Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Stormy Daniels Testifies In Hush Money Trial; Defense Atty. Attacks Stormy Daniels' Credibility, Truthfulness In Contentious Cross-Examination. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired May 09, 2024 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:03]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to our breaking news. Coverage of the historic Donald Trump hush money criminal trial. I'm Brianna Keilar in Washington. Kaitlan Collins is outside of the courthouse in New York.

And today, the woman at the center of this case, Stormy Daniels, was back on the witness stand. The adult film star delivering a combative testimony, strongly pushing back as former President Trump's lawyer tried to discredit her story and her motivation for telling it, often using her career in the adult film industry for reference.

One exchange reading, quote -- Necheles, the lawyer saying, "You have a lot of experience of making phony stories about sex appear to be real." Daniels responds, "Wow, that's not how I would put it. The sex in the films is very much real just like what happened to me in that room. The sex is real. That's why it's pornography."

Necheles then asking, "Now you have a story you've been telling about having sex with President Trump?" Daniels answers, "If that story was untrue, I would have written it to be a lot better."

And that's not the only moment where Trump's team highlighted Daniels work in the adult film industry, Kaitlan.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: No, it's certainly not. They repeatedly pointed to that and there was another moment where Trump's attorney Susan Necheles and Daniels and she was questioning her and Necheles asked her, and I'm quoting Trump's attorney now, she said, "You acted and had sex in over 200 porn movies."

Daniels responded, "It was 150." Necheles responded to that, "But, according to you, seeing a man sitting on a bed in a t shirt and boxer shorts," referencing the former president, "was so upsetting that you got lightheaded, the blood left your hands and feet, and you almost fainted?" Stormy Daniels pushing back, saying, yes, she was surprised to indeed see the future president of the United States like that, given he was twice her age and his bodyguard was standing outside that hotel suite.

I'm here outside of the courthouse with CNN's Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent, Paula Reid, and CNN's Chief Domestic Correspondent, Phil Mattingly. Moments ago, the judge said they will take a break for lunch. And, obviously, Stormy Daniels was on the stand for an incredible amount of time, Paula.

Now, it is a Trump organization employee who is testifying about something that is less salacious than what we heard from Stormy Daniels, but maybe just as important. Because she is essentially talking about how this paper trail of getting these checks from Trump organization in New York to the White House in Washington did it.

They weren't just sent to the White House. She was sending them to the personal homes of two top Trump aides, John McEntee and Keith Schiller.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That's exactly right. And the reason she has to testify is because the Trump team will not stipulate that, yes, this is how the checks went from the Trump organization to the White House, the circuitous route, but eventually to the White House once he became president.

They will not stipulate. That is a defense strategy. They want to bog the jury down in as much mundane testimony as possible, which is why we're hearing from her about the journey these checks take. Well, most people will probably be thinking and talking about Stormy Daniels testimony and the salacious things we heard.

The fact is, when the jury goes eventually to engage in their deliberations about the actual criminal charges here, allegedly falsifying business records, I heard testimony is going to be something that they are going to have to consider and think about, OK, let's think about where these checks came from, who had eyes on them, where they were going.

So not the most exciting witness, but she is an important building block to try to prove these charges.

COLLINS: I mean, this jury probably needs a bit of a breather. I mean, they just listened to six hours of intense testimony and intense cross-examination from Trump's team. I mean, there are some questions about what was the strategy that Trump's team was using going into this today, because it seemed pretty effective on Tuesday afternoon as they were cross examining her, basically accusing her of extorting Trump.

Today, part of the questioning, Phil, was on whether or not they actually had dinner the night that she met Trump, and they were supposed to have dinner.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: The escalation, I think, in tone and tenor from the defense was dramatic, and I think very, very tangible compared to what we'd seen at the beginning of their cross-examination. You mentioned that it wasn't just tone, it was actually kind of subject matter and focus as well.

Look, to be candid, Kaitlan, I think you may have said this earlier, there was a very, like, slut shaming aspect to it on some level, on some of the things you were just reading there. And it's worth noting that the way Stormy Daniels tells the story, the reason why she went up to the Donald Trump's room, she was supposed to be meeting him for dinner, she was supposed to go up to his room to go to dinner.

And the reason why she was surprised is because they'd had a conversation. She went to the bathroom, when -- before she'd gone to the bathroom, he was fully dressed, when she came back out, he was sitting there in his underwear.

So, I think, my question, as I've been watching this play out as our reporters in the room have been reporting through it, is, what happened to trigger a shift in tone and or shift shift in subject matter in terms of where the defense was going with this cross? And what does the jury think of it? Because in the end, those 12 people are really all that matters here.

COLLINS: Well, and the prosecution didn't seem to think maybe that they had all that much to do on cleanup because it was pretty short when they got up to re-question her after Trump's attorneys had their moment with her this morning.

[13:05:01]

REID: Yes, they didn't seem too worried. They got through a couple little nitpicky things and moved on really swiftly. The Trump defense team, they need to keep their client out of jail. And right now, the possibility of jail looms large because if he violates the gag order again by attacking a witness, like for example, Stormy Daniels, the judge has made it clear. He will consider sending him to jail.

So if the defense attorneys, in order to allay Trump's frustrations and concerns about what Stormy Daniels said on Tuesday, if they have to get up and go in the weeds about, you know, the paranormal possum or all these other things, like we went just so far down the rabbit hole, things no material value to this case, if that's what they have to do to appease their client, to keep him in line and keep him out of jail, I get it.

COLLINS: Yes, I didn't have possum being in the court record on my --

REID: I did not either.

COLLINS: -- bingo card this morning. Phil Mattingly, Paula Reid, we'll get back to us as we are monitoring this.

The court is taking a quick break, Brianna, as they wait to bring up this witness back and that is when we do expect Trump's attorneys to question this witness inside that courtroom, Brianna.

KEILAR: All right. Yes, we'll be watching after the break here, Kaitlan. Thank you.

Our panel here with us in Washington as we digest some of what we've seen today, which has really been a little bit of everything. Elie, I wonder what you think moving from the Stormy Daniels, cross- examination, a redirect now to the bookkeeper. ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it's whiplash for sure for the jury, but this is the natural ebb and flow of trials. You'll have super dramatic contentious moments, followed by more mundane moments. I think when I look back now at the Stormy Daniels cross-examination sort of in total, to me it was a tale of two cross-examinations.

Yesterday, the last hour or so, or Tuesday, the last hour or so, was extraordinarily effective. I think they really undermined Stormy Daniels credibility, her motives. She made prior inconsistent statements. She hates Trump. She's openly cheering for him to go to jail. I thought that was very effective.

Today, to me, was off the rails, though. The line of questioning that we opened this segment with about, well, you're in pornography. You know how to fake stories about sex. All of that is useless. It's pointless. I think it probably turns the jury more in Stormy Daniels favor. I think they just completely lost the thread this morning with the cross exam.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: The number one rule of legal practice generally is no when to say when. And at a certain point you have gotten the information in the record and get out of there and they open themselves up to things that actually hurt the defense to -- that hurt their cause.

A better -- or not a better example, but another example of this was, at one point, Susan Necheles asked a question and refers to the indictment and Stormy Daniels says, which indictment? There's a lot of indictments. And then the defense raised their arm, kicked and screamed, said, objection, get it out of the record, and the judge let it in because it was a responsive answer.

Now, had they cut themselves off yesterday, they could have avoided all these situations like this, where Stormy Daniels, as we saw in the introduction here, was actually quite effective at pushing back and coming off as responsive and witty and credible and frankly kind of vulnerable in these answers.

KEILAR: It seems like many legal observers looking at this. And I think just -- even political observers, people who observe Trump believe that a lot of this is Trump directed.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Oh yes.

KEILAR: Because part of the legal process and you know this having represented people is client management.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

KEILAR: Right? Just talk a little bit about that before we talk about sort of the political in this (ph).

HONIG: One of the great things about being a prosecutor is you don't have a client. Well, all of the --

WILLIAMS: The American -- HONIG: United States of America, they're --

KEILAR: They're not in your ear at lunchtime.

HONIG: Exactly.

WILLIAMS: Yes, yes.

HONIG: And our reporting by Paula and the team ended up being spot on. Yesterday afternoon, we talked about it when it broke, Brianna. The reporting came out that Donald Trump himself was urging his team to be more aggressive and go longer on lacrosse with Stormy Daniels today. That has to be what happened because I don't think any good tactician and these are all really good tacticians would have done that that way, if not for the client urging them to do so.

BORGER: Well, we know what Donald Trump said in his book, which they used, which is if you attack me, I'm going to attack you back. And that's exactly what occurred on the stand. I mean, she was called everything, you know, crazy, dishonest, money hungry anxious for fame. You know, and it just didn't go anywhere because it wasn't relevant to the case and all they were trying to do was to destroy her and say, you're lying.

You always lie. That's what you do for a business. You lie. You lie on pornographic movies. You lie. And, you know, the thing about Stormy Daniels is she didn't give an inch. She did not give an inch. And I'm wondering how the jury will react to that because she was being attacked, and I don't know whether they would like that, you know?

WILLIAMS: Yes. You know, take out the human stuff. The personality is what we think of all these people and so on. And just look at what was in the record at the end of the day on Tuesday. And it was attacks on the witness's credibility and attacks on the witness's financial motivations. And those were in the -- but you don't gain anything from going forward (ph).

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR AND HOST, THE ASSIGNMENT WITH AUDIE CORNISH: Why do you think that the other day, though, was less effective for her as a witness than this day?

HONIG: Because the way they structure the cross-examination. For example, they -- the first thing they asked her on cross-examination, you hate Donald Trump, don't you? She said, yes. Honest answer, but a big hit against the person's credibility.

[13:10:09]

If a witness hates the guy in the defendant's chair, it's a big deal. That's really important for the jury to know. They confronted her with a prior inconsistent statement. The way I would have, by the way, handled the whole sexual encounter if I was the defense team, one question.

You say in 2018, you signed a statement that that sexual encounter never happened, didn't you? And she would have said, yes, but I was forced to sign it or I signed it because I was scared. But leave it at that. Just leave it with the jury.

She told you one thing, but she signed a statement afterwards saying it never happened. That's so much more effective than picking at the margins of -- well, you were at dinner, but you said you ate dinner, but did you eat? Like, who cares about that?

CORNISH: Do you also think that's because social more is around, sex have changed, right? It's not 2008, it's not 2007, it's not 2015.

HONIG: Yes.

CORNISH: We are post-MeToo, post all of the other allegations against the former president, and people are much more familiar with the idea of sexual ambivalence in an encounter. So you can't just throw a woman up there, and say you're a porn star in an era where young people are calling her a sex worker.

HONIG: It's a great point and --

CORNISH: It feels like a different -- a pro -- like, they did the thing you would do in the 90s, which is to have a woman do that cross exam. But I'm wondering from a legal perspective, is this thing you're talking about fundamentally different from the way you might have talked about it, right, 10 or 15 years ago, when just the very virtue of what she does for a living in of itself would be the credibility problem?

WILLIAMS: You know what's interesting, Audie, earlier in the week, I made a similar comment and sort of folks didn't agree with me on that point. And I suggested that I still think there are jurors who are going to hear the word porn star and still judge her on account of that fact.

Now, society, I agree with you full.

CORNISH: It's not that part, but for instance -- and again, I don't want to --

WILLIAMS: Yes.

CORNISH: -- quote directly because we're hearing this thing paraphrased, but kind of saying you did phony sex and then --

WILLIAMS: That -- yes.

CORNISH: -- Stormy Daniels has to say like, I don't think you know what porn is. And like everyone gets to laugh at that.

WILLIAMS: Right.

CORNISH: And as you said, it's sort of going further into territory that isn't necessarily working for you in terms of what it's supposed to do, which is to undermine her somehow.

WILLIAMS: Social --

BORGER: So that's why it seems like Donald Trump is running the show --

CORNISH: Yes.

BORGER: -- because it seems kind of outdated anyway.

CORNISH: I can't know that.

BORGER: Yes.

CORNISH: I'm just curious, like --

HONIG: Social mores --

CORNISH: -- what are you hearing in the way they're going down this path and whether they're actually equipped to go down that path. And maybe that's why it felt a little schizophrenic.

HONIG: Social mores change and you have to adjust for that if you're a courtroom lawyer. Your jury is 12 people who live in Manhattan in 2024. And I think you're right. I think this would have played very differently in 1952.

BORGER: Exactly.

HONIG: You're in pornography. Oh my goodness. In 2024 in Manhattan, I don't think anyone cares. And I certainly don't think people see that as a sign of dishonesty.

WILLIAMS: Yes. I would say, no, I still think there are folks who are still trapped in the 1990s mindset who are judging this. But I think as a general matter, number one, absolutely societies evolved on these points and you just ought not go there anymore.

And number two, they just appeared to be beating up the witness in a way that humanized her in a way that she was not the day before because it was, you know, the day before or two days before it was purely inconsistencies in her statements, not statements calling into question her choice of profession and the mere fact that because she had sex with somebody on camera that therefore that opened the door to this conduct with the former president.

BORGER: And the fact that she's making money off of this was something that they also really delved into, but they have a client --

CORNISH: Off of this meaning the --

BORGER: Off of her encounter with Donald Trump.

CORNISH: Specifically.

HONIG: Her candles or, you know --

BORGER: Yes. And so they delved into that, you know, the candles she sold and everything else, the book. And -- but they're representing a client who makes money off of everything --

HONIG: Yes.

BORGER: -- and sells Bibles. And so that's a bit of a problem, you know?

HONIG: That's --

CORNISH: Well, where the issue on social mores, I think, I contradict myself as I think about it, is also they have to put themselves in their mindset back to that time. To think, what would make a presidential candidate scramble? Who had spent the prior 10 years in the tabloids literally as ex-wives fighting on the ski slopes like everybody knows these past stories.

So why would this suddenly become a thing that needs to be a panic even among the bookkeepers and this guy and that guy. So I think that this is the part that's a little tricky about talking about this case is we have our now understanding.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

CORNISH: But we're asking ourselves to go back in time and think, would this have been a scandal, and what would they do? How far would they have gone to deal with that scandal?

KEILAR: That is a good point. We're talking about 2006 and 2016.

CORNISH: That's like before the before times.

KEILAR: And also people just being informed by, you know, having spent much of their life in a pre-MeToo era, certainly.

All right, we have so much to talk about, obviously, so everyone stay with me if you will. We're getting all of these trial updates because our reporters have been in the courtroom watching the drama happen live.

[13:15:03]

We are in a lunch break, but court will be resuming here in not too long. Our report will be joining us live next. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: And we're back now with our breaking news coverage of former President Trump's hush money criminal trial. Right now, the court is on lunch break after hours of testimony from adult film star Stormy Daniels. The prosecution will be back soon to question their next witness who is a Trump organization bookkeeper.

Let's go straight now to CNN's Kara Scannell who has been watching all of this play out in the courtroom. Kara, what stood out to you?

[13:20:02]

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, it was a fairly contentious cross-examination. I mean, at times, Susan Necheles, Trump's attorney and Stormy Daniels were talking over each other. The judge at least twice had to tell Susan Necheles to let Daniels answer the question, so they were certainly sparring at times.

And it seemed like there were a couple points that Trump side was trying to make on this. That Stormy Daniels was motivated by money, going through ways that she had sold merchandise, sold candles, tried to profit off of her relation -- or her one night with Donald Trump, you know, but Stormy Daniels was fighting back each and every part of the way when they asked her, she was profiting.

One of the things that Daniels said was, this is me doing my job, not unlike Mr. Trump, suggesting that he was also profiting off the indictments that he has faced both here and elsewhere. Also, a lot of the focus was trying to find holes in Stormy Daniels story, pointing out that she told interviewers different details in 2011 and 2018 that she did not recount in court today or vice versa.

A lot of the focus seemed to be on her saying previously that they had dinner, but her testimony today saying that they didn't have dinner. They also tried to suggest that prosecutors were feeding her information to try to match the details that she'd given in the book because on direct examination, one of the prosecutors had asked her, did you mention the floors in the hotel? And she said, oh, yes, the black and white tile floors.

So just trying to make it look like she was coached and that she has changed her story. And that is something that Necheles had underscored multiple times asking Daniels, you made this up. You've changed your story. Haven't you, Daniels, saying, no, I haven't and sticking to the story.

But, you know, one other area that Trump's lawyers tried to clarify because on direct examination, Daniels had said things such as, you know, there was a bodyguard at the door that she blacked out. So they were really focusing some of their costs today to ensure that Daniels said that she was not forced by Donald Trump to have sex with her.

She said if anything came out of that yesterday or the day before, she said, it was my own insecurities made me feel that way. So really trying to draw a distinction that this was not forced on Stormy Daniels and that she had sex willingly with Donald Trump.

And then on the redirect by the prosecution, they kept that short and sweet, trying to just underscore their main points in this, asking her, are you telling the truth? She said that she is, and they said, on balance, is your life better or worse now that you've spoken out publicly about this? And Daniels said on balance that it is worse.

Now during this period of questioning, you know, as it was heated at times, the jurors, they've been paying attention. They've been pretty active. I was sitting in a different position because I couldn't see how aggressively they were taking notes today, but they took a lot of notes on Tuesday, that had changed when we moved on to the Trump Organization bookkeeper during her testimony.

I'd say the jurors looked a little less engaged, maybe a little more bored as she was explaining how the checks, unsigned checks, she sent down to Washington D.C. They came back signed by Donald Trump. That though is an important part of this case. It's some of the elements of the alleged fraud because part of the allegation is that Trump falsified those documents.

Of those 34 counts, 11 of them are the checks that he signed to reimburse Michael Cohen. Brianna?

KEILAR: Yes. Our legal observers are saying, as many fireworks as we saw in the Stormy Daniels testimony, some of this testimony from the bookkeeper about checks going back and forth to the White House, ultimately, that is going to be even more important.

And I wonder, you are part, Kara, of this team of reporters that we have tracking this and watching this trial. Could you all get a sense of how the jury was responding to that testimony of Stormy Daniels, really contentious testimony as she was answering questions from Trump's lawyer about a lot of things having to do with the adult film industry?

SCANNELL: Yes, I mean, the jury, for the most part, I have seen them keep a straight face throughout. I haven't seen any jurors raise their eyebrows or make faces during any of the testimony. They have just methodically been following the prosecutor or Trump's attorney asking the questions and then turning their head to face Stormy Daniels as she answered the questions.

She was leaning back in her chair a little more relaxed today than she was on Tuesday. And she just was more direct. She wasn't trying to engage the jury as much as she had on direct examination when she was looking at them more and kind of making faces, making jokes that weren't landing.

She was more straightforward today in responding to these questions, but raising her voice at times. But I've not seen any of the jurors kind of crack the facade of trying to be neutral. They have largely all that I've seen kept straight faces on and just watch the back and forth between the attorneys and Daniels, even when it got pretty heated and the judge had to interrupt to say you have to give Daniels time to answer the question as he was trying to keep order going.

And also keep the pace of this going. He was looking to have them to keep moving this ahead. He wanted her on the stand first thing this morning so we could get through this.

[13:25:05]

And he also told the jurors as we were breaking for lunch, that the parties say that they're on schedule and maybe even a little ahead of schedule. So this trial is moving along, Brianna.

KEILAR: And just real quick here, how was Trump today, especially compared to Tuesday?

SCANNELL: So Trump was at times again kind of sitting back with his eyes closed, he takes that position. We've seen this a lot. But also when they were putting up some of the social media posts that he had written, that Stormy Daniels had written, he would lean in toward the monitor in front of him, that's where the evidence appears for him, for the jurors, for the audience. So we'd see him at times lean forward and do that.

And then there were a number of sidebars today. That's when the judge has calls the parties, the lawyers up to the bench because they're fighting over whether something can come into evidence or not, or a certain line of questioning is OK or not. Trump is sitting at the table with one of his lawyers, and we saw them engaged in a lot of back and forth, a lot of conversations.

Trump at one point had his notepad out, where he sometimes writes notes and hands them to his lawyers. So he was paying attention. And then when his junior bookkeeper was on the witness stand, he turned toward her to look toward her. We've seen that a few times where someone who works for his company, he pays them attention. Whether they can see him or not is unclear, but he does look in their direction to follow along in their testimony.

KEILAR: Really interesting stuff. All right, Kara, thank you so much for being our eyes and ears there in the courtroom.

Well, much more of our special coverage ahead. We're going to speak with a retired judge to get his take on what has unfolded in the courtroom today. We'll have that after a quick break.