Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Soon: Former Trump Org Executive Resumes Testimony; Now: Former Trump Org Executive Testifies In Hush Money Trial. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired May 06, 2024 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

BRYAN LANZA, FORMER DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, TRUMP-PENCE CAMPAIGN: Experience Access Hollywood, his primary concern was his wife. Now, there are other people, us, who are concerned about the campaign apparatus. We're going to him for options, but he -- you know, his concern and his concern with hope is directly, was Melania.

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: We're going to have to take a quick break. Jurors has just left the courtroom for a quick break themselves. After technical testimony in Donald Trump's hush money trial, is the prosecution connecting the dots? Are they getting the jury to buy it? Much more of CNN's special coverage begins in minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:35:08]

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: $35,000 payment after $35,000 payment. The former Trump Organization accountant has been walking the jury through how Michael Cohen was paid back for allegedly buying the silence of Stormy Daniels in those closing weeks before the 2016 election.

Paula Reid and Karen Friedman Agnifilo are back here with me. We've been watching all of these live updates that we're getting from our colleagues inside the courtroom. And one thing that's interesting that I think the prosecution is trying to undermine is an argument that the defense made in their opening arguments with a whole trial began for any witnesses to take in the stand. And they said, well, if he was paying Michael Cohen back for the $130,000, then why did he pay him $420,000?

I should note. Donald Trump is walking in the courtroom there with his attorney, Todd Blanche behind him. He gave a thumbs-up to the camera. He didn't speak.

But they have been making this argument, you know, why would we -- why did Mike -- why did they pay him back $420,000? It was only for $130,000. This witness though, right now is saying, well, here's why. Because we wanted to basically gross it up for tax purposes and he wanted a $60,000 bonus.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, he was complaining about the bonus. And then there was other money that he had spent. My biggest question right now is where is the evidence linking the falsification of business records to the defendant?

Because again, we've talked about hush money. We've talked about election interference. What he is charged with here is three, or four counts of falsifying business records. And as of now, McConney has gone through most of the timeline. Maybe they're going to get more documents more into the weeds.

But as of right now, these checks are about to start going down to Washington for him to sign, for the then-President Trump to sign. And McConney even acknowledges, look, this was a new system. Suddenly, you know, Trump is in charge of the organization. We have to send these packages down so we can sign things. I have not seen evidence directly linking the defendant to the falsifying of business records.

This is day 12. This is the witness besides Michael Cohen, who you would think might be able to provide that. So right now, again, I'm just reminded of the fact that federal prosecutors did not bring this case. Alvin Bragg even waited a while to bring this case. He is under enormous political pressure right now. And that is my big question as a reporter, where's the evidence?

COLLINS: Well, and the prosecution surely knows that's going to be one of the first questions the defense has for McConney when they get the chance to question this longtime Trump Organization employee. So, how did they finish their line of questioning for him before that happened to kind of prepare the jury for that?

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, evidence comes in all sorts of forms. There's direct evidence, there's video evidence, there's testimonial evidence, there's e-mails, but there's also circumstantial evidence. And it's not less strong if the evidence is circumstantial. Now here, you will have direct evidence of Donald Trump's involvement from Michael Cohen. But then they're going to argue that there's circumstantial evidence that corroborates Michael Cohen. And a lot of that is going to be what you're hearing from other witnesses about how he's a micromanager, about how he doesn't let go of money very easily.

So clearly, he must have known what this was about. And I thought Adam Kaufmann made an excellent point earlier when he said, it can also be a bad an omission. Why didn't they charge that? That would have been a very strong charge if they had said, OK, fine, you're saying this was a camp -- this was a -- an in-kind campaign donation, fine. But you didn't -- you didn't -- you didn't charge that in your indictment. And so that --

COLLINS: What do you mean they didn't charge that?

AGNIFILO: It's an interesting question. I have to think about it because I don't know why they didn't charge it. Maybe they didn't know that the evidence they had to pick their theory, which is this is false. And it was sort of a -- you know, are they together these theories? Are they consistent?

COLLINS: And, Paula, Jeff McConney has just taken the stand once again. They took a brief break. I'm also struck -- so struck by just what it's like to be someone who existed in Trump's orbit for three decades. This guy is testifying right now in this same witness stand that he also testified and the exact same one in the Trump civil fraud trial. It's the same courtroom, same witness stand, and he's back up there testifying.

And he's someone who appears to have had a pleasant experience working for Donald Trump. He had lunch with the CFO, who's now in jail, Allen Weisselberg every single day for 35 years, he says. And it just -- it speaks to what it is like to be someone who was in Trump's orbit who's now caught up in everything.

REID: Yes, it's a great point. And a reminder of how many people get "caught up" when they are close to Donald Trump. They wind up testifying in court, in McConney's case multiple times, testifying before Congress or themselves indicted. There are significant risks to being too close to Donald Trump. It's just a fact.

You see this so many times from his closest confidants, closest allies. Mr. McConney said that he left the Trump Organization, a job that he had had for decades because he was so sick of the stress of all the investigations, all the subpoenas having to testify. We really do feel for him.

As you said earlier, he broke down on the stand, crying in one of his previous instances where he had to testify. So, it is another reminder of these sorts of ordinary people who are caught in this extraordinary case that again, Mr. McConney, my big question is, if this is the prosecution's witness? So far, I'm still waiting for that connection to his former boss.

[11:40:18]

COLLINS: Do you agree with the other note that Adam Kaufmann made, which is that he's at this trial is proceeding way faster than he expected it to go?

AGNIFILO: It is going at a fast clip. That is for sure. And I agree that the jury selection happened quite fast. And one could argue based on what Trump was saying that you can't find a fair jury that that could have taken longer, but they didn't have an issue with that. So, yes, it is going nice and fast, and I think that's a good thing for everybody.

COLLINS: I mean, what if we've no blockbuster witnesses that we still haven't seen take the stand or Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels? I think there's a question of whether or not Karen McDougal would actually get on the stand if she's going to be involved in this. We've been you know, kind of openly speculating. Because it's a long witness list, it doesn't mean they're going to bring every witness on that list.

AGNIFILO: Yes. The witness list is not just people they intend to call, but also names that you're going to hear because you use that witness list to A., keep your options open in case certain things come out that you think oh, yes, I really want to call that person. But you also want to ask the jury, do you have any personal relationships and things like that with anybody that names that you're going to hear? So, that's what the list typically includes, and it's people you could call.

REID: Yes. And looking at this list right now. I mean, Karen McDougal, it's unclear exactly what she would offer jurors that they don't already know. Kellyanne Conway, it seems like the thing that she would most likely contribute is testifying to the impact the Access Hollywood tape had on the campaign. Hope Hicks cover that pretty clearly. And given that Kellyanne Conway has a mental loyalty to Trump, they may not want to take the risk of putting her on the stand. So, we know Stormy Daniels will likely be called. We know Michael Cohen and at least one other official from the Trump Organization accounting department.

COLLINS: And that official from the Trump Organization -- from the -- an accountant will be able to shed light on what Jeff McConney is testifying about right now. Which is really -- I mean, I think everyone wants to see what Michael Cohen is going to say on the stand. Obviously, he's considered the star witness here.

Also, Stormy Daniels to take the stand. But it's really these two witnesses, potentially who are going to be the ones who are really walking through what's at the heart of this and how they got to this. They may not be you know, as blockbusters but they may be just as critical.

REID: You're absolutely right. I mean, this is the kind of testimony that's supposed to make the case. Introducing evidence, introducing documents to establish these 34 business records were falsified. Now, the jury is seated again, the prosecutor's ressuming his question at Mr. McConney.

But we've been listening to him all morning and so far, again, have not seen evidence. And I know Michael Cohen will testify. But what makes him unique as a witness, in addition to his previous conviction for lying, is the fact that he has made a career out of hating on the defendant. Trying to get revenge. Attacking him. Criticizing him, which is obviously --

COLLINS: Which is noted in the gag order this morning --

REID: Exactly.

COLLINS: As you highlighted.

REID: For years. So, if you're in the jury box, can you take just his word? No, you need more, which is why we're looking to McConney to see if he provides that.

COLLINS: Yes. And we'll see how prosecutors continue this line of questioning, whether or not they address the elephant in the room there. He is now back on the stand.

This is a Trump insider giving the jury a window into how money was managed and how it was allegedly approved by the boss, Donald Trump inside the Trump Organization. We have more live updates coming in from our reporters inside the room. You are watching CNN's special live coverage. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:48:10]

BASH: Welcome back to CNN's special live coverage. I'm Dana Bash in Washington. The jury is seated again, and the government is questioning a critical Trump insider. Prosecutors hope they can use the former Trump Organization accountant to show the former president was always involved in the innermost workings of his company.

The panel is back here. And I want it to sort of catch us up on what is happening with this testimony by Jeffrey McConney. First of all, the vouchers are business records tied to several of the 34 falsifying business records charges against Trump. Trump's team is objecting to an exhibit. Lawyers are on the judge's bench.

Jamie Gangel, you were kind of alluding to this notion of the -- of the payment structure which it looks like they're starting to talk about it, and it sounds like so, Donald Trump's lawyers are not happy about it.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: I have a couple of places McConney's made clear that the money was coming from Trump's personal account, not the Trump trust or -- that org. I think that may be significant.

I just want to go back to Trump cares about money. We've seen it with NATO. We heard McConney say that if he didn't negotiate enough, Trump had said to him, you're fired. And then he said you weren't fired.

I just think that at a certain point, there is common sense here that Donald Trump would not have paid Michael Cohen back if he did not want this done. But I know Andy McCabe loves it. We were talking about the paper trail here.

ANDREW MCCABE, SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Yes. You want to see the argument built brick by brick. And in this case, the argument is that Donald Trump was personally involved in these payments and, therefore, had knowledge of the false business records. And that's what gets you the conviction.

[11:50:04]

And so, with this witness, particularly, that's what you're seeing them try to build that argument. And so far, they've gotten very close to Donald Trump. They've gotten as close to Don Jr., and Eric, but no direct references to interactions between McConney and Trump.

And so, it raises, I think, a very important question. If that's all they get at the end of this trial, how much do the jurors -- are the jurors able to conclude, hey, there's enough smoke here, enough common sense to assume that there's fire, or are they actually precluded from making that inference because there's no direct evidence?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, there's two answers to that. Number one, I believe Michael Cohen will give that direct connection in his testimony. Whether they credit that will be the source of much controversy and much debate among the lawyers. But prosecutors will say Michael Cohen was the one who brought this right to Donald Trump himself.

And second, to your point, Andy, lawyers are allowed to argue, and jurors are allowed to draw what we call reasonable inferences. Well -- I mean, the example that judges used to give in our courthouse was, let's say, we're in a room with no windows, let's say this courtroom, we had -- the windows were all drawn, and you saw someone walk in the back of the courtroom and they were holding a wet umbrella and wearing rain boots, and they were sort of -- you know, drops of water coming off, then you can -- you can infer from that that it's raining outside. You can't necessarily look outside and see that it's raining but when you see this guy walk in with an umbrella, you can think gee, that must mean it's raining. So, that's fair play too. So, I think the prosecutor is going to make both of those arguments.

BASH: But I just go back to what you were saying about part of your answer to Andy was about Michael Cohen's testimony. The question and what Lanny Davis was here saying last week --

HONIG: Yes.

BASH: And what we've heard him, and Michael Cohen say publicly, is that they claim that goes beyond testimony. That they have some kind of evidence, some kind of paper trail, whether it was --

HONIG: Yes.

BASH: Whether it's contemporaneous, you know, communication or something, to make it beyond the word of Michael Cohen.

MCCABE: And they -- we have -- they're hoping they do because it is that gap that can be filled by inference, but that gap can also create reasonable doubt.

HONIG: Yes, but --

MCCABE: And so, in the minds of those jurors, if you can't make that brick-by-brick connection, you're leaving an opening for potential reasonable doubt.

GANGEL: Is Allen Weisselberg's -- are those handwritten notes and his relationship with Trump enough to make that link?

HONIG: I haven't seen a strict bullseye. You know, the bullseye would be an e-mail from Michael Cohen to Donald Trump, who of course, as you all know, does not email or text but say, hey, we're going to do this as legal fees. It's to pay me back for Stormy Daniels. I don't think that exists. But there's a lot of other documentation we're seeing now that gets them closer and closer --

BASH: And we should say that what they're talking about and what the judge overruled the defense on was a document -- maybe now a series of documents. Well, actually, it's one document. It's Donald J. Trump's revocable trust. Say that five times. And it was from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018. He was in the White House then.

JOHN KING, CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And so, you're trying to -- the accounting testimony if you will, the math, the documents to show where the money switch. That's key part of it. Here's all -- here's the transactions, here's where the money went.

Number two, the testimony from everybody that no, you couldn't spend more than a dime without Donald Trump signing off on it. So, that -- when you get to the $420,000 you have -- in your mind, it is Trump has to have signed this off. And then the testimony from others about how important Michael Cohen was to Donald Trump before their relationship went south.

So, that when they attack Michael Cohen's credibility, which is pretty easy because he's a liar -- you know, he is a liar. He was a liar before he was found guilty of lying. It's Donald -- as Donald Trump spokesman and as Donald Trump's enforcer and Donald Trump's fixer, he was a liar. And then he was actually convicted of lying.

And so, you have to make -- the case the prosecution tried to make the case that these were peas in a pod. Donald Trump trusted Michael Cohen when this was happening. This is what Michael Cohen did for Donald Trump when this was happening.

And yes, then their relationship went south, and yes, he's not always credible. But in this moment, he was doing Donald Trump's work. That's the case they're trying to make that -- and they've -- the documentation -- the documents and the testimony, the math is to get the jury thinking this could not happen without Trump's approval for when they attacked Michael Cohen which again is pretty easy.

BASH: Kristen, I want to bring you in.

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR: Yes.

BASH: Go ahead.

COATES: No. I was -- I was -- because I've got my tablet to -- something, but it's OK.

BASH: OK. Hold on to the tablet --

COATES: I'm going to hold it. It's all I got.

BASH: While getting ready.

COATES: We'll give it a shot.

BASH: As you talk to the Trump campaign -- the current Trump campaign, not the one back in 2016, as they watch this kind of testimony, what's their reaction?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think there is an overarching belief that at the end of the day, Donald Trump is probably either going to have a hung jury or that they are going to rule against him in this case, as they go through this. Now, a lot of this is going to be from the campaign's perspective, a way for them to point to political interference to say that this is an issue with the election, etcetera, etcetera. What we've heard time and time again, obviously, that is not true.

[11:55:03]

But the one thing that they continue to hold on to, and they hold on to this notion of potential for a hung jury is the idea that Michael Cohen is not a credible witness and the idea that they believe that you can continue to paint him as not a credible witness. Now, one thing I will say is that this is moving a lot faster for them than they ever thought it would. They think this can be done in a matter of weeks, much shorter, because of the fact that these witnesses that the prosecution is bringing, you're not going to see the defense sit there for hours and go through them.

They don't want to. They don't want to go through that with Stormy Daniels either. They don't want that over and over and over again repeated what happened with Stormy Daniels. So, all that's going to move pretty quickly until you get to Michael Cohen and that's why they think this is going to end faster.

BASH: OK, hold on to your tablet because I know we have exciting stuff on your tablet coming up. How's that for a team, ladies and gentlemen? The paper trail is again a critical focus for prosecutors this morning, a Trump Organization insider is still on the stand for direct examination. Much more CNN's special live coverage after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)