Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Now: Defense Cross-Examining Former Trump Org Executive; Hamas Agrees To Ceasefire Proposal From Egypt And Qatar. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired May 06, 2024 - 12:30   ET

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

[12:30:00]

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: But like the prosecution, they know what other evidence they have coming down the road. They know the things they're trying to corroborate that Michael Cohen is going to testify to. So there might be things in here that are much more important that we don't know about because they haven't tied it all together yet in summation.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Right. I mean, they're basically trying to say that this witness had no idea what Michael Cohen was doing for Donald Trump.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it's gotten some giggles in the court, right? What exactly did he do? He was even asked by defense attorneys. He was a lawyer and he's like, yes, sure, OK. And it's also getting to this idea that we call him a fixer.

We knew what Michael Cohen did, he was a conciliary for Trump. But in his email signature, it says that he was an attorney for Trump. So defense attorneys are going to seize on that and say, look, it's not like this idea that he was being paid for legal services. Is it that far-fetched?

Even if it was hush money, even if it was other things that he was doing, they're going to insist that during the time that he was paid, that he was doing sort of his version of legal work for Trump. Unclear if that's going to be successful, but that's where they're going to take this.

COLLINS: And I think the other issue, you know, we've talked about Michael Cohen's credibility. I mean, ad nauseam, but what happens when Michael Cohen's up there, and yes, they are going to try to cross examine him and have this tough, you know, line of questioning for him.

But also, isn't there just the reminder constantly that this is who Donald Trump picked to be his personal attorney? I mean, he's the one who afforded Michael Cohen such proximity to him and kept him on the payroll and had him handling these things for him.

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: And that's going to be the argument that the prosecution makes. Very common argument is, you know, we wish that a crime occurred in front of a bus full of nuns, but doesn't always happen. You know, the witnesses are going to be the people that are in closest proximity to the defendant.

He's the one who chose them. These are the people he chose, who he -- the journalist he befriended was David Pecker. The, you know, the people he was around were people who -- adult film stars and Playboy models and, you know, Michael Cohen, and those are the people he surrounded himself with. We didn't pick these witnesses. The defendant did.

COLLINS: Well, how do we think the jury watches this, because obviously it all matters, is there reasonable doubt? How -- what -- they're the ultimate deciders here, as we know. When they're watching, you know, Emil Bove, the Trump attorney who's questioning them right now, he's been quite tough on this witness, saying, you didn't really talk to Trump that much.

You never saw him in New York after he became president. And you didn't speak to him these three successive years. What do you think is the tactic in the Trump defense team's strategy here and how they're questioning him and creating that distance?

REID: Yes, they want to find the daylight between the alleged crime and their client. And they're doing a good job at finding that with Jeff McConney, who didn't talk to Trump, had never got direct orders from their client, and they really want to hone in on that to establish to the jury that the prosecution has not proven this beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is their strategy, to put distance between Trump and these documents, and also, secondarily, to argue that Cohen was engaging in legal services. So they have sort of a multipronged approach they're going to take here. But the most important thing is to remind the jury that there is no direct link between their client and these falsified records.

COLLINS: Does the jury pay attention to who is there supporting, the defendant because, you know, we've been talking a lot about how Trump's family hasn't really been at court? Eric Trump is there now today. He was the first family member to come since the trial started. This is only his second day being there.

Trump's attorney from the civil fraud trial, which he lost, what was also -- is also in the room today, along with another attorney, Boris Epshteyn, who was indicted recently in Arizona in that fake electors scheme. Obviously, the jury doesn't likely know who each of these individuals are, but do they pay attention to whether or not his family is present in the room?

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Absolutely. That's something that juries very much notice is who's there supporting them, who's not supporting them. There's all sorts of unspoken things that they notice. They will notice someone's demeanor. They'll notice who's physically there with them, supporting them. They'll notice who's not there.

They notice everything. They're taking it in. They're trying to get it right. They want to figure out what happened and get it all right. And so they take everything in. They notice, oh, wow, the lawyer's objecting to this piece of evidence.

They must really not want this piece of evidence coming in. I really want to hear what that evidence is because it must be so important because they're objecting and they're having a bench conference and, I mean, they -- and I know this cause I've spoken to juries before.

COLLINS: So that's interesting. So then, OK, so if you're a juror and they try to introduce this evidence and they say, no, no, no. And then they all go up to tip -- they talk about it in hushed tones. I was watching this when I was in the courtroom last week. If the judge then does allow that evidence to be in there, does it take on heightened importance for the jury?

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Absolutely, yes. I think so. And, look, they've also said if someone's objecting constantly, constantly, they can get frustrated with a lawyer too. Like, let the witness talk. You know, so you -- there's all these decisions as an attorney you have to make and decide, OK, is it worth objecting to?

[12:35:10]

Even though I technically could, I don't want to annoy the jury. I don't want them to think that I'm hiding from a piece of evidence that it doesn't really hurt me that much, even though I could keep it out. Things like that. You don't want to send those subtle messages.

What's interesting to me about what's going on is also the fact that for a long time, the lead lawyer was Todd Blanche, but Emil Bove has really stepped up and is doing all the big important witnesses.

COLLINS: Yes. Was that the plan, Paula?

REID: So, I know that the defense team is squarely focused on what they view as, quote, "the important witnesses." I would anticipate that Blanche is likely squarely focused on the testimony of Michael Cohen because we expect that the cross examination there could go on for days. And that is really what will make or break.

Now, I would argue that the prosecutors haven't actually made their case yet, so there's nothing to break. But if they do, undercutting Michael Cohen is Todd Blanche's number one priority. I also want to say, Karen was talking about what they noticed, so we have an update.

The defense attorney asked whether it was 60 million in unrestricted cash. McConney replied, at least. They're talking about how much money Trump had in his accounts at this time. Trump's decorum in the courtroom, talking about things that jurors noticed has been a complete 180 from what we saw in the civil cases where he would mutter under his breath.

He would sort of make sarcastic comments. He was incredibly disruptive, as was his attorney. So they've definitely taken a different approach. The defense attorney notes that the accounting system used by the Trump organization was, quote, "antiquated" by 2017, and that it had been designed in the 1990s.

COLLINS: And I should note, that attorney who was in there when he was much more disruptive is seated in the second row now.

Paula Reid, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, we are watching all of this closely. The witness is chuckling on the stand as he confirms that, yes, the accounting system at the Trump organization was antiquated. This cross examination is continuing. The questions the witness has gotten, where he has elicited, I don't, I do not know, or no idea already.

We have much more from our reporters inside that courtroom just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:41:53]

DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back. Right now, the Trump accountant who kept the Trump ledger is under cross examination. He just called the Trump method of keeping the books, quote, "antiquated." He also admitted the Trump system of keeping the books was rigged. The defense is clearly trying to give the jury potential reasons why the reimbursements to Michael Cohen were labeled legal expenses.

Our panel is here now. And Elie, I want to you to sort of weigh in on what we're seeing with this cross examination by the defense.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

BASH: You don't know -- I'm just going to read what's on the screen now. You don't know, do you? How, if at all, Mr. Cohen treated the payments. And now he's testifying about how those payments were not just made, but how they were actually kept in a locked drawer because it was kept in the payroll book, which contains sensitive information, including Social Security numbers.

HONIG: OK, two big themes on the cross examination of Jeffrey McConney advanced by Donald Trump's lawyers. The first one is, you didn't have direct contact with Donald Trump. All this accounting stuff you just laid out for us, did you ever discuss this with Donald J. Trump? He said no. In fact, surprisingly, he said he didn't speak with Donald Trump at all. And I think the year's 2016, '17, and '18. So they're trying to distance Trump.

The second thing they're arguing, as to why was this money repaid to Michael Cohen, this $420,000. They're arguing, essentially, Michael Cohen had his hand in the cookie jar here. Michael Cohen saw this sort of antiquated system, with a lot of flux and chaos, where there's an open legal matter, actually, and they're arguing Michael Cohen came up with this scheme to enrich himself basically.

BASH: Let me just read what's happening right now. One of the reasons you want to keep salaries and bonuses secure is because you don't want rumors about who's making what, right? This is Bove, who is an attorney for Donald Trump. Yes, McConney said.

HONIG: Right. So he's arguing there's not a lot of transparency, even within the organization, and that Michael Cohen, they're arguing, knew how to manipulate this to help himself to a little extra cash. And if anything, they're trying to argue Donald Trump was essentially the victim of this. He wasn't trying to overpay Michael Cohen all this money.

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: And there is two big points too. One, I mean, here was the question. President Trump did not ask you to do any of the things that were described by the prosecution. In response, he said, no, he did not. That's going to be the theme for all this.

We've heard a lot about the intimation, almost like it's a mob boss. We hear about over time of, I'll never actually tell you directly the order, but you know, you got a nice place here. I hate seeing anything happen to it. They have to do more than this inference.

You could really have inferences. We have to actually do more about this. And I think it's so important to think about going forward. We have to show that this is actually the intentional actions of Donald Trump, and he described there's a pre-White House Trump organization and a post-White House Trump organization.

In the latter, you got Eric and Don Jr. in control. He described chaos in terms of being able to have it all run. We don't have anyone yet to testify about what it was like when the Trump Organization wanted something signed and it had to go in front of Donald Trump at the Oval Office.

What happened then? How much was he aware? What did he really know? And remember, all the documents that are being in those 34 accounts are post-White House inauguration.

[12:45:02]

BASH: Which is important because?

COATES: Because you have to have, if there's chaos, according to the defense right now, if there's chaos in the Trump Organization, if you don't really know what's going on, if Trump does not have a particular fingerprint on everything, then it could be left to reasonable doubt to suggest that he actually knew it was happening.

HONIG: Yes, and the -- Manu (ph) question started real quick that we just saw that there was hundreds of millions of dollars and sort of liquid available cash. They're going to argue, how's Donald Trump going to keep track of 100,000, 130,000, which is, you know, half of a percent or something of all that. That's one of the arguments they're making.

BASH: And, again, just to kind of bring it back to the core, has this witness done anything for the prosecution to make their case, to bolster their case that Donald Trump was involved in this scheme, to cook the books and to do it for the benefit of this campaign?

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Cook the books? We haven't seen any testimony to that effect. And, in fact, as Dolores just pointed out, he says he didn't talk to Trump about this.

BASH: Right.

KING: So you don't connect the dots there.

BASH: So in that case, it actually hurts their case.

KING: Yes. Earlier, he said that, you know, that Trump was involved in every major financial decision. That nobody had the, you know, that it had to go up to Trump to spend any serious amount of money. So that predicate that, you know, Trump knows if a serious amount of cash is being spent is there.

But to the point they're all making about directly connecting the dots and to the point of having covered trials a long time ago, reasonable doubt. You get a couple of jurors to say, well, wait a minute, this doesn't look right. This is fishy, but, you know, they proved it happened. They didn't prove he did it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Can I play juror for a minute? The checks are being written, some of them from his personal account. He is signing the checks. Not every CEO insists, I imagine, in signing every single check. So to me, that says involvement.

And to me, the one thing is making Michael Cohen whole. Making this, you know, is the evidence for his taxes. If it's just reimbursement, you don't pay taxes.

BASH: We're going to sneak in a quick break and continue this conversation. Much more of our live coverage of Donald Trump's trial, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:51:45]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

BASH: And this has the potential to be very, very big breaking news. Hamas has agreed to a ceasefire proposal. That is according to the head of Hamas political bureau, who made that announcement just minutes ago. CNN is now waiting on a response from Israel to this dramatic new development that would put a pause on months of hostilities inside Gaza and between Israel and Gaza.

CNN's Jeremy Diamond is live in Jerusalem. Jeremy, talk about this moment and why it could be different from the stops and starts that we've seen over the past several months on negotiations for a ceasefire.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Dana, this could be a tremendously significant moment for so many people, for the millions of people in Gaza who have been suffering during the course of this seven-month war for the families of the hostages who have been waiting for an opportunity to get their loved ones out of Gaza to be able to embrace those loved ones for the first time. But I do want to caveat this news with the fact that we are only at this point hearing from Hamas. We have yet to hear from the mediators, from the United States or from the Israeli government. But Hamas did just release a statement on their official telegram channel saying that Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas's political bureau, has made a phone call to the Qatari Prime Minister as well as to the Egyptian Minister of Intelligence, Abbas Kamel, and quote, "Informed them of Hamas's agreement to their proposal regarding a ceasefire agreements."

Now, as we understand it, there has been this latest Egyptian framework on the table which could see the release of between 20 to 33 Israeli hostages over several weeks that there would be a weekslong pause in the fighting during that time and that ultimately this would lead to a much longer term ceasefire perhaps as long as a year, perhaps even longer.

And that is the proposal that was on the table. The Israelis had made a number of concessions in this that they previously had not agreed to, including allowing unrestricted return of Palestinians to northern Gaza. But this is a framework proposal.

Now, our understanding was that if Hamas agreed to this, there would still be several more days at least of negotiations in order to get to a final deal. So, it appears that Hamas here has agreed to the framework that the Egyptians had put on the table. It's not clear whether any changes have been made to that framework since it was first presented to Hamas over the weekend.

And so those are the kinds of details that are going to be really crucial to determining whether or not this is something that Israel can agree to and whether it can actually lead to a final deal.

BASH: Absolutely. And the way that we are learning about this from Hamas first, it's a reminder that so much of what is going on is about maneuvering and about leverage and about trying to push the other side into a situation based on whatever the discussions are right now behind the scenes.

I know we were reporting earlier a couple of things. One is that President Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu did speak earlier today. And also what you have been reporting all day about the Israelis being more aggressive in their public display of their intent to go into Rafah, all of that, particularly the going into Rafah could have been real, but it also could have been a pressure point.

[12:55:21]

DIAMOND: Yes, there's no question that the Israeli decision today to begin dropping leaflets on Eastern Rafah, ordering about 100,000 civilians to begin fleeing that area, evacuating northward, that that was intended to put enormous pressure on these negotiations, to put pressure on Hamas.

Whether or not that is what actually clinched it and got Hamas to agree to this proposal, we still don't yet know. Dana? BASH: All right, Jeremy, very, very significant development. Again, breaking news that just crossed minutes ago. Hamas says yes to a ceasefire proposal. More on this fast moving story ahead.

CNN reporters are also still in the courtroom in New York following minute by minute action inside Donald Trump's hush money trial. CNN special live coverage continues after a short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)