Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Donald Trump's Historic Criminal Trial; Keith Davidson's Testimony; Donald Trump's Defense Strategy; Gag Order Issues; Potential Impacts on Jury. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired May 02, 2024 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ERIN BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back to CNN's special coverage of Donald Trump's historic criminal trial. I'm Erin Burnett, just outside the courthouse in New York, and of course here with Wolf Blitzer from Washington. And we are just minutes away now from court returning from the lunch break. The former president and jury will hear more from Keith Davidson, an attorney who facilitated the hush money payment for Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 election, Wolf.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Erin, Davidson has faced an aggressive cross-examination today from Trump's defense, at least so far. Let's break it all down with CNN senior legal analyst Ellie Honig, who's joining us over at the Magic Wall right now. Ellie, what are today's key moments, and what will we see when court picks back up in just a few minutes?

ELLIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST AND FORMER STATE & FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, Wolf, Keith Davidson will still be on the stand. He's in the middle of being cross-examined right now, and just to understand, first of all, who Keith Davidson is, he is very important here because he represented both Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels in quick succession in 2016 in the days leading up to the election. Now, in his prior testimony, Keith Davidson laid out for the jury how he negotiated a deal between Karen McDougal and the National Enquirer, where they bought her story and then did not run it, for $150,000. Now, today has focused much more on his representation of Stormy Daniels. And as Keith Davidson laid out, he ended up negotiating primarily with Michael Cohen, where Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep silent. Davidson, incidentally, took 45 percent of that for himself for an attorney's fee.

Now, importantly, Davidson testified that he didn't deal directly with Donald Trump, but here's what he said about what his understanding was about why this deal was reached. Davidson said, There was an understanding that our activities may have in some way assisted the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. And again, remember, this is happening about a week before the 2016 election. Another interesting point that Davidson made this morning, he said Michael Cohen was furious at Donald Trump. He said Michael Cohen said to him, quote, I've saved that guy, meaning Donald Trump's blank, so many times that you don't even know that blanking guy. Again, Trump is not even paying me the $130,000 back. Now, Trump does later end up paying Michael Cohen that money back, and that sort of gets to the crux of what's charged here. Now, there was some interesting testimony earlier about this moment after the election when they have the agreement in place with Stormy Daniels, and she goes on the Jimmy Kimmel show. Now, Michael Cohen is very worried about what she will and won't say. Let's take a quick look at that clip of Stormy Daniels talking to Jimmy Kimmel in January 2017.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIMMY KIMMEL, AMERICAN TELEVISION HOST AND COMEDIAN: Do you have a non-disclosure agreement?

STORMY DANIELS, AMERICAN PORNOGRAPHIC FILM ACTRESS AND DIRECTOR: Do I?

KIMMEL: You can't say whether you have a nondisclosure agreement, but if you didn't have a nondisclosure agreement, you most certainly could say I don't have a nondisclosure agreement. Yes?

DANIELS: You're so smart, Jimmy.

KIMMEL: Thank you very much. Okay. Is any of that true?

DANIELS: Define true.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HONIG: So Michael Cohen and Keith Davidson both were very concerned about that interview that Stormy Daniels did. They didn't want her revealing what she had been paid to keep quiet. Now, Donald Trump's defense team started their cross-examination of Keith Davidson. They'll pick it up after lunch. A couple of key points they made. First of all, Keith Davidson had no contact ever with Donald Trump while this was happening. He dealt through Michael Cohen. They also cast doubt on Michael Cohen's motives. Keith Davidson said Michael Cohen thought he was going to be appointed attorney general or secretary of state when Donald Trump became president and was furious and dismayed when that did not happen. And finally, Keith Davidson testified that the agreement was never explicitly, never in writing, specifically linked to the election itself. So, Wolf, that cross- examination will resume in just a few minutes when Keith Davidson gets back on the stand.

BLITZER: And we'll be paying attention, as we always do, Ellie Honig. Thank you very much. Erin, back to you.

BURNETT: All right, Wolf. So, apologies. We're getting ready for Keith Davidson to come back in. And I know you've indicated maybe another hour of a cross-examination. But then certainly it appears there'll be a redirect because what happened in the cross-examination so far sort of left you dumbfounded.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, they have a lot to clean up here because, well, the defense attorneys were able to do it was raise the question of whether Mr. Davidson is actually engaged in the business of extortion. And prosecutors didn't bring out a lot of the other deals that he's been involved in. So it was fascinating to see the defense attorneys kind of step to the side of Stormy Daniels or Karen McDougal and focus on deals that Davidson did for clients related to, for example, Charlie Sheen receiving millions of dollars for him. Multiple clients also trying to get money from Hulk Hogan in exchange for a sex tape. And that Davidson conceded on the stand was actually investigated.

[14:05:09]

Davidson's interactions with Hulk Hogan's representatives were monitored by federal and state investigators. So again, this raises the question of whether what he was doing was possibly extorting then- candidate Trump at a time where even Davidson had said, look, Stormy Daniels' story, suddenly there was a renewed interest after Access Hollywood tape. We knew this was a critical time before the election to get her a deal. Now, he argues that he did not extort anyone, but they certainly raised the question, and a lot of confusion for me about why prosecutors didn't bring out some of this on direct, get sort of the sting out.

BURNETT: Because they knew it existed, right?

REID: One would think, particularly the Hulk Hogan example, that's a case that has been widely, widely covered, one of the most significant media-related cases that came out of that in recent history. So it's pretty surprising the prosecutors didn't bring it up. But they're going to have to clean it up on redirect.

BURNETT: Right. I mean, it doesn't, it's the case that the defense is trying to make, right? This was just somebody trying to take advantage of a situation and extort, right, the exact words that Paul is using.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORESPONDENT AND ANCHOR: I think what was striking, and it very much aligns with what Paul was just laying out, is this is a good reminder as we go day by day through a rather lengthy trial, that as we cover minute by minute, feed by feed that we're getting from our reporters inside the room, that none of this is going to look great. All of this is very unseemly dealing with people that perhaps you might necessarily want to be going to church with on a weekly basis.

But that also means that the defense has real opportunities, one, to poke holes, two, to make their kind of overarching point, which is proof to me Donald Trump knew about all of this. And three, as Paul has pointed out many times, actually making the case that's alleged here, actually getting a conviction, actually getting all 12 people aligned with what prosecutors are alleging, is not a slam dunk. It is not necessarily going to be easy because of how it's constructed, because of the different elements of the space, and because of the dots they're trying to connect through multiple different issues here.

And this is a good reminder that Trump has a legal team that is pretty good at what they do, and they're going to take advantage of the fact that a lot of these witnesses aren't exactly the purest forms of individuals. BURNETT: And I guess kind of worth reminding what we, I know we have

all said so many times, but to your point about the jury, right, the standard here in a criminal case, which is what they have used this business documents fraud to elevate this to, is of course beyond a reasonable doubt and unanimity.

REID: Yeah, and I think what we're going to see next is the defense attorneys are likely going to remind everyone that Mr. Davidson at no point has testified that he had any contact with Trump. And Trump was not directly involved in facilitating this payment to Stormy Daniels. That is really going to be key here. And so that leaves prosecutors really ultimately eventually relying on the word of who? Well, Michael Cohen.

And the one thing everyone can agree on in this case, it seems so far, is that no one has anything nice to say about Michael Cohen. That's why the prosecutors need to put on these witnesses to support things that the jury will eventually hear from Michael Cohen. But this is a tough case. It's much harder than just simply a falsifying business records case.

BURNETT: Right. And now this also would mean, and I know that we may get another witness on the stand today, because they said, what, another hour of cross-examination. And then one would assume, given what Paula is talking about, that there would be then a redirect and maybe even a recross. But theoretically, by the end of today, we may have the next witness on the stand.

MATTINGLY: And while my fingers are certainly crossed for another C- SPAN related witness, because that's my favorite thing in the world, I think that what has been fascinating and Paula and team have outlined this so well, the defense doesn't know what's coming.

They have not been prepared for who's coming next. They're not getting given much of a heads up on things, but also how in the wake of what, at least up to this point, has been a fairly difficult cross- examination for the prosecution's witness. Do they stack things? Do they change things? How does this all work and play out going forward?

Remember, we talked from the very beginning about how they were laying out a very foundational story for their witnesses. What they could drive the jury toward at the beginning, when you had the individual from C-SPAN or the accountant come in, why they were doing that in terms of submitting evidence. What the point of that actually was. Now Davidson. How do they keep kind of drawing that thread to try and make their case, especially given the fact that, you know, the defense team had a solid effort over the course of the last couple of hours.

BURNETT: Well, we await any minute as they come back into that courtroom, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Erin, thank you very much. I want to discuss what's going on with Carolyn Koch. She's a trial and jury consultant. Carolyn, thank you very much for joining us. As you know, Trump's team has really been going after Keith Davidson for his past work, helping clients get hush money payments from other celebrities, not just Donald Trump. How is that likely to impact the jury?

CAROLYN KOCH, TRIAL & JURY CONSULTANT: That's a really good question. And you used the word hush money, and I think Paula might have just used the opposite word, which is extortion. So now that witnesses are on the stand being cross-examined, we're no longer having lawyers portray things and paint things. Now the jury is being seen facts, and the facts look like a lot of bottom feeders or feeder fish on a barge, and the barge, Donald Trump, might not be aware of what those feeder fish are doing.

[14:10:09]

And so the jury, and they're not a monolith, they're all different individuals, 12 of them, they're all going to have their own perspective. But it's going to be hard for them to ignore the weaknesses because people are looking for the evidence, the evidence that shows that Trump is in the middle of this scheme. And so far, it looks like people capitalizing on their connections to Trump to try and make some money. And so my impression of what I read, and again, we're just peeking through the cracks of the courtroom door here where the jurors are getting the whole thing.But what I thought I read was it doesn't really look like Davidson is putty in the prosecutor's hands. And he doesn't seem to have any axe to grind. And who knows, maybe he thinks this is great PR for him to get more business in the future.

BLITZER: We just saw Trump walking back into the courtroom from this lunch break with the questioning is about to resume momentarily. We'll continue to watch that as well. Carolyn, so bottom line, what stood out to you the most as the most significant part of Keith Davidson's testimony, at least so far today?

KOCH: Well, what stands out to me the most is that he's doing these dealings on behalf of his clients. And so it's not something that Trump is orchestrating at all. And then I'm not sure if this came out through him, but I think he was quoting Michael Cohen as having a certain level of frustration that he couldn't get in touch with, you know, his guy because his guy was out in five different states. And so something like that, a phrase like that can really stick with a jury. And then when Cohen seems to take, you know, the ball himself and run it down the court himself, it sounds like he's trying, to make it happen. And what's missing is Trump. He's the one who's on trial. And so I think jurors are really looking for where's Trump in all this? Where is he?

BLITZER: Well, he's sitting there in the courtroom as the --

KOCH: Yeah

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: -- 2016 presidential election results were coming in. Keith Davidson says he texted the then National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard, and I'm quoting now, what have we done? And that Howard responded, oh, my God, how do you think the jury will take that? KOCH: Well, you know, it's kind of funny. You know, I can only, you know, am I like a juror? No, not really. But, you know, I wish I was. But it almost seems like a little bit of self-importance because it is the National Enquirer. It's not the New York Times. It is called the tabloid. So I almost think that, you know, the egos of these people, they think they're so important and they can, you know, you know, just bring down people with their deals. And I don't know, maybe the jury's thinking they're not as important as they think they are. Again, I don't know. We'll find out.

BLITZER: We will. We certainly will. Carolyn Koch, thanks very much for joining us. We'll continue this conversation down the road. And once again, court is set to resume any minute now. Don't go anywhere. Our special live coverage will continue right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:15:09]

BLITZER: Welcome back to CNN's special live coverage. Any moment now, cross-examination will resume for Keith Davidson, the former attorney for both Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. It's been rather contentious at times, at least so far. My panel is back with me. And, Elliot, let me start with you. Keith Davidson testified about threats, threats that Michael Cohen made to him, saying he would, quote, and I'm quoting him now, reign legal hell down upon her, referring to Stormy Daniels, and don't F with us. What do you make of that?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I just chuckle hearing you say that. I'm sorry, Wolf. The absolutely 100 percent this speaks to Michael Cohen's credibility, and this is the kind of information that it is in the defense's interest to get out about this witness who will certainly be testifying at the trial. A number of things have come out about his temper, the way he interacted with people, bordering on his going rogue from the former president, whether he did. And I would think you're going to see more of that from the defense.

BLITZER: What's the prosecution strategy, Ellie, over here with Davidson?

HONIG: Well, they're trying to do a couple things. First of all, they're trying to show that Davidson was one of those bottom feeders, to quote the prior guest, who I think explained it really well. Who was out there doing business, profiting from his clients in ways where he's dealing with Michael Cohen in this sort of underworld of shady dealings that happens that Donald Trump was not part of it. To the point of Michael Cohen, you know, if this jury, in a normal case, this jury would not know who Michael Cohen is. Now, they all presumably do know who he is.

But if this was a normal case and they had not yet seen Michael Cohen on the stand, had never seen him on TV, they would think this is the worst human being ever born at this point. I mean, every witness, and these are the prosecution's own witnesses, has said he is dishonest, he was difficult, he was aggressive, he was threatening. Now, I will say, though, Michael Cohen is different. I mean, I know Michael Cohen. I think we've all met him at various times. He can be persuasive. He can be likable. He can be charming. Now, I don't think when he gets on the stand, he's going to come across as an offensive personality to the jury, but it doesn't really matter so much what Michael Cohen's like right now in 2024.

[14:20:09]

The relevance is what was he like back then in 2016. So they are doing -- Trump's team is doing a good job of pre-dirtying up Michael Cohen before he even takes a stand.

WILLIAMS: Setting aside what pre-Michael Cohen was like, they have gotten 10 days of almost constant drumbeat of bad information about this individual that, ostensibly, they didn't have a lot of background with. Whatever they knew before, what they know now is pretty bad.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: But we also know that Donald Trump used him as his fixer and that he decided not to bring him to Washington. You know, he wanted to be on the White House staff, maybe White House Counsel; whatever he decided, he didn't bring him to Washington. CNN knows from our own reporting that he wasn't a favorite of the family, but he, the President-elect, did use him in lots of ways because he likes aggressiveness.

And the question, I think, that will be raised to Michael Cohen is, why would you do this on your own? Why would you lay out a $130 000 to Stormy Daniels when you're working for an ostensible billionaire, and you're taking out a home equity loan? Why would you do that? And I think he, you know, they'll try and make him come across as somebody who was trying to do his job, to be subservient and protect Donald Trump at all costs.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Yeah, I don't say he did it at the direction of the President, I would imagine. But yeah, Wolf, I know Davidson's back on the stand for cross-examination now, but we should just note that when the break finished, and they entered the courtroom, Trump's team was asking-this is back to the gag order issue -- asking the President's attorney, Judge Murchon, for pre-clearance to post some articles on Truth Social, that mention witnesses or the like.

And I guess Trump's attorney said, well, he was concerned, the former President, that this may violate, and the Judge said, I'm not going to be able to assess every single article you want to post to Truth Social. And the legal team was saying well, this is an ambiguous gag order. And the Judge just rejected it. He said I don't think there's any ambiguity here and the rule of thumb should be, if you are at all concerned about it, or you are in doubt about whether to post something, steer clear.

WILLIAMS: One could make it -- I'm sorry --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Go ahead. WILLIAMS: You know, the defense can try to make an argument that this

is a show of good faith from the defendant to the court, that he wants to ensure that he's complying with the judge's orders and so on. But no judge would agree to be deputized in effect as a member of Trumps defense or communications team and start vetting --

BORGER: Yeah

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: -- whether his statements are permissible. So the judge immediately shot that down.

BLITZER: As he should. That's a good point. Elliot, let me just follow up. Keith Davidson, who was the attorney for both Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, he testified, this is under oath, that he came up with pseudonyms for both Trump and Stormy Daniels. Is that normal in so- called confidential agreements?

WILLIAMS: Oh, my goodness. So, you know, I've certainly seen anonymized agreements where you would use initials or redact a name or something like that. Now, look, I am getting as much a crash course in the seedy underbelly of how these contracts works as the rest of America. And so I'm not sure how these, you know, might typically work in that sense. What I am struck by, though, is there was nothing formal about the use of these pseudonyms. And given that at least some of the folks who are testifying today were trying to refer to it as a legitimate contract, you know, I think one could say that the legitimacy of the contract is in question because it's not clear who the parties to it were. Right? If just somebody slaps a name on it --

BORGER: And there weren't signatures.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: and says this fake guy named David Davidson or whatever it was is not a party to the contract, you know, were they to try to enforce this in court, I think a smart attorney could say, wait a second, who is this executed by? Who is, was it Dennis Davidson?

HONIG: David Dennison. Yes.

WILLIAMS: David Dennison.

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: But it wasn't signed. It wasn't signed, right?

WILLIAMS: It wasn't signed. And that's a real problem. I mean, so there's all kinds of --

BLITZER: I take it in law school they don't teach you how to use pseudonyms in these kinds of so-called confidential agreements.

(CROSSTALK) HONIG: Don't pick a real person. There is a veil of secrecy over all of this. And prosecutors will argue that's because Donald Trump and Michael Cohen knew this was shady, knew this was illegal, and to the actual charges knew they were trying to defraud the electorate. They were trying to keep this information from coming out before the election, and they didn't want to have to disclose it as part of their campaign disclosures.

The response is going to be from Trump's team, of course there was secrecy about this. We're getting shaken down. This will be their take. We're getting shaken down by this guy who's threatening to reveal things that will be humiliating for Donald Trump and for his family. And so, naturally, this is a hush money agreement. We agree. And so hush money agreements, you don't want them to become public. You don't want them to become known. So, again, there's always two ways of looking at things. Almost always two ways of looking at things, and you can see that playing out.

[14:25:09]

BORGER: And the only way you get the answer is Michael Cohen, who has said this many times, that what he was doing, he was doing it the direction and the protection of Donald Trump. And so the jury is going to have to believe him.

BLITZER: I want to turn back once again to that gag order hearing that was held just before testimony resumed today. Trump's attorney pointed to President Biden's jokes over at the White House Correspondents Association dinner the other night as an example of why he, Trump, needs to be able to respond to his opponent in the presidential election.

BORGER: Well, that's the case they've been making, which is that this is his First Amendment rights, that he's a candidate, and that he has to be able to have free speech and respond when he's criticized. I think that what he says about Joe Biden hasn't come up in the in the gag orders. What he has said about Michael Cohen and the jury has. While Trump claims that this is all being done at the behest of Joe Biden, that certainly hasn't been proven. And so, you know, when he mentions Joe Biden's name as a candidate is running against him, I think that's not an issue.

HONIG: He can say anything he wants about Joe Biden. Let's be clear.

CHALIAN: And he does. We should be clear. It's not like he's been shy about critiquing the president as his opponent.

HONIG: And here's how narrow the gag order is. Donald Trump gave a whole campaign rally last night I think in Wisconsin where he talked at length about this trial. He doesn't appear to have violated the gag order. He can criticize the indictment, the D.A., the judge, he does it every day he can say --

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: The Biden justice department. HONIG: the line just, you know even if they're false he can say it under the gag order and under the first amendment. All he has to do and this goes to the point we were talking about before with the articles where Trump's team wanted them pre-cleared. If I was the judge I'd say very simple formula. Read each article, does it mention a witness? Does it mention a juror? Does it mention a member of the court staff or their families? If so do not post it.

BLITZER: Interesting, very interesting. All right guys, everybody stay with us there's a lot more coming up the trial is now back underway. We're following every twisted turn. Our special live coverage will continue. That's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)