Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Judge To Trump: Gag Order Does Not Prevent You From Testifying; Soon, Testimony Resumes with Hope Hicks Back On The Stand In Trump Hush Money Trial. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired May 03, 2024 - 13:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:32:09]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: Welcome back. Judge Juan Merchan has yet to rule if Donald Trump further violated the gag order in his criminal trial.

In the meantime, the former president, well, he continues to lambaste those restrictions. Here he was after court yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I'm not allowed to testify if I am under, I guess. Again, I can't testify. Now we'll be appealing the gag order.

I'd love to answer their question, a very easy question, the easiest question so far. But I'm not allowed to testify, because this judge, who's totally conflicted, has me under an unconstitutional gag order.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: And that, of course, is not true. It's so untrue that, this morning, before court, Donald Trump corrected himself saying the gag order won't stop him from testifying. And that it's not, quote, "for testifying."

Then moments later, in court, Judge Merchan told Trump directly this: Quote, "The order restricting extra-judicial statements does not prevent you from testifying in any way. It does not prohibit you from taking the stand and it does not limit or minimize what you can say."

Joining me now is George Grasso, who was a New York criminal court judge for more than a dozen years.

You're in court this morning, Judge. I want to start from where Judge Merchan came from this morning. Why do you think he felt the need to make that clarification.

GEORGE GRASSO, RETIRED JUDGE, QUEENS COUNTY SUPREME COURT: It was crucial. I mean, my -- my sense, when I heard it, is that -- and this is just my sense of it -- is maybe the judge picked up on and maybe it was brought to his attention somehow. That either Mr. Trump or his legal team were asserting that, because of the gag order and the consequences that Trump found himself in with the nine citations of violating it.

That somehow, they might have -- the judge might have thought they were trying to extrapolate it to applying, when and if, Donald Trump, defendant Trump decided to testify.

So the judge just came right out of the box. He couldn't have made a clearer or more direct record that the gag order has absolutely nothing to do with the testimony of this defendant.

Should the defendant decide to testify, he can speak to Michael Cohen. He can speak to Stormy Daniels. He can pretty -- he can say whatever he thinks is in his interest to testify to.

So for whatever reason, the judge thought it was appropriate to make that record. He made a strong record. And I think he took it as a way of a possible appeal issue down the road should the jury, ultimately a jury of 12 convict Donald Trump.

MATTINGLY: Can I ask you, put yourself in Judge Merchan's shoes or robe as it is. Are you watching, is he watching what the former president says after court, what he says coming into court, what he's posting on Truth Social?

[13:35:03]

Is that necessary to do the job? Would you be doing that if you were in that position?

GRASSO: Would I be doing what, watching what Trump was saying outside of court?

MATTINGLY: Yes.

GRASSO: Is that the question?

Well, to the extent --

MATTINGLY: Yes, sir.

GRASSO: What he was saying outside of court would -- would make witnesses feel insecure or unsafe, would -- certainly, would make jurors feel unsecure, unsafe.

I absolutely would be all over it in any case, especially if you have a case of someone who's a former president in the United States. He's right now a leading candidate to get the Republican nomination.

In that context, he puts out a social media post and he brags about this. Tens of millions of people become aware overnight. Furthermore -- or less than overnight, within moments.

And we have seen incidents where people have been doxed, people have been harassed, people have been threatened based upon negative postings from this defendant.

So how that applies in this specific courtroom with this jury and these witnesses that the judge cannot sit back and not use the tools of New York State law that's given him to maintain a fair and balanced trial.

So in that context, I think the judge would have been remiss if he hadn't taken the steps he's taken.

But none that, absolutely none of that would apply should Donald Trump take the oath and take the stand in his own defense. And I think the judge -- the judge, Judge Merchan, was right on target on making that point unambiguously clear on the record today.

MATTINGLY: Yes. It was a critical move. I think all of us in the moment said, well, that's not true. But making that very clear from the bench is very important.

George Grasso, who has been in the courtroom, through the course of today, we appreciate your time, sir. Thank you.

GRASSO: If it's not on the record, it didn't happen. As far as --

(CROSSTALK)

MATTINGLY: I'll remember that. That's good for reporters, too.

Coming up next, don't go anywhere. Our special coverage continues right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:41:24]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: We are awaiting more testimony from former Trump aid, Hope Hicks. Before the break, Hicks testified that Trump was concerned that reports of sexual misconduct in 2016 would hurt his standing with voters ahead of the election.

Now, eight years later, some of those sexual allegations are at the center of Donald Trump's criminal trial. Does he have the same concerns? And if not, should he?

Let's talk now with Republican pollster and communication strategist, Frank Luntz.

Frank, I wonder, does this help or hurt Donald Trump when you are re- litigating some of the most difficult moments, most challenging moments of his 2016 campaign during his third run for the presidency?

FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER & COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGIST: That's exactly what people are asking. And it's not really clear at this moment. It's going to depend on how the questions are answered, how it's picked up by the press, and what the president says at the end of each of these sessions. Because, in the end, he's the most important commentator. I've said this repeatedly. That Donald Trump, every time he is attacked, every time he faces one of these trials, something that would destroy any other candidate, for Trump, his numbers go up.

People approve of him because they see him as being a victim.

Now, that said, he's also the most self-destructive candidate that I've ever seen in presidential politics. He could have a fantastic day in court and then destroy it by a couple of poorly placed sentences as he does his own commentary.

I'm not ducking the question. We just don't know at this moment. What we do know is that Trump has a lead, a very narrow one, and in the key swing states, so far, this trial has done nothing to damage his at least being tied with Joe Biden, if not being a percent or two ahead.

KEILAR: So looking at that and the role that he plays for himself as his own messenger -- and these answers may be different legally and politically. But politically, do you think there's a case for him to take the stand?

LUNTZ: Well, he actually -- I think he did something very foolish by saying that he was being prevented from taking the stand and how it's unfair.

Now, the judge clarified it. He clarified it, Donald Trump clarified it. And now it almost puts pressure on him.

If he's going to raise such a fuss about not being allowed to speak, then when given the right to speak and he chooses not to, if that's the case, then I think it does hurt his credibility.

In the end, the only thing that will truly have a marked impact on his support, on his vote, is if he is found guilty. And then, quite frankly, we really don't know what the impact of that will be.

But we do know that that would be the most significant moment of this trial.

KEILAR: Because an increasing number of those polled say the hush money charges are irrelevant to Trump's fitness for the presidency, 45 percent compared with 39 percent last summer, before Trump became the presumptive nominee.

What do you make of that increasing apathy toward these charges?

LUNTZ: It's because we've gotten used to it by now, that there's nothing special. Americans want a second act, a third act. They want a great close.

It's the same thing as a TV show or movie or play. And we've seen this in the same play. It keeps playing again and again, and nothing ever changes. And I listen to the Biden campaign get more and more desperate. The fact is, we have already baked this into our understanding of what's going on. And you look at it and you have to wonder, no president has ever sat in a courtroom like this, no president has ever been charged with felonies.

[13:45:07]

And yet, he continues to -- again, either be tied or a couple of points ahead. And I've heard nothing in the trial up to this point to suggest that anything is going to change.

I want to emphasize, this is probably the weakest case, probably the case that the public cares the least about, because it really has nothing to do with his presidency.

The other cases probably won't get heard in time for Election Day. So we are, once again, in uncharted territory, a place that I never would've believed I would be talking about right now.

KEILAR: Well, we know, Frank, that you will be looking to see the impact of this trial, obviously. You know, we're not that far into it, so we have to wait and see what the impact is.

Frank, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.

And court is now close to resuming from lunch break. Former Trump aid, Hope Hicks, will be back on the stand with more testimony. And our special coverage will continue.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:50:30]

KEILAR: It is the second week of testimony in the Trump hush money trial. We're following the minute-by-minute updates coming from inside the New York courtroom.

Court is in break. They will resume here in just a few minutes, as we understand it.

And we're back now with our panel to talk about what is ahead.

And, Elie, we're keeping an eye, obviously, on Hope Hicks coming back on the stand. But also there's a question of who the prosecution may be bringing or who they may consider bringing and the benefit, or lack thereof.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

KEILAR: Karen McDougal or Stormy Daniels. What do you think?

HONIG: I think both of those are potential witnesses that the prosecution could bring, but I don't know that they have to. In fact, I know that they do not have to bring them.

And my calculation, if I was a prosecutor right now, would be they're not going to know anything beyond what the witnesses already know about the payoff.

We already heard from the lawyer, Keith Davidson, who represented both Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels. We heard about it from the AMI, "National Enquirer" perspective, from David Pecker. We will hear about it from Michael Cohen's perspective.

The reason you might want to call Stormy Daniels or Karen McDougal, one or both of them, is, I believe, based on having seen them in public and seeing their interviews with Anderson Cooper and others.

I think they're likable and personable, and a better face to put on this story than, for example, Keith Davidsonm, who I think went quite poorly for prosecutors.

So you may want them thinking about the client, Stormy Daniels or Karen McDougal, not so much the sort of, to put it bluntly, sleazy lawyer, who I think came across as such on the cross.

KEILAR: Yes. Keith Davidson, they sort of --

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: Yes. Trump's lawyers were able to raise the specter of, was this basically just extortion.

(CROSSTALK)

HONIG: Borderline shakedowns. And took 45 percent of the money for himself.

(CROSSTALK)

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: -- sort of like to accuse these women of being extortionists. You know, that's a question.

If they're likable and they come across well, and then what the defense is going to say is, well, you're just -- you were just shaking down Donald Trump.

HONIG: That'll definitely be it. But I would rather there have probably Stormy Daniels responding to that, than what we saw from Keith Davidson.

KEILAR: I wonder, Audie, we've heard so much testimony over several days, and I wonder what you think about the picture as a narrative, as a story being told to the jury.

If you think it is something that is confusing, or if you think it is something that is compelling?

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR & CORRESPONDENT: Well, as a person who's not a legal person, I actually have more clarity than I did at the start of this case when people would try to explain to me why this is an election interference case, why Bragg felt like he could elevate these charges to a felony. I was constantly trying to explain it to friends and family. And I

think now the public has a much better sense because so much of this testimony has been in the context of the campaign.

And remember, we're asking people to do a lot. We're like, hey, remember the time when people cared about sex scandals? Think -- think back to that time --

(LAUGHTER)

CORNISH: -- and how worried you might have been.

BORGER: That's so quaint.

CORNISH: Yes. So quaint. And now, when we're a dozen scandals pass this, it feels -- this whole thing has brought us back to that time of like what that's pretty culture was like, what that tabloid culture was like.

And what this seedy little world was underneath, where people would try to manipulate the information that was out there.

And there's one thing people do understand about Donald Trump. He cares how he is seen. He cares how he is talked about in the media.

And someone like Hope Hicks getting on today and saying he cares and is involved, he cares and will direct us into how that works. He's not managed by some war room of comms professionals. I think it's been really intriguing.

KEILAR: And I'm glad you bring it up as not illegal person. This jury, they are not people of the legal persuasion. But they are people who are used to hearing a story.

They'll have to take that and compare it to what they are asked of. Is he breaking the law -- did he break the law?

So from the legal perspective, taking that narrative and transforming it into legal requirements.

JAMES SCHULTZ, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: There's a couple of lawyers on this jury, right?

HONIG: Yes.

SCHULTZ: And I think that's -- that's -- that could factor into this discussion.

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: And then they could inform the thinking of other jurors.

SCHULTZ: I think they can. And I think that's going to be something that's going to be a value to that jury when they're talking about process. And when you're talking about jury instructions, right? When the -- when the jurors for instructed as to what they need to think about by the judge, the lawyers are going to have a role in explaining some of that in that room.

[13:54:57]

And I also think that, you know, they're also going to be able to look at this, they have to make the connection.

Just because you have a campaign that's ongoing, just because you have a hands-on candidate who cares a lot about what is being publicly said about him, cares a lot about micro-managing the communication, he might not be a micromanager in other portions of his life.

I think you're probably going to hear some of that come out perhaps by the defense, perhaps on cross-examination. Because they've only focused on kind of the public-facing piece of it for Trump.

How did he get involved in it? He may have said, look, make the payment. But how did that get recorded? How did it get -- how did the payment and the mechanics of the payment? That might have been all out of his purview.

And I think there's something to be said about Michael Cohen that they established that he kind of wanted to rush through this whole thing. That's something that's important --

(CROSSTALK)

CORNISH: -- described as someone who was panicked, harried.

It's hard to tell because --

(CROSSTALK)

CORNISH: -- single positive adjective about Michael Cohen throughout this process.

So there is so much being talked about that is, in a way, kind of laying the groundwork so that, when he does speak, if he does speak, people say, OK, we've gotten this out of the way that this is a scummy business. We've gotten it out of the way, right?

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: Right.

CORNISH: -- that he's scurrying around.

BORGER: What's not being said is that there was panic because this would cause Donald Trump tremendous personal issues with his wife and his family.

Nobody, nobody is talking about that.

KEILAR: Yes, it's a very --

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: The only thing they're talking about is the campaign.

KEILAR: It's a very important point. Because it could be a good defense for him.

If you all could stand by as we await the jury coming back into the courtroom and court resuming after the lunch break. We will take a look at that. Former Trump aid, Hope Hicks, is set to be back on the stand here in a matter of minutes, when that does happen.

And then this just into CNN. We've learned Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar and his wife had been charged with accepting more than half a million dollars in bribes from foreign entities.

The charges revealed in an indictment in federal court. Prosecutors say the alleged scheme took place from late 2014 to at least November 2021. Cuellar served as Texas secretary of state in 2001. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2004.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)