Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Stormy Daniels Returns To Witness Stand In Trump Trial; Details Of Non-Disclosure Agreement Discussed; Prosecution And Defense Spar Over Testimony Relevance; Trump's Attorneys Request Mistrial; Judge Denies Mistrial Request. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired May 07, 2024 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:50]

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Welcome back to our special live coverage of former President Trump's hush money criminal trial. I'm Kaitlan Collins outside of court in New York. Wolf Blitzer is in Washington. Any moment now, the adult film actress Stormy Daniels will return to the witness stand. She's already testified for around two hours today, going into vivid detail about her alleged sexual encounter with Donald Trump in 2006, which led ultimately to that $130,000 payment to keep quiet.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Trump has repeatedly denied that the affair ever took place, and his lawyers have yet to begin their questioning of Daniels. Moments ago, he walked back into the courtroom. You can see the video right there from moments ago. Our senior legal analyst, Ellie Honig, is joining us right now. He's over at the Magic Wall. Ellie, what do you think?

ELLIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, well, for a remarkable day so far in the court, we heard some really fascinating and important testimony this morning. Let's get you caught up to speed. Stormy Daniels has taken the stand, and she spent most of her time on the stand this morning detailing an incident in 2006 when she met Donald Trump and ended up having sex with him in a hotel room. Now, here's how that becomes relevant to this trial. If we jump ahead 10 years, we're coming up on the 2016 election. On October 7th of 2016, the Access Hollywood tape drops. It happened years before, but it records Donald Trump making, offensive statements about women. And we heard prior testimony that that set off panic within Donald Trump's campaign.

Now, a week or so later, the campaign learns about Stormy Daniels' allegations about her tryst with Donald Trump 10 years before. That causes more concern. Now, on October 27th, she receives a $130,000 payment from Michael Cohen in exchange for her silence. And then that leads us to the election on November 8th. And the prosecution's theory is the reason they paid off Stormy Daniels was because they were very worried about the election, especially after the Access Hollywood tape. Now, we got some interesting testimony from Stormy Daniels towards the end of her testimony in the morning about what her motivation was. At first, she said, no, my motivation was not money. It was to get the story out. Sort of curious because she ends up taking money to not tell the story. Also, the timing really matters here. Stormy Daniels testified that the upcoming election was a motivating factor for her. She realized that her story would not have as much teeth to it after the election.

She testified that if it wasn't done before the election, I wouldn't be safe or that he wouldn't pay and there would be a trail to keep me safe. Now, Stormy Daniels also saw, and the jury has now seen, some really important documents, including the actual non-disclosure agreement, the actual hush money agreement, which she has testified that, yes, she signed under the assumed name of Peggy Peterson. That's her signature. David Dennison, by the way, is the assumed name they gave Donald Trump. He never actually signed it. He never signed the non-disclosure agreement. Now, Stormy Daniels will continue. She's on direct examination when the lunch break ends. At some point, probably today, prosecutors, excuse me, the defense, Donald Trump's defense, will cross-examine Stormy Daniels. And I think we have a sense of where they might go. First of all, Stormy Daniels, at points in 2018, denied this. She issued a statement saying, I never had sex with him and I'm not saying this because I was paid hush money. She later denied that denial, so she'll be asked about that. She'll be asked about whether she had a motive to make money and to advance her career. And she'll be asked about the fact that she actually owes Donald Trump several hundred thousand dollars because she sued him for defamation, which was thrown out of court.

And now she owes him attorney's fees. That'll go in Trump's lawyer's minds to her motive. One other thing, with all the attention on Stormy Daniels, let's not forget Sally Franklin. She started the day. She works for a publishing company and she read to the jury certain excerpts from Donald Trump's ghostwritten books, but books that he put his name on, about the level of control that he exercised over his business. This is really important to the actual accounting part of this case, which is where the actual crime lies. One of those excerpts Donald Trump wrote, quote, if you don't know every aspect of what you're doing, down to the paper clips, you're setting yourself up for some unwelcome surprises. So very valuable bits for the prosecution there Wolf. We'll see Stormy Daniels resume her testimony at any moment now. It looks like she has started to testify again on direct examination from the prosecution, and then probably later today on cross-exam for Donald Trump's lawyers.

[14:05:09]

BLITZER: Very interesting. Ellie Honig, thanks very, very much. Kaitlan, I understand you have an important update for us.

COLLINS: Yeah, Wolf, we're getting some breaking news from inside the courtroom right now, as Trump's attorneys have just returned, including with the judge and the prosecutors. And Trump's attorneys are now asking for a mistrial based on what Ellie just laid out there, the two hours or so of testimony that we just got from Stormy Daniels, saying that she went too far in that testimony. And Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche, arguing there is no way for them to remedy that testimony that the jury has already just heard. I should note Trump is writing it on his notepad as Todd Blanche, his attorney, is making this argument in front of the judge. And Blanche is talking about that testimony, saying that there was no other reason for prosecutors to elicit that beyond to cause Trump embarrassment.

Now, this is a very important point. I think it's important for us to know that there is no other reason for prosecutors to elicit that testimony. And this was a concern that started out this morning before Stormy Daniels even took the witness stand. And prosecutors and the defense were arguing about the parameters of her testimony. Paula Reid, Phil Mattingly, back here with me. And Paula, I mean, this is coming from Trump's team. Maybe not a total surprise that they are asking for this and not clear that they'll get it. But even the judge was noticeably uncomfortable with where certain parts of her testimony was going and on two occasions asked her to directly answer the question and not meander. And also, you know, scolded the prosecution when the jury was not in the room, that they were asking her to go into details that weren't relevant to why she was on the witness stand.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, it doesn't mean that they're going to succeed here. But look, I would not want to be Todd Blanche. He just came out of an hour long lunch with a client who is clearly aggravated with the situation. And the Trump aligned folks this morning have been pushing for a while this idea that they would move for a mistrial. Now, he's saying he's going to say she, Stormy Daniels, talked about a consensual encounter with President Trump, that she was trying to sell. And that's not the story she told today, Blanche said. So Trump writing notes, pushing them to Blanche even right now as he's talking. So it's clear their client is unhappy and they have to do this, even if they're not successful. This will preserve the issue for their appeal. And remember, that is the overarching strategy. We've said from day one, assert every objection, preserve every single option. So if this doesn't go your way, if your client is convicted, try to overturn this on appeal through death by a thousand cuts.

COLLINS: But does he have a point at all on how they remedy that testimony, how they talk about that testimony, where she went into lurid detail. I mean, I was sitting there listening to all of it about her sexual encounter with Donald Trump, including whether or not he used a condom. She said he did not use one. And they're saying that's not relevant and that she did that just to embarrass him. And where she was talking about points where she was saying that she blacked out, she meant that figuratively speaking, she was saying she hadn't had anything to drink or had not taken any drugs. They're saying her going into all of that is it's a bridge too far with the jury.

REID: It certainly felt like that. There were so many objections, many of which were sustained. But again, these things have nothing to do with the allegations at the heart of this case. Now, of course, Blanche just said that that has nothing to do with the reason why we're here, Your Honor. The judge let her continue to testify and allow this in open court. But there was everything from the salacious details about condoms, the missionary position to sort of mundane details about meeting a football player at a nightclub, with Trump and trying on his ring. I mean, time is of the essence. The judge had already told him to move it along. Why was all of this coming in? Do I think it's going to prompt a mistrial? No, but it's a legitimate thing for the defense to bring up.

COLLINS: And the defense will get to question her. They were writing down notes as she was answering certain questions. You could tell it's sparking, you know, however they're going to shape their cross- examination.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: I don't think there's any question about that. And they've been very effective in some of their cross-examinations up to this point. One of my big questions is whether or not prosecutors will actually leave any time for them today or whether or not they're going to try and stretch this all the way out until the end of the day, today in court, because they know tomorrow is off, leave the jury with it entirely. What Blanche is saying right now is, one, reiterating there was an actual discussion about the guardrails here. It was very clear that the prosecution pushed up to the line and potentially over those guardrails throughout the course of the morning's testimony.

And Blanche is saying, I think the direct quote was, you can't unring that bell. The jury heard it. Whether or not the objections were sustained or not, the jury heard it. So where does this actually go from here? And I think, I mean, Paul and Kaitlan, you were in the room. It seems strategic. At least the way it was coming out from our teams in the room by the prosecutors. They were intentionally pushing as close as they could over to the line or past the line.

COLLINS: Well, they were essentially just asking her. I mean, she also was going there. There were some points where the defense said that, objected, said that they were asking leading questions. They were sustained at times by the judge. But there were also moments where she was-the prosecution would just say, tell me about this meeting with Trump. And Stormy Daniels was kind of in this storytelling mode. She was very personable and she was going into, you know, a lot of detail about, you know, how she got there, the shoes she was wearing the night she met Donald Trump. They were uncomfortable. You know, she went into incredible amounts of detail about these interactions.

[14:10:09]

But was that an effort to know and to undermine any attempts to discredit her credibility about this interaction with Donald Trump?

REID: Not at this point. I want to know. The prosecutor said, Susan Hoffinger, the prosecutor says of Daniel's testimony that it's highly probative of the defendant's intent to say, quote, this is not new. This is not a new account. Again, I don't think that this is going to trip the wires and create a mistrial. They're also asking potentially for her testimony here to be limited. Here, Blanche is saying, we believe regrettably that there should be a mistrial and that Daniel's testimony in any new trial should be excluded or limited. Again, unlikely that they're going to be successful in their request for a mistrial. But this is important as defense attorneys to preserve this issue for their client, should they need to appeal.

COLLINS: Yeah. And a real question, you know, even raised of whether or not they wanted to bring her to the stand, what that was going to look like. And also a question of how they cross-examine her. We may find out this afternoon. We'll stand by to see what that looks like. Stormy Daniels has not yet retaken the witness stand right now. Trump's attorneys are arguing that there should be a mistrial because of her testimony this morning. We'll wait to hear from the judge. We're monitoring all of this very closely. We'll be back with CNN's special live coverage in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:15:09]

BLITZER: Right now, Donald Trump's attorneys are arguing for a mistrial, saying Stormy Daniels went too far in her testimony. Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche, saying, and I'm quoting him now, she testified today about consent, about danger. And that's not the story she was peddling, sorry. That's not the story she was selling at the time of the NDA, the nondisclosure agreement. This is the kind of testimony that makes it impossible to come back from. Let's bring back our legal and political experts. And Ellie Honig, let me start with you. How strong of a case do you think that the defense has for a mistrial?

HONIG: Well, I think their motion is the right thing to do. I think it's well-founded. It's not going to succeed. Judge Merchan is not going to declare a mistrial, and we're all going home today but--

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: By the way, let me interrupt. Judge Merchan just said--

(CROSSTALK)

HONIG: There we go.

BLITZER: --and I'm quoting him now, having said that, I don't believe we're at a point where a mistrial is warranted. The judge also acknowledges that Daniels was difficult to control and some questions didn't need to be asked.

HONIG: This is going to be a well-deserved rebuke to the prosecutors. They went too far here. The judge warned them in the very beginning of the day. He said, we're not going to get deep into the details. He sustained several objections while they were going. And frankly, Susan Hoffinger's responses here are not at all convincing. She says, well, the story wasn't new. That's not the point. The point isn't was the story new or not. The point is they elicited all sorts of details, including it's not just the fact that it was details. It was details about consent. It was details suggesting that there was some element of force here, which is not part of this case and which, Judge Merchan, has correctly said, he did not want that to become part of the case.

Now, one thing to watch for, the DA said we'd be okay with a limiting instruction, which the judge may give to the jury. Now, here's what that means. Sometimes the judge will turn to the jury and say, ladies and gentlemen, earlier this morning, you heard certain testimony. I instruct you that that testimony was not relevant. It's stricken from the record and you are to disregard it. That could, if you get that kind of limiting instruction, it's damaging to the credibility of the prosecutors in the jury's eyes. I see we're getting a bunch of updates, too.

BLITZER: Merchan reiterates.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Yes. A limiting instruction to the jury about Stormy Daniels' testimony of being threatened in 2011.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, let me go--

(CROSSTALK)

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: That wasn't all of it, though.

WILLIAMS: I'll go a little further. It's not just that it was a good idea to move for a mistrial here. The defense sort of had to because they would lose the right to raise this as an issue on appeal if they didn't. It's called preserving it for appeal. And I think Paula had talked about it a little bit earlier. Now, the whole idea here behind a mistrial is that the proceedings are declared void because of such a fundamental error in judgment by a party, by the judge, by a prosecutor that the defendant did not get a fair trial. And I think, you know, to put all of this in perspective, the prosecutors had a balance to strike here of getting enough detail on the record to establish the existence of this encounter such that the defense couldn't rebut it. But details such as whether the president, the former president had worn a condom sort of get into the realm of perhaps presidential to the defendant in a way that didn't need to get out.

BORGER: And the question is whether the judge would let the prosecution go too far. And I just got a text from somebody who's represented people in Trump world who said, remember the Weinstein appeal where the court reversed conviction because the trial judge let in inadmissible evidence and the salacious details have nothing to do with the government's theory of the case.

WILLIAMS: And the other thing in getting back to the appeal point, all these sort of slappings of the prosecution that the judge is subtly doing here are going to go right into the defense. If he's convicted right into his brief, saying that these are the errors stated by the trial judge on the record. These are the errors that the prosecution made in tiptoeing up to this line.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And I just want to point out what we've seen here, because there's still having a back and forth here between Judge Merchan and the defense. Essentially, Merchan is saying you should have objected more that sometimes I had to object on your behalf. They say Trump's judge-Trump's attorney says once your honor signal that you thought they had gone too far, we did start objecting consistently. But up until that point, we felt that you had ruled that they were allowed to go that far.

[14:20:09]

BLITZER: And Judge Merchan responds to Trump attorney Susan Necheles by saying this, I think that I signal to you and to the prosecution that we were going into way too much detail.

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: Well he did get agitated.

HONIG: The judge should have done something about that then. The judge, by the way, the judge does not have to sit there and wait for either party to object. Judges can and often--

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: We have now officially the judge has denied the defense's motion for a mistrial.

HONIG: Yeah, so I think appropriately, I think what happened this morning was inappropriate, but it has to be at such a high level to cause a mistrial. But judges can intercede. Judges can say, hold on. All right, prosecution, move on here. Or I've seen judges just say without an objection from one of the parties, just say objections, sustained--

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: That happened to me.

(CROSSTALK)

HONIG: Yes, it happens--

WILLIAMS: Oh, my God. It's the worst feeling.

HONIG: --and I also don't think it's fair for the judge to say to Donald Trump's lawyers, you should have been objecting more. They did object several times. And tactically, you don't want to be popping up like a jack in the box. Every question we object, we object, we object.

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: If the judge instructs the jury--

HONIG: -- It looks bad in front of the jury.

BORGER: --to sort of not pay attention to some of the salacious details, what impact does that have?

WILLIAMS: Legally, all the impact in the world, practically none of the impact in the world.

BORGER: Because they can't unhear it.

WILLIAMS: Once the judge has put it on the record that the jury is not to consider a piece of information, the judge is assuming it's not so egregious as to void the whole trial. Yeah, the judge has put it on the record and he's fixed it. Jurors are not idiots. And they hear this and they can't, like he said, unring that bell.

BLITZER: Ellie, but explain, even though the judge has dismissed this notion of a mistrial right now, if Trump is convicted and the defense then goes for an appeal, they can use this as sort of evidence.

HONIG: Absolutely. This will be a point in an appeal. If there's a conviction, Trump will appeal. This will be a point. And Gloria raised the Harvey Weinstein verdict, which came out, I think, last week. And what the highest court in New York State found in that case is the court let in too much other bad acts evidence, evidence of other women other than the ones who were charged in the case. This situation is Harvey Weinstein-ish. But I don't think it rises to nearly that level. I think it's a good point to keep in mind. But I think Judge Merchan kept enough of a lid on this. I don't think it's at the level of Harvey Weinstein.

Everybody stand by because there's a lot more coming up. We're staying on top of all of the breaking news. Stormy Daniels will be back on the stand we're told now any minute. Stay with CNN as our special live coverage will continue right after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:25:09]

COLLINS: Welcome back to CNN's special live coverage of the Trump hush money trial. Just moments ago, Judge Juan Merchan dismissed an attempt for a call for a mistrial. I should note that it was brought by Trump's defense team. But he says he will allow a limiting instruction for the jury. Our reporters in the courtroom say attorneys appear to be hashing out the language for that. He has just called for Stormy Daniels to be back in the room. And Paula Reid, what do you make of how the judge is handling this?

REID: This is the right way to proceed because there were absolutely times when Stormy Daniels' testimony went far outside the guardrails of what they had really agreed upon before the jury came in. They had said, look, we don't need to get into the nitty-gritty of the sexual encounter. Instead, she was talking about, you know, the missionary position, the fact that he didn't use a condom. Then she went into great detail about a lot of other events and her physical safety that just really were not pertinent to the prosecution's reason for having her on the stand. So here the judge has really done the right thing. He's responding to this mistrial request by not only saying, look, you're not going to get a mistrial, but you're right. Some things here did color outside the lines. And the way we're going to offer you a remedy is we're going to offer a limiting instruction to the jury, so limiting the extent to which they can consider her testimony. COLLINS: Well, and one point that, and I should note that Stormy Daniels is now getting back on the stand after all of this kerfuffle, to put it generously, over what she had said on the stand just a few hours ago this morning. And one point that the judge said, he said, well, you know, the defense should be objecting more if you don't like the line of questioning. But I was in there, Susan Necheles, Trump's attorney, was objecting quite a lot. And I was looking at the judge through my binoculars that you have to use to be able to get a good look at his expression. And he was clearly uncomfortable with lines of the questioning, maybe not the questioning itself, but where the witness was taking it.

MATTINGLY: Right. And I don't know that I'd seen maybe a handful of times at most Judge Merchan actually sustain any objections up to this point. It's dismissive of all of them. And that wasn't the case today. And you talk about Susan Necheles, it was Donald Trump who at one point was nudging her, like, you need to object, twice, twice. You were in the courtroom twice, nudging her, saying you need to object. I think everybody knew that this was walking right up to the guardrails. And unringing the bell, I think, was a lot of what we heard the back and forth before Stormy Daniels was called in. Let's be candid. Like, for Donald Trump, this sucked. Like, this is an absolute nightmare. And to be fair, the better, I think, resolution to this is not to do it in the first place, allegedly. But to have this happen, I can only imagine, you guys would have better insight than me, but like what this was like during the lunch break, which obviously his lawyers came right out of and made clear to start moving forward on this. Donald Trump, I think, posted on Truth that he wanted a mistrial as well, clearly aligned with where his lawyers went. But what he said and how much of what he said dictated what they ended up doing, I think, is probably not irrelevant here.

COLLINS: Well, and I think, also, part of the testimony that got brought up, and I only heard her name mentioned one time this morning as Stormy Daniels was on the stand, and that's Melania Trump. And she was talking about the night that she met Donald Trump, and she asked, she saw a photo of his wife, and she talked about how she was beautiful. And she, Stormy Daniels, said that Trump told her, well, we don't worry about that, we don't sleep in the same, we don't even sleep in the same room. At that, Trump kind of had this scowl on his face.