Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Now: Testimony Underway in Day 14 of Trump Hush Money Trial; Stormy Daniels Testifies in Hush Money Trial; Now: Ex-Oval Office Director Testifies in Trump Trial. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired May 09, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:02:07]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Welcome back to our special coverage of former President Trump's hush money trial. I'm Brianna Keilar in Washington. Phil Mattingly is outside of court in New York. And right now, Trump's former personal assistant at the White House, Madeleine Westerhout, is on the witness stand. She was one of the chief gatekeepers for Trump, and her desk was located directly outside of the Oval Office.

Before that, we heard from a bookkeeper for The Trump Organization testifying about how she handled Trump's personal checks, how she would mail them to Trump to be signed while he was in the White House. She also confirmed her understanding that Trump is the only person who can sign his personal checks. We also heard from an SVP at HarperCollins testifying basically just to the validity of a book that Trump had written, and specifically a passage about loyalty, Phil.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: Yes, that's right, Brianna. The day started, of course, with adult film actress Stormy Daniels taking the stand for the second day. She held her ground, pushed back as Trump's defense attacked her credibility, her motivation, and at some points, appeared to be her line of work as well.

I'm here with CNN Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent Paula Reid, CNN National Correspondent Kristen Holmes.

Kristen, I want to start with you. Basically, what's happening right now, basically we've kind of connected the dots through people that maybe people who are watching might not know, right? You had the controller, you had the senior bookkeeper, the junior bookkeeper from the White House side, you had Hope Hicks earlier on. People are probably familiar with her.

Madeleine Westerhout was as close as you could get to the former president in the White House while she was there, both literally and I think on a personal basis before she departed. What does she bring?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So I think what they're trying to get at here is what actually happened once those checks arrived in Washington. What did it look like when Donald Trump was signing them? Because Madeleine Westerhout is someone who would have been in the room. I mean, she was considered essential at the Trump White House.

One of the things that was so interesting about her is that at any other White House special assistant of that level would be considered more of a secretary. When it came to Trump's White House and Madeleine Westerhout, she was kind of a gatekeeper for the former president. I mean, as we've said before, Donald Trump didn't text. He didn't make his own phone calls. He didn't email. If someone was trying to get a hold of the former president, they went to somebody who was very close to him, literally in proximity as well and Madeleine was one of those people.

Now she was at the White House for two and a half years. She left under not great circumstances. She revealed some details about the Trump children in an off-the-record dinner with reporters, which led to her leaving.

But I am told that there's still a big fondness between the two of them. I think that was clear in just the beginning of the testimony when she describes Trump offering her a job in the White House and how excited that she was. So what she does is she kind of fixes that piece of the puzzle. We now know what the checks looked like when they were being cut, when they were being sent, what they looked like when they came back with his signature on them.

[15:05:06]

What happened in the in-between period, we really haven't heard. We've already tried - we've already seen the defense try to pick apart that timeline, both of The Trump Organization and in the White House, saying it was chaotic. Now you have someone who was actually there in that time frame, who's very close to the former president and also doing this kind of administrative work.

MATTINGLY: Why is this critical? If you're the prosecution, why are you calling - we've talked about some people are being called because there hasn't been stipulation, right? You have the person from the publisher come in because you want to bring in some quotes from the book. You have some of these individuals come in because you want to have some emails or the receipts from the FedEx, overnight priority always, coming in. Why is Madeleine Westerhout necessary to, kind of as Kristen was laying out, put the pieces together?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So first of all, she's the eyes and ears, so she's likely going to talk about whether she saw people like David Pecker or like Michael Cohen coming in and out of the Oval Office. She's also probably going to talk about those checks, right?

They were talking earlier, the person who sent the checks said that she would communicate with Madeleine. That was one of her touch points in getting those to the White House. She's also testified, though, about the impact of the Access Hollywood tape. And that is key because in the timeline, there are two key events in and around this original hush money payment. The Access Hollywood tape comes out, suddenly Trump's candidacy is in doubt, and you just have a few weeks before Election Day, and it's the Access Hollywood tape that suddenly makes Stormy Daniels' story worth $130,000 and puts enormous pressure on then-candidate Trump and Michael Cohen just suppressed that story, concerned about any story about illicit sexual activity.

So she's also been able to testify to the impact that that had on the RNC.

MATTINGLY: Yes. And to that point, an important point, is Madeleine Westerhout was at the RNC when that tape came out. Reince Priebus, who was the chair, she was working very closely with Katie Walsh, who was one of his top advisors at that time. She was there for all of that, because remember, RNC was kind of running the campaign on some level because there wasn't really a normal Trump apparatus when that all came out.

You mentioned an interesting point. She's never flipped or attacked Trump in any way. She wrote a book kind of about how she left the White House on rather bad terms, where she doesn't say a bad thing about the former president at all. When you talk to Trump officials in terms of witnesses they're concerned about versus witnesses they feel totally comfortable with, where does she land?

HOLMES: I would say that they feel comfortable with her in the sense that they don't think there's any animosity there. She's not one of these witnesses who is out with an ax to grind, but also they are very much aware that she saw every single thing. I mean, look, she - one of the things that she's testifying to right now, she's talking about how Donald Trump did not have email. He did not have any sort of phone that he used on a regular basis.

Meaning, sure we're going to get here, that she was often the one doing the communicating on his behalf. These are the people who at a different White House would not have had that same kind of access level that they had in a Trump White House. I mean, they were literally arranging calls with foreign dignitaries, and I'm not saying that about Madeleine Westerhout in particular, but these kind of low- level employees were doing these enormous jobs, I would consider enormous in any other White House.

What we're getting at here and the reason why she would be a concerning witness is just the fact that she is the one who saw everything, was arranging everything, was probably on the line or in the room when he was having some of these phone conversations.

MATTINGLY: Yes. What you're seeing right now, she's testifying he preferred to sign things himself. Other people have talked about that as well from The Trump Organization. The analog here, she's the Rhona Graff of the White House, was trained by Rhona Graff in the White House as well.

And I don't know that the foreign dignitary's idea is that far off. She connected him with foreign dignitaries at times, it was a very interesting arrangement. All right, Paula, Kristen, stay with us, we've got a lot more to get to. Brianna? KEILAR: Yes. And she's testifying now, Phil, to the fact that he liked to use Sharpies, which of course we all know if we've seen how he signs things or how he writes, he likes to use Sharpies. We've heard other witnesses testify to that as well.

Let's talk to our panel now about this witness in particular. She is key, Madeleine Westerhout. Phil mentioned that book that she'd written. I dare say it is fawning. She describes ...

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORREPONDENT: It sure is.

KEILAR: ... Donald Trump as a father figure and that she said she didn't hope - she didn't want to be too presumptuous, but she thought that maybe he thought of her as another daughter. And yet here she is possibly providing an important link. She says he did yes, he posted tweets himself, she notes, and she said that Dan Scavino had access to his Twitter account.

ZELENY: Look, at the very beginning of the administration, when the - it was going from The Trump Organization to the Trump White House, a lot of things were going on in terms of setting up this Oval Office. She was as physically close to the Oval Office, to the Resolute desk, as any employee. She was very close to him. She had worked for the RNC beforehand, and she was part of the work family. Not part of the personal family, but part of the work family.

She got fired in August of 2020 - 2018 - excuse me, 2018 because of some comments she made about the president's family. But she apologized to the president, and he ended up promoting her book. So the reality is they still have a good relationship.

But her point here in the trial, on the witness stand, is she provides a link to The Trump Organization, the checks and what was happening in Trump Tower and the White House.

[15:10:06]

She was that link there. She was trained by Rhona Graff, as Phil was saying, and that is her importance here. But she is a very friendly witness.

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Jeff, it's interesting what you're saying, comparing that to Hope Hicks, in terms of the relationship at this point. We're sort of describing it as a little more frosty with her having the text revealed about her comments around January 6th. But you're describing, of those two, right, who had similar sort of roles ...

ZELENY: She was more junior to Hope Hicks.

CORNISH: Yes.

ZELENY: She was more sort of positioned at her office. And I recall she was trying to sort of become more like Hope and travel and be on the road and things. But she was not Hope's deputy, but sort of worked in that realm, but probably wanted to be more Hope-like. KEILAR: And she testified that it was really the two of them sitting that closely to former President Trump. So I think it's important to kind of look at this testimony, maybe through that similar prism, Audie. But I wonder what you think as we're seeing this testimony. I just want to update for our viewers. This is a line of questioning from the prosecution here about how Donald Trump liked to read things before he would sign them.

In particular, they're talking about tweets and how, on occasion, she would actually take dictation from Donald Trump on a tweet, and then she would type it up to show it to him. It sort of speaks to that micromanager, I guess, approach she takes that other witnesses have talked about, Audie.

CORNISH: Or at least where the prosecution is trying to lead them. Elie, I'd love for you to jump in here as well, but I joked earlier about fonts, and now we're talking about the Oxford comma. But there is an actual point to this, which is to say he was always involved if his name was on it.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Comma or Oxford comma.

CORNISH: Oxford comma.

WILLIAMS: It therefore defies reason to suggest that he would have made a $35,000 payment or series of them and not have known what the purpose of the payment was. Now, like we'd said a little bit earlier in the program, have they established a direct link, and with this evidence know however what they are crafting is this idea of a principal at the top of the organization who knew everything that was going on, ran his affairs like a small business, and would have known where these checks were being written.

KEILAR: Because earlier you had a bookkeeper testifying to the fact that she would send personal checks ...

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Right.

KEILAR: Blank, for Donald Trump to sign. They come back in a Sharpie, Westerhout saying, yes, he uses a Sharpie. We know he uses a Sharpie and that here she is testifying that he would read things. That invoice was still attached to the check when it went back. There's this picture being created of how much Donald Trump knows. Is it enough, though, at this point?

HONIG: It helps. It's not enough on its own. I see this witness, Madeleine Westerhout, is sort of a sampler pack. I see four relevant points that they've elicited so far from her. One, the chain of custody on those checks, as we talked about. The checks come down to the White House. She would get them signed, send it back.

Two, there was a quick mention of the Access Hollywood tape. She said when that tape dropped, there was panic, at least inside the RNC. And that connects up with some of the earlier testimony we heard about. Why would they be incentivized to pay Stormy Daniels. Number three, and I think this is the most important point, the attention to detail, right? The extent to which Donald Trump knew what these invoices were for, knew what these checks were for, would read them, would sign them with the Sharpie. That links up. A prior witness, I think maybe it was McConney or somebody who said the same thing. He would use the Sharpie to sign things.

And then fourth, they may be getting into the substance of some of his tweets now. They're getting into how this process worked. And this witness is saying, well, I would - he would say something to me. I would jot it down. Then I would show him. And he liked to, as we know, capitalize certain words and use all caps and that kind of thing. So maybe they're going to use her as a vehicle to introduce some of his tweets as well. We know that they do want to do that eventually.

So sometimes you have a witness like this who isn't just sort of a one topic witness but hitting on multiple levels.

KEILAR: She noted that her lawyer is there pro bono.

HONIG: Yes.

KEILAR: It's important. We look at some of these witnesses and is Donald Trump paying for their lawyer? Is he not? And this witness comes after another one who spoke to a excerpt from a Donald Trump book on the issue of loyalty. Very brief appearance by that HarperCollins SVP. But I wonder what you thought about that appearance.

HONIG: Well, I think the point is Donald Trump takes care of people who take care of him and he lashes out at people who don't. And I think they want to use that to sort of explain why some of the witness testimony is coming in the way it does and basically that this is how he runs things. And it can be really intimidating to turn on him.

And to that point, Donald Trump's organization does pay for some of the lawyers, some of the witnesses we've seen so far. Nothing illegal about that. It certainly makes it harder to come clean against somebody. This witness has free representation.

KEILAR: Madeleine Westerhout really pulling back the curtain here about how things proceeded there in the White House. She sat very close to the Oval Office and a former President Trump while he was there in the White House.

[15:15:02]

We're going to continue to monitor her testimony, if you can just stay with us and we'll be right back with more on this breaking news as we are covering the criminal trial, the first criminal trial of a president, the hush money trial of former President Trump.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:19:39] MATTINGLY: We're back outside the Manhattan courthouse at Donald Trump's criminal trial. Madeleine Westerhout, former personal assistant to Trump at the White House, is testifying on the stand right now. She's the third witness to take the stand since court resumed last hour. CNN's Paula Reid and Kristen Holmes are back with me now outside the courthouse.

And to give you a sense of who's testifying, Madeleine Westerhout just testified that she - her recollection was that Donald Trump really likes the Oxford comma, at which point our reporters in the room say Trump smiled a little bit.

[15:20:08]

She has granular knowledge of kind of the ins and outs of Trump World.

I'm interested, Paula, because you've been following this throughout every single day. We've not seen in the wake of Stormy Daniels, there's been kind of a couple of players that know some things that aren't kind of the big names. There's one big name outstanding.

REID: Yes.

MATTINGLY: Where's this going from here?

Pretty soon, Michael Cohen will take the stand. It's unclear if they'll get to him tomorrow. We know they have a few more of these witnesses that are not household names that are either helping to bring in atmospherics, confirm some sort of organizational structure or to get an evidence that the defense team won't stipulate to.

A few more of them, and then Michael Cohen is the last marquee name that we expect the prosecution to call. So he could come as soon as tomorrow, unclear.

MATTINGLY: The biggest name witness up to this point, I think you could say, was probably Stormy Daniels. And it was pretty intense testimony over the period - over the course of two days, several hours. When you talk to Trump folks, how do they feel about how the cross-examination went and kind of what that lays the groundwork for with Cohen coming up soon?

HOLMES: Well, today in particular, they thought it went pretty well. I'm talking to people around the former president who said that they would hope for from Susan Necheles, and these are people who will talk to Donald Trump today after he gets out of court, they hope that she was going to be very aggressive, which we know she was.

We know, according to the transcripts, at times the judge actually had to intervene and say, you have to let her, Stormy Daniels, answer these questions. They wanted to pick apart her story. And as Paula and I had reported, originally there were conversations among legal team, legal advisors, that they were going to keep it brief with Stormy Daniels because they didn't want to really dive into any of the salacious nature of any of this. But because of the fact that she went into all this detail, because of the fact that she kind of walked this line on consent, they had recalibrated how they were going to do some of the questioning to, one, pick apart, to go through what she actually said on the stand and then go through these various interviews that she had given really back since I think 2011 was one of the first ones, going through line by line. And then also trying to build up Donald Trump's reputation while tearing Stormy Daniels' down.

Now, if you talk to the people who are close to the former president, they feel like she did her job there on the stand, that she was the aggressive, that she did pick apart the story. But I think the question still remains, and one thing that's harder for us, not being in the courtroom, is how it was interpreted by the jury. Did it feel like at points she was ganging up on her or being too aggressive.

And one of the things we've talked about, there's a reason they chose a woman ...

REID: Yes.

HOLMES: ... to do the cross-examination. The first day, when she kind of questioned why Stormy Daniels was laughing, part of that - part of the discussion we had was that would have sounded very different coming out from a man to this woman on the stand. And so there's a lot of maneuvering in that sense. But yes, right now, they feel good about where it landed.

REID: And I think the fact that their client's not in jail shows that they're successful, right? There's the threat of jail hanging out there. If he violates this gag order again, if he attacks witnesses like Stormy Daniels. We saw on Tuesday, he was on the brink. He had his first courtroom outburst. He was admonished by the judge for audibly cursing during portions of her testimony before she even took the stand. He had that Truth Social post that was up shortly, and then his lawyers had it taken down.

So if they can sort of attack her, if they can make the points that he would make if he could, that's enough catharsis, perhaps, for their client that hopefully he can still continue to stay on the right side of that gag order.

MATTINGLY: (Inaudible) because I want to get more into this, but I do want to say that in the testimony, there was just a contact list that was shown, numbers redacted that Rhona Graff had sent to Madeleine Westerhout. The contacts included, you can see some of the names on the screen right now, you can see Serena Williams in an earlier show of the contact list, it showed David Pecker, Serena Williams was in the contact. Naturally, as one does. We're going to keep watching this. You see the names here, Ari Emanuel, David Friedman, Jerry Falwell, Sean Hannity, it is everyone who's anyone to some degree.

And prosecutor asking Westerhout specifically about Pecker and Cohen, two of the relevant names in the case, now trying to, I think, draw the direct line after laying out just how intimately involved she was in Trump's world once he came down to the White House. How much of the strategy that we've seen - what you guys are talking about is fascinating to me because how do you balance the legal between the client management?

REID: This is some of the best client management I've actually seen in any of the Trump cases because we haven't seen any courtroom outbursts before Tuesday. And even after the judge admonished him, they got him under control. Now, of course, he is he is ultimately in control of himself.

But to lawyer - for lawyers to control a client like this, that is an art and it is a testament to Todd Blanche, the rest of that team, that they have kept him so far for quite a while, even before he was fined from violating the gag order again, and also from having these courtroom outbursts that were routine, a daily occurrence during the civil trials just a few months ago. So I think client management is a huge part of this assignment. And so far, given who they're dealing with and the circumstance, they've done an okay job.

[15:25:00]

HOLMES: And Donald Trump is happy. He's happy with his lawyers. Look, I was told there are good days and there are bad days. But there are more good days than bad days right now. And does Donald Trump pick up the phone at Trump Tower when everybody leaves at night and call people and complain about Todd Blanche? Absolutely. But is he going to fire Todd Blanche? I cannot find one person who thinks that's going to happen. He has said that he wants him to be more aggressive, that he wants him to participate more in going after some of these witnesses.

But everyone that I have talked to says at the end of the day that he is actually much more appreciative of Todd Blanche than he has been of other lawyers in the past, and that they feel as though there is actually some symbiosis there. I mean, as much as you can with Donald Trump as a client, I'm not saying it's all butterflies and flowers, I think there's a lot of tense moments.

But in terms of their relationship, I'm told that they believe this is as good as it can get if you're Donald Trump's lawyer.

MATTINGLY: It's a criminal trial. It's going to be stressful.

REID: Yes.

MATTINGLY: There's no question about that. And Donald Trump's going to call people at the end of every day and say things because that's what Donald Trump does.

All right. Paula, Kristen, stay with me.

We have heard from four different witnesses today. Ahead, we're talking with the jury consultant about how that testimony may be landing with the jurors as our special coverage of the former president's historic criminal trial continues. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)