Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Trump Hush Money Trial Continues. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired May 02, 2024 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:43]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Welcome to CNN's special coverage, day 10 of Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial.

I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. Phil Mattingly is just outside court in Manhattan.

Court just broke for lunch until about 2:15. But before that, Trump's defense attorney was grilling Stormy Daniels' former lawyer Keith Davidson. Davidson was a point person for the deal to pay Daniels to stay silent about her alleged affair with Trump.

Davidson then dealt with Trump's then-attorney Michael Cohen -- Phil.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Yes, grilling is the right word, Wolf.

The six-figure deal the parties crafted involved confidentiality and even fake names for both Daniels and Donald Trump. The key question is whether Michael Cohen took it upon himself to draw it up or if he was actually just doing Trump's bidding.

CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid is with me now.

Paula, there has been a need to have a pop culture encyclopedia from like 2005 to 2010.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTINGLY: But, more importantly, this has been a very aggressive cross-examination from Trump's legal defense. Why?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I would argue that it's been a very successful cross-examination, because they have not only really dirtied up Davidson as a witness, but also raised the specter and the question of whether he is indeed a professional extortionist.

Now, it's also surprising that prosecutors didn't bring out some of this on direct examination to sort of take the sting out, especially, for example, Davidson's involvement with Hulk Hogan and that story, the fact that there are federal and state investigations looking at whether Hulk Hogan was being extorted.

Davidson even testified under cross-examination that some of his communications when he was working on a deal to try to sell a sex tape back to Hulk Hogan, whether those were extortion. They also asked him about deals that he did on behalf of clients with Charlie Sheen, a way that he also benefited about a story related to Lindsay Lohan.

They laid out all of these different instances, again, not people who are currently in the headlines, but folks that the jury will be familiar, and laid out how Davidson was benefiting either himself or on behalf of a client by getting money from people to avoid releasing embarrassing information.

And we know there's a fine line, right, between a fair and lawful NDA and straight extortion. And that's really what the defense attorneys tried to draw out here. Were you trying to extort then-candidate Trump, when you knew he was under pressure, especially after the "Access Hollywood" tape?

MATTINGLY: And it's that line. For those of us who didn't go to law school, to what extent does it exist? How bright is it?

REID: Yes.

MATTINGLY: What is the difference between extortion and what Keith Davidson said he was doing?

REID: Yes, it's a really fine line.

Now, when we go back to what happened in late October 2016, Davidson even said, yes, he is aware of the line and that he was not trying to extort money from Trump, that, instead, this was an agreement. He keeps trying to get away from the hush money moniker.

MATTINGLY: And the campaign piece of it, saying repeatedly...

REID: Yes.

MATTINGLY: ... that this wasn't tied to the campaign at all.

REID: Exactly, which he directly contradicts in text messages that he testified to on direct shortly after the deal was negotiated, right? He's like, what have we done?

He acknowledges that the agreement that was reached, the fact that Stormy Daniels' story was suppressed, that that likely helped Trump get elected. So, in his own words, he has contradicted himself there. Even at the moment he was getting money from Cohen, he says he wasn't thinking about the impact on the election.

But this has been really actually a pretty surprising cross- examination because of how much new information, damaging information for Mr. Davidson. But I think the biggest thing that the defense has achieved right now is raising the question, perhaps in the minds of the jurors, was this an attempt to extort him?

MATTINGLY: To the point you're making about being surprised, I think I was as well that we hadn't heard any of this...

REID: Yes.

MATTINGLY: ... in the initial questioning from the prosecution.

Why would that be? They have done such a fulsome job of painting Michael Cohen before he even reaches the stand...

REID: Yes.

MATTINGLY: ... as being aggressive, not liked, a jerk, using their words here, not my own. Why didn't they do that with Davidson?

REID: It's a great question why this didn't come out, because, even if Tila Tequila's situation may not be front of mind for them, the Hulk Hogan sex tape saga, that is a story, a case that has been followed very closely, right, for well over a decade.

They should be aware of Davidson's involvement in that. It's completely unclear right now why they wouldn't have on direct examination drawn some of these less favorable facts out. We know they did that with other less favorable facts, right, the fact that he was guiding his then-client, Stormy Daniels, to lie about her alleged affair, to issue these false statements.

[13:05:05]

The prosecutors got all of that out on direct, right, to take the sting out when defense attorneys bring it out to try to undermine his credibility and that of his client. Why they didn't do that with Hulk Hogan, Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan, Tila Tequila, unclear.

MATTINGLY: Before I let you go, I was fascinated by the answer or shifting answer on the agreements that he had helped construct with these individuals...

REID: Yes.

MATTINGLY: ... initially saying he didn't recall.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTINGLY: They had a sidebar saying he needs to answer these questions.

REID: Yes.

MATTINGLY: Then saying, "I can't answer that," which I think is probably the right answer if he's not allowed to answer that.

Why did he shift?

REID: It -- well, they had a sidebar with the judge. The judge was pressing him to answer.

Now, he does have some duty to some of these clients, confidentiality. There are some things he can't talk about. But then there was also the question of a bar, a suspension, and he said he can't recall. Well, let me tell you, if your license is suspended, you will

remember. So, the stacking up of all of those memory lapses, again, it causes the jury to maybe pause and question his overall credibility and also his motives when he and his then-client Stormy Daniels were going back at the Trump campaign in late 2016, October 2016.

MATTINGLY: Yes, our reporters in the room agreeing that Davidson at one point was flushed, given kind of the intensity of the back-and- forth.

Certainly, much more to come after the lunch break.

Paula Reid, as always, thank you very much -- Wolf, back to you.

BLITZER: All right, thanks very much.

My panel is with me right now.

And, Elie Honig, give me a sense of what stood out to you so far about Keith Davidson's testimony?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think his testimony on direct was establishing just how this deal between first Karen McDougal and lady -- later Stormy Daniels came to be with Michael Cohen and Donald Trump and AMI.

But I think what's happening here on cross-examination is Donald Trump's lawyers are trying to establish a couple key things. One, this guy, Keith Davidson, is a sleaze, for lack of a better word. He's in a sleazy business that preys on people who are vulnerable, who -- who may be damaged by public revelations about their clients.

Number two, they're trying to say, he's dishonest too. He took this enormous amount of money out of the settlement for himself. He came up to the borderline of extortion. He can't give a straight answer about whether he was ever investigated, a lot of "I don't know"s, "I don't recall"s.

So they want to undermine this guy's credibility. And the last thing they're doing is, they're going, yet again, using one of the prosecution's own witnesses to undermine Michael Cohen by saying Michael Cohen used aggressive tactics. He overstated things. He threatened us. And at times he was untruthful.

BLITZER: You know, I thought it was interesting, Elliot.

Elliot Williams is with us as well.

Keith Davidson said he -- he wouldn't characterize the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels as -- quote -- "hush money." Instead, he called it a consideration for a settlement agreement. What do you make of that?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: That is such important legalistic lawyer-speak, but we need to unpack it a little bit, Wolf. So, hush money, as Elie was saying a second ago, tiptoes up to the line of extortion, where one is paying someone off with a -- with force or a threat. Hey, you saw something. Here's $100,000. Just don't talk about it. That's sort of where you start getting into the world of hush money or extortion.

This whole idea of consideration suggested that there was a contract between two parties, whether some good or service or something was exchanged, and the $130,000 was merely a payment in furtherance of that contract. That word consideration is a term that lawyer use for the thing -- lawyers use for the thing of value that is exchanged when two parties transact with each other.

It's a gray area. And this is exactly what the defense is poking at on cross-examination, that, really, you're tiptoeing up to this world of buying people's silence and extortion, when what the defense -- pardon me -- what the witness here was saying is, no, no, no, no, no, this was just a contract.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Yes, consideration for a settlement agreement, as opposed to hush money.

WILLIAMS: As opposed to hush money.

BLITZER: Yes.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: So, I guess the question is, who -- who went to who first, right, and -- or who went to whom first?

But was it Davidson and Stormy or Davidson and Karen McDougal who went to Michael Cohen and said, we want this money? Or was it Michael Cohen who said, how do I -- how do I shut this -- you up or -- and how do I make this go away?

HONIG: It was the first one of those.

BORGER: Yes.

HONIG: And that's what they're establishing here, that this is the business Keith Davidson's in. He goes and finds people who may be in a position where they have incentives to pay off his clients.

BORGER: Yes.

HONIG: And he has a long list of clients before Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels.

But Keith Mc -- Kevin -- Keith Davidson and Karen McDougal and later Keith Davidson and Stormy Daniels, they initiated this. Now, Michael Cohen was more than receptive, if anything, eager, anxious, to get these deals done. And the argument prosecutors will make was, because of the election. They're trying to protect Trump regarding that upcoming election. BORGER: But I think you can make the case it's a form of extortion.

HONIG: That's what the defense is trying to do, exactly, as Elliot just -- yes.

BORGER: Right. I think you can make that case very easily.

BLITZER: We will see if they succeed.

David Chalian, I think it's interesting if we take a closer look. As the 2016 presidential election results were coming in, Keith Davidson said he texted the then-"National Enquirer"'s editor, Dylan Howard -- and I'm quoting now -- "What have we done?" and that Howard responded, "Oh, my God."

[13:10:14]

What does that suggest to you?

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: It suggests that these two gentlemen thought perhaps that their actions were somehow connected to Donald Trump's victory on election night, that, somehow, being in this business relationship of sorts -- and I realize there are other people involved here -- somehow was connected to the results.

So that's something that you would imagine, to Elie's point, that the prosecution would want to point out, that this is -- despite every other norm in his world here, in Davidson's world, this was different because it was connected to the actual election and the campaign.

You know, I keep -- as we do go through all these developments, I just keep trying to think, if I was a juror in the jury box, like, I don't -- I don't know that we all process this the way that a juror is going -- especially a well-educated Manhattan juror is going to process this.

I don't know the answer to that, but I just keep trying to put my head in that space of, do -- are they going to see this as related to Donald Trump as a candidate in the election, or are they going to see this as just some larger seedy world that everyone does?

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: And one thing. Certainly, what the defense will point out about that "What have we done?" comment, it really doesn't matter what people on the outside might have thought had been happening here.

It doesn't really matter if the folks at "The National Enquirer" were just having private conversations thinking they influenced the election. What matters -- what really will matter legally is, what did the Trump team think? And were they intending to engage in these transactions and cover them up for the purpose of covering the election?

Now, it's helpful that these -- that the guys...

(CROSSTALK)

CHALIAN: I just look at that as more of the narrative, not anything material to the actual case.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Oh, no, I -- no, I -- no, no, no, I -- but I think both sides are going to do what they're going to do with it, with the prosecution, as you're saying, David, saying, oh, absolutely. Look, "The National Enquirer" necessarily believed that what was happening here was election interference...

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: ... and the defense saying, no, no, no, no, no, this is just guys talking.

BORGER: But they could possibly say a pox on all your houses, because the -- each witness has been shown to have some really bad sides.

And I think that you're sitting in the jury box, and you're trying to evaluate the credibility of someone and the authenticity of someone and...

CHALIAN: And ultimately to get to beyond a reasonable doubt on these charges.

BORGER: Right. And you look at these people, and you look at these people, and you go, do I trust what they're saying?

And how did Donald Trump get involved with this group of people?

HONIG: There are moments, to both of your points, when you're a prosecutor, when you have this feeling -- I have been there -- of, boy, we are pretty far afield from the charges here, and I don't love this, right?

(CROSSTALK)

HONIG: Because, remember, the charges are falsifying the business records relating to Stormy Daniels, the way they set it up, the way Donald Trump reimbursed Michael Cohen.

We are four steps away. If we're talking about Tila Tequila...

(LAUGHTER)

HONIG: ... and Hulk Hogan, we are four or five steps removed.

They will bring it back. Prosecutors will bring it back. But it's an uneasy moment.

BLITZER: All right, everybody, stand by.

I want to go to Kara Scannell. She's just outside the court. They're in a break right now. Give us a sense, Kara, what did you see inside?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, I mean, we could see the jury paying close attention during both the prosecution's direct examination of Keith Davidson, as well as the cross-examination that has been under way for about an hour.

And it was under cross-examination that Keith Davidson, when being peppered, as you guys have been discussing, by these questions about other dealings that he has done and other arrangements he's broken for other clients, that a lot of his answers became a lot more of the, "I don't know."

He had been fairly consistent in telling a story when asked by the prosecution. But when he was asked to explain some of his past dealings, which Trump's team was framing as extortion attempts and going through some of the details involving Lindsay Lohan and Hulk Hogan, Keith Davidson was splitting hairs over certain words and also saying that he didn't recall a lot of the information, saying he has hundreds of clients and he doesn't remember all the details.

And one of the ones that the -- that Trump's lawyer for focusing on was a $2 million payment that Charlie Sheen had paid to Keith Davidson's client. Davidson wouldn't discuss it, saying it was covered by attorney-client privilege.

And me and my two colleagues who are also observing the trial noticed that Davidson had become more flushed when he was answering these questions. So it seemed to put him a little bit on the back foot. But this cross-examination is expected to continue after the lunch break. Trump's attorney said he had about less than an hour more to go and to get through.

Another part of when the prosecution was asking their questions of Davidson, they were focusing in and trying to tie this back to the campaign. They focused on that conversation with Michael Cohen, where Cohen was saying that he had expected to get a job in Washington and that he ultimately didn't get one -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Kara Scannell outside the court in New York, we will stay in close touch with you. Thank you very, very much.

And to our viewers, don't go anywhere. Our special live coverage of Donald Trump's criminal trial will continue.

[13:15:03]

We're also following the fallout from protests at college campuses nationwide. We're currently watching people confront demonstrators who have taken over the library at Portland State. And, over at UCLA, police have entered an encampment on the campus.

Stay with us. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) MATTINGLY: Welcome back to CNN's special coverage of the criminal trial of the former President Donald Trump, where the judge, Juan Merchan, is now weighing if Donald Trump further violated the gag order in that trial.

This morning, New York prosecutors argued the former president broke the order, which directs he cannot speak publicly about the jury or witnesses in the case. And prosecutors presented these remarks from Trump:

[13:20:12]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (R) AND CURRENT U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And when are they going to look at all the lies that Cohen did in the last trial? He got caught lying in the last trial. So, he got caught lying, pure lying. And when are they going to look at that?

That jury was picked so fast, 95 percent Democrats. The area is all -- mostly all Democrat. You think of it as a -- just a purely Democrat area. It's a very unfair situation. That, I can tell you.

Michael Cohen is a convicted liar. And he's got no credibility whatsoever. He was a lawyer. And you rely on your lawyers.

QUESTION: What have you thought of David Pecker's testimony so far? When was the last time you spoke to him?

TRUMP: No, he's been very nice. I mean, he's been -- David has been very nice, a nice guy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Let's discuss further with John E. Jones III. He served as chief judge of the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania and is now the president of Dickinson College.

Judge, we appreciate your time.

I want to note, at least on the front end, these instances happened before Judge Merchan's first ruling in which he fined Donald Trump $9,000 for nine violations of the gag order. Based on what you just heard, are any or all of the four violations?

JOHN E. JONES III, FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE: I think a couple of them could be violations, technically, although it's clear that Judge Merchan is dubious about them.

I think the larger question here really is, the judge's, I would say increasing, anxiety with particularly Michael Cohen's social media postings.

MATTINGLY: Explain that a little bit, because that was something that Trump's defense team, Todd Blanche, his lawyer... JONES: Well...

MATTINGLY: ... brought up several times.

What do you mean there?

JONES: Well, yesterday, in the order that Judge Merchan handed down, he alluded to the fact that the gag order is meant to be a shield and not a sword.

And the shield, in that case, what he was writing about it, was a shield to protect witnesses, notably, Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels. But if the gag order is turned on its head, and, for example, if Michael Cohen uses it to sort of flay a defenseless Donald Trump, I think that's very worrisome to the judge.

And you can see that he's weighing how to deal with that. You know, does he drop a gag order on them, or particularly Michael Cohen? To me, frankly, it's inexplicable, and I -- maybe the prosecution can't control their witness. It's not their client, I recognize.

But I said this previously. I think somebody's going to have to call him in, maybe Judge Merchan, call him in and just tell him he's got to shut up on social media, because he's baiting the former president. Fair is fair. That doesn't give a license to the former president to violate the gag order. There's no question about that.

But, at the same time, I think Judge Merchan is struggling to sort of level the playing field.

MATTINGLY: Yes. And it was notable that Cohen last week, I think, said that he wasn't going to be commenting anymore. Clearly, somebody had been -- had relayed to him exactly what you were talking about.

When it comes to what you heard from the former president's defense team, from Todd Blanche today, in terms of the justification and defense for these four issues the prosecutors have raised, which one do you think was the most effective?

JONES: Well, I think -- I think Blanche is raising this sort of specter of unfairness. And he's also sort of trying to compel the judge to think about again the fact that this is the presumed Republican nominee for president, that this is a unique situation.

These are -- these are close calls to make. And Blanche is reminding the judge of that. And again he's going back to the fact that these are matters of sort of degree and not kind of capital offenses, if you will.

He took a beating last week for the former president. It was tough. I mean, I think he had a really rough time. It seems to me that the judge was a little bit more tolerant of him today. He understands that Blanche is doing his level best in a difficult situation to try to defend what in many cases are clear violations of the gag order.

MATTINGLY: Yes. And it should be noted, as we did at the top, since that initial $9,000 fine, the former president has not done anything that prosecutors have raised as violations.

Fascinating to talk to you, Judge John E. Jones III. We appreciate your time, sir. Thank you.

JONES: Thanks for having me.

MATTINGLY: And coming up, much more on Trump's hush money trial, including the view from his campaign.

Our special coverage continues right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: We continue our breaking news coverage of Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial in New York. Right now, the court is on a break, but will return shortly, with Trump's defense attorney resuming his cross-examination of Keith Davidson, the former lawyer for Stormy Daniels.

Davidson is responsible for negotiating the hush money payment made prior to the 2016 presidential election.

CNN's Alayna Treene is following the Trump campaign for us.

Fresh off of two rallies in Wisconsin and Michigan yesterday, Alayna, what -- what has Trump's message been on the campaign trail?

[13:30:00]