPPER: And here is Keith -- Keith Davidson is arguing that the truthfulness of the statement in which Stormy Daniels denied the affair, or the interlude, or whatever you want to call it.

"How would you characterize -- how would you categorize the truthfulness of the statement?" the prosecution asks.

And Keith Davidson says: "Well, an extremely strict reading of this denial would technically be true."

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: So, all of you folks out there who get frustrated by lawyerly statements that don't actually deny-deny something...

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: ... although those of us not used to reading lawyers' statements might actually say, oh, look, he apologized, or, oh, look, he denied it.

Davidson is saying, with an extremely fine reading -- I'd have to go back and look at this to figure out how it was actually true.

Elie Honig.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: He's trying to thread a really thin needle here.

And I'm interested to see what comes next. What Davidson is doing is walking the jury through the payment structure to Stormy Daniels. And that's really important to the charges here. People need to understand there's two steps to this.

First, Michael Cohen, the individual, pays Stormy Daniels through Keith Davidson $130,000. The way Michael Cohen got that money, we know from a prior witness, is, he drew down on his own personal mortgage without telling his wife and while misleading his banker. That was Gary Farro, who testified a couple of days ago. So, Cohen pays $130,000 first.

[11:05:01]

And Davidson is giving us a really important insight into Cohen's anxiety and fear at that moment, Cohen saying, he's not going to pay me back. I'm doing this for him.

And that's going to allow the defense to argue, again, this is Michael Cohen acting as a freelancer. He's keeping Donald Trump in the dark. He's paying on his own.

Now, the second half of that transaction is, eventually, Donald Trump and the Trump Organizations reimburse Michael Cohen, and that comes over the course of the next several months, including after Trump has become president, through a series of checks.

So there's two parts here, but it's going to enable the defense to argue, Michael Cohen was doing this on his own. Michael Cohen was the architect here, not Donald Trump.

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: And that really -- I mean, the lawyers here, I mean, we obviously have to keep in mind the consumers of this information. And that's the 12 people and the six other alternates.

TAPPER: Let me just interrupt for one second.

BASH: Please.

TAPPER: The -- because we're all interested in the -- how Stormy Daniels' attorney...

BASH: Yes.

TAPPER: ... is saying that the statement is technically true.

BASH: Yes.

TAPPER: He says -- quote -- "I think you would have to hone in on the definition of romantic, sexual and an affair."

PARLATORE: Right.

TAPPER: I -- quote: "I don't think that anyone had alleged that any interaction between she and Mr. Trump was romantic."

HONIG: That is Clintonian.

PARLATORE: I was just going to say.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: This is the modern version of it depends on the definition of is.

WILLIAMS: Right.

(LAUGHTER)

PARLATORE: Yes.

You know, part of the problem there is, as a lawyer, he's not supposed to be putting out false information. And so he has to kind of thread the needle here of, how -- how does he testify truthfully now and at the same time not say I was facilitating a fraud back then and I was putting out a knowingly false statement?

So...

BASH: Yes, that's such an interesting point...

PARLATORE: Yes.

BASH: ... that he's not just a witness, but he's a lawyer.

PARLATORE: Yes.

BASH: And he has to protect the fact that he wants to continue to be a lawyer...

PARLATORE: Correct.

BASH: ... and a member of the bar.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

So, this -- Steinglass asking Davidson whether the statement was cleverly misleading. Davidson says he doesn't understand the question.

(LAUGHTER)

WILLIAMS: Well, that's -- cleverly misleading is the lawyerly way to put it. I think the plain language way is, were you being too cute by half by parsing this language in the way you did, with differentiating between romantic versus sexual versus is versus not is.

TAPPER: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: So, the statement -- and, boy, this is really getting silly.

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: But so -- this is in 2018.

BASH: Now it's just getting silly?

KASIE HUNT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I think we're past silly. We're going to need a new word.

TAPPER: She says, the fact -- this is what she said, OK? This is the statement. And she was actually asked about this by Jimmy Kimmel when she said something like: "Well, that looks like my signature doesn't it?"

But Steinglass is asking how -- quote -- "Rumors that I have received hush money from Donald Trump are completely false" -- unquote -- is a true statement. Davidson says, well, it wasn't a payout and it wasn't hush money. It was consideration in a civil settlement agreement.

So this is how the parsing is done. The statement in 2018: "The fact of the matter is that each party to this alleged affair denied its existence in 2006, 2011, 2016, 2017, and now again in 2018. The signed statement reads: 'I'm not denying this affair because I was paid hush money, as has been reported in overseas-owned tabloids. I'm denying it because it never happened."

And so here you have the attorney, Kasie Hunt, saying, well, it wasn't hush money. It was a civil agreement or something along those lines.

"So, would you use the phrase hush money to describe the money that was paid to your client by Donald Trump?" Steinglass asks.

"I would never use that word," Davidson says. It's actually two words, but anyway.

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: Kasie.

HUNT: Yes.

TAPPER: This is what people hate -- no offense to this side of the table.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: No.

TAPPER: But this is what people hate about lawyers.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Oh, wait. We're -- I'm...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Hold on. Here is President Biden.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: ... a few moments about what's going on our college campuses here.

We have all seen images, and they put to the test two fundamental American principles. Excuse me. The first is the right to free speech and for people to peacefully assemble and make their voices heard. The second is the rule of law.

Both must be upheld. We are not an authoritarian nation, where we silence people or squash dissent. The American people are heard. In fact, peaceful protest is in the best tradition of how Americans respond to consequential issues.

But, but neither are we a lawless country. We're a civil society, and order must prevail. Throughout our history, we have often faced moments like this because we are a big, diverse, free-thinking and freedom-loving nation.

In moments like this, there are always those who rush in to score political points. But this isn't a moment for politics. It's a moment for clarity.

So, let me be clear. Peaceful protest in America -- violent protest is not protected. Peaceful protest is. It's against the law when violence occurs. Destroying property is not a peaceful protest. It's against the law. Vandalism, trespassing, breaking windows, shutting down campuses, forcing the cancellation of classes and graduations, none of this is a peaceful protest.

[11:10:04]

Threatening people, intimidating people, instilling fear in people is not peaceful protest. It's against the law. Dissent is essential to democracy, but dissent must never lead to disorder or to denying the rights of others so students can finish the semester and their college education.

Look, it's basically a matter of fairness. It's a matter of what's right. There's the right to protest, but not the right to cause chaos. People have the right to get an education, the right to get a degree, the right to walk across the campus safely without fear of being attacked.

But let's be clear about this as well. There should be no place on any campus, no place in America for antisemitism or threats of violence against Jewish students. There is no place for hate speech or violence of any kind, whether it's antisemitism, Islamophobia, or discrimination against Arab Americans or Palestinian-Americans.

It's simply wrong. There's no place for racism in America. It's all wrong. It's un-American.

I understand people have strong feelings and deep convictions. In America, we respect the right and protect the right for them to express that. But it doesn't mean anything goes. It needs to be done without violence, without destruction, without hate, and within the law.

You know, and make no mistake. As president, I will always defend free speech and I will always be just as strong in standing up for the rule of law. That's my responsibility to you, the American people, and my obligation to the Constitution.

Thank you very much.

QUESTION: Mr. President, have the protests forced you to reconsider any of the policies with regard to the region?

BIDEN: No.

Thank you.

QUESTION: Mr. President, do you think the National Guard should intervene?

BIDEN: No.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Do you agree with what the students are calling for?

QUESTION: Mr. President, the former president...

TAPPER: All right, President Biden giving some comments about the unrest we have seen on college campuses, talking about how these protests bring at odds two important American principles, one, of course, the right of free speech, to demonstrate peacefully, and the other one, of course, the right of students to feel safe and secure in an academic establishment.

He did, on his way out of the room, also say that he didn't think the National Guards should be dispatched to college campuses, which, of course, has been going on in Texas, for one, as well as other law enforcement agencies in other states.

Let's talk a bit about this before we go back to the Trump trial.

Dana Bash, I know that there has been criticism of President Biden for waiting until today, quite late in all of this, to give a statement. What were your thoughts?

BASH: Yes, he -- we have heard from his spokespeople yesterday on the -- at the White House podium and the deputy press secretary before that since the unrest really started.

But there have been calls, not just from his political opponents, but from his political supporters, to go out and to say something that is -- that gives clarity and a very solid argument for what is OK and what is not OK.

And it's hard to imagine that anybody heard that and didn't hear a very, very clear argument that, as you said, Jake, you can be somebody who opposes any policy, and you should have the right. That is a fundamental right in the United States of America. But you can't intimidate. You can't do anything to stop people from going to classes or from feeling unsafe.

And it is complicated. It is something that is steeped in nuance, but it's also something that a leader can and should, and I think probably in this case did, be able to clarify and make easier to understand for the American people. That's what a leader is supposed to do.

HUNT: And let's also be clear. We went way past nuance with the violence that we have seen the last two days, I mean, break -- and that is, I think, the distinction that President Biden was trying to make.

I mean, breaking into the building at Columbia, the images that we saw out of UCLA, we were just showing some of them on the screens here. There have been all these conversations about these very, in many cases, terrible signs and messages that have been on these college campuses, in terms of antisemitism.

But the escalation in recent days, I think, is clearly what motivated the president to come out now, even after -- I will say, every morning I have gotten up looking at the previous day, what did the president say about this? Because I have been waking up and covering at 5:00 in the morning these protests breaking out on these college campuses.

And the answer has always been, until this afternoon, well, no, here's some paper, here's some off-camera comments from the administration. Clearly, they felt like they needed to finally say something.

And I think you could really hear, for President Biden -- and, Dana, you were talking about this as we listened to him. You could hear the conviction in his voice in this speech.

[11:15:04]

BASH: Yes.

TAPPER: So, when you were doing your show this morning, Kasie, 5:00 a.m. East Coast time is 2:00 a.m. Pacific time.

HUNT: Right.

TAPPER: And it was at 1:00 a.m. Pacific time, I believe, that law enforcement went into the encampment at the campus of UCLA in Los Angeles to clear out the encampment there, which obviously is generally not a smooth and easy process.

Josh Campbell is there, our law enforcement correspondent and former FBI official, looking at the -- well, that does not look ready for graduation. I will just say that, Josh Campbell.

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: No, it certainly doesn't.

And after that clash that we saw last night, with law enforcement here ultimately deciding that it was time to go in, they did this in steps. They issued an unlawful assembly order and then asked this crowd to disperse, and then they went in, the California Highway Patrol.

There were some skirmishes. We talked to some of the officers inside who said that they had things that were thrown at them. I saw one officer who was covered in the powder from a fire extinguisher, but no injuries being reported at this point.

We are learning -- and I will tell you as we kind of zoom in about what's left here you can see behind me, there were 250 protesters approximately in this camp. That's what the CHP tells us. They brought in 250 officers of their own, so essentially one officer for one protester, bringing all of those individuals out.

We are told that 132 of those protesters were taken into -- placed under arrest. We're waiting to see what those charges actually are. Now, overnight, we started to get a sense that this was about to go down because, late yesterday -- this gets to what -- the president's point about lawful versus unlawful -- the university itself, up to the point of last night, didn't ask the police to come in and actually clear this camp.

But that all changed. We started seeing resources come in. We saw the FBI field office, which is about a mile from here, essentially turn into a staging point for dozens and dozens of law enforcement officers. Multiple prisoner buses were brought in. And, as you mentioned, Jake, just around 1:00 a.m. time, we -- or a little earlier than that, but that was the time when they actually made entry into the actual camp itself, going in, conducting those arrests.

Right now, it is really quiet. What you're seeing -- I don't know if you can see it in the background there, but a line of LAPD officers just showed up, along with private security for the university here, and essentially did a complete sweep.

There were a few protesters that were still milling about. There was a standoff of sorts early this morning between the CHP and protesters on that perimeter. Then the CHP just left. But now the officers are back. They're clearing that camp. The university tells us that this is the beginning of the cleanup process after a very, very tense several days here, Jake.

TAPPER: Yes. And that's usually, I should note, a beautiful, spotless campus in Los Angeles, not what it looks like right there.

Before we turn back to the Trump trial, I do want to ask the lawyers some questions, because there are some important legal questions here. It's very easy to say, I support peaceful protest, I don't support violent protest.

The fact of the matter is that it's the kind of speech that has been heard at these protests that's in the gray area, right...

HONIG: Right.

TAPPER: ... when you have protesters saying "Go back to Poland" to Jewish students, when you have protesters saying that what Hamas did on October 7 was fine, and praising individual terrorists.

That is free speech. It is protected by the First Amendment. Private college campuses are not places that have to adhere to a First Amendment protection necessarily.

HONIG: Right.

TAPPER: And it is in that nuance, however ugly and hateful and antisemitic that nuance is, where we find some of the real issues here that are not so simple.

HONIG: So, a couple things. First of all, free speech is protected, even hateful speech, up to the point of imminent incitement.

And this may bring to mind Donald Trump's rally speech. We did a lot of analysis along those lines. Was this likely to imminently incite people to commit crimes? In this case, it has to be clear enough, specific enough that you can look at it and go, that's likely to cause someone to break the law, to assault somebody, to destroy property.

The other thing is, when we're looking at these encampments, people do, of course, have very broad First Amendment rights to protest, to assemble. It's right in the First Amendment. But that's always subject to a reasonable what the law calls time, place and manner restrictions, meaning you can't take over the quad.

You can't live in an area that's available for public consumption. You can't block other people from getting to class. So...

TAPPER: All of which we have seen videos of.

HONIG: All of which has happened.

TAPPER: Yes.

HONIG: Yes, I don't think there's any First Amendment defense for the actual physical encampments.

And as for the individual speech that we have heard, it really depends on the nuances of what is said. But the key line is, you cannot incite someone to commit a crime soon.

BASH: Can I just add one thing?

You talked about, when the president walked out of the room, he was asked two questions, one of which, as you said, was, should the National Guard be deployed? He said no.

[11:20:04]

The other was a question about whether he will change his policies. He also said no. That should not get lost in this, because the people who are protesting peacefully, doing everything right on these campuses and elsewhere, what they are saying that they want is for the president to change his policies because of the way that the Netanyahu government is acting, the way that they are prosecuting the war and so forth.

They want to divest from Israel. They want the U.S. to stop funding or at least helping with the weaponry that Israel had. He said one word: "No." He's not going to change any of that.

TAPPER: Yes, one of the other things a lot of these protesters are calling for, of course, is also that universities divest all money from companies that do business in Israel or military companies such as Boeing.

As we have been talking about what we just heard from the president, some important moments happening inside the Manhattan courtroom, Keith Davidson still on the stand. We're going to tell you the latest from Donald Trump's hush money cover-up trial in minutes.

You're watching CNN's special live coverage.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:25:51]

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Welcome back to CNN's special live coverage, as Keith Davidson, the former attorney for the adult film actress Stormy Daniels, is still on the witness stand, now leading the jury through what he branded as Michael Cohen's pants-on-fire stage, as public reports were coming out about Stormy Daniels' alleged relationship with Donald Trump.

I'm here with CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid and Karen Friedman Agnifilo, the former chief assistant district attorney in the Manhattan DA's office.

And there's been a really interesting line of questioning happening right now inside the courtroom, where the prosecutors are asking Keith Davidson simple things, like, do you consider this to be hush money? This was -- do believe this was a relationship and affair between Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels?

Because the statements they were putting out at the time from Stormy Daniels and from Keith Davidson, Karen, were basically saying that there was no relationship, that she was not paid hush money. And Keith Davidson is pushing back and he's refusing to call it hush money. What do you make of that?

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Look, this is the kind of slippery language that people really dislike when, whether it's a lawyer or a politician.

I don't know. This reminds me of the "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" comment. You know, it's -- it's clear that this is not true, that he was being too cute by half, as they say. And what's happening right now is, Joshua Steinglass has to just say, look, this is what it is. This is the seedy world that Donald Trump lived in.

These are the people he dealt with. He dealt with -- with the underbelly of media, of lawyers of -- I mean, you have Michael Cohen. You have Rudy Giuliani. You have this guy, Keith Davidson.

I mean, the prosecutor is going to say, look, I didn't pick these people. Donald Trump picked all these people. And this is what you're seeing.

But there's no way they're going to embrace this kind of language and this parsing of words. But it is what it is.

COLLINS: Yes, I mean, he's calling it a consideration, instead of calling it hush money, even though we just saw the contract, Paula, that says Stormy Daniels couldn't speak publicly about it. They were writing her denials when people were reaching out about it. I mean, what else would you call it? PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Exactly. She's

getting $130,000, and they're getting her silence. They're getting her to hush.

So the idea that that was consideration for something else, it just doesn't hold water. I think even calling it slippery is being generous. And then the idea that he's constantly saying, well, we were denying it was a romantic relationship. No. Read that statement. It specifically says that she is denying any sexual and/or romantic relationship.

So, him trying to sort of weasel out of that, it's just not going to play well with the jury.

COLLINS: Well, because he's trying to parse it. He said a relationship, he considers there to be an ongoing interaction with any individual.

REID: They had sex multiple times, allegedly. And, in her statement, she's saying, I am denying a sexual, right, encounter or -- and/or romantic relationship.

So he is -- he's really not doing himself any favors here. But, again, like Karen said, they have to get some of this out of the way.

COLLINS: Adam Kaufmann is watching all of this along with us and is back with me now.

And, Adam, what is happening right now inside the courtroom is, they're talking about when Stormy Daniels went on Jimmy Kimmel's late- night program after Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union address. This is January 2018, just to take us all back.

This is when all this reporting was coming out in "The Wall Street Journal" and other publications. I remember because that was the State of the Union where Melania Trump, the first lady at the time, refused to ride in the motorcade with her husband to Capitol Hill for that. She instead went separately.

I believe she was wearing a white suit that night, a lot of subliminal messages there. And, right now, we're saying -- we're seeing that some of the jurors are smiling as Keith Davidson is explaining a text message and what he meant by "WTF" as they were talking about her appearance on Jimmy Kimmel, where -- where she's denying, you know, the allegations of the affair and of hush money, which we now can see her signature on these agreements.

ADAM KAUFMANN, FORMER EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Shocking. There are people getting caught up in lies about sex. Who'd a thunk it?

You know, there's an interesting thing that's happening in the courtroom right now, because you have both the substance of what is being said, but you also have the appraisal of the witness and, through the witness, the people's case. So, the juries are sort of both look -- listening to what is being

said, but they're also watching this guy. And at least four commentators this morning have used the word weasel. And he doesn't look good.

[11:30:00]