Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Prosecution Nearly Finished in Trump Trial?. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired May 10, 2024 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:01:08]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Welcome to our breaking news coverage of former President Trump's hush money criminal trial. I'm Brianna Keilar in Washington. Abby Phillip is outside of the courthouse in New York.

And testimony has finished for the day, but we just got some major news after the jury left the courtroom, the prosecution telling the judge that it's -- quote -- "entirely possible" they will wrap up their case by the end of next week.

The jury heard from several witnesses during today's session, starting with former White House aide Madeleine Westerhout. A key moment from her testimony is when she said that when the Stormy -- when the story about Stormy Daniels came out, when it broke, Trump was -- quote -- "very upset."

She said: "My understanding was, it would be hurtful to his family."

But, on redirect from prosecutors, she clarified he didn't specifically speak about his family in that conversation, Abby.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: That's right, Bri.

And moments ago, some major developments happening in an otherwise kind of sleepy day in the courthouse. The jury for the first time was shown the 34 business records that the prosecutors have alleged were falsified.

There -- those will be pretty major in the focus of next week, because we have heard that Michael Cohen, the prosecution's star witness, who is expected to implicate Trump in the reimbursement scheme, will testify on Monday.

I'm here with CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid, also with us, CNN's chief domestic correspondent, Phil Mattingly.

Paula, there's some action happening in the courthouse today. If you're looking at your screen, there's a conversation happening between counsel and the judge right now as the jury was left -- let out about Allen Weisselberg. What are they talking about?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: The missing link here in this case, the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization who allegedly engaged in this conspiracy.

He was the one who helped Michael Cohen get reimbursed for the hush money. He is not being called in this case. And, right now, the lawyers are going back and forth about how much the jury needs to hear about why he's not being called.

Now, for anyone who does not know, Mr. Weisselberg is currently at Rikers. He is serving time for perjury. So the prosecutors even said at one point, why don't we just stipulate? Why don't we just agree to tell them that he's not being called because he's in jail?

But it is a little more complicated than that. And, a moment ago, the judge said that he actually wants to hear that there was some effort to call Weisselberg. It's not enough to say, well, he's in jail for perjury. If we put him on the stand, he would probably plead the Fifth anyway.

They -- the judge is asking. He's like, I think I need to know a little bit more about why you haven't called him, because the defense is really going to seize on this. They're going to say, look, you haven't -- you have only seen one direct link between the falsifying business records and the defendant, and that is Michael Cohen, a man who has his own convictions for lying.

(CROSSTALK)

REID: So this is a really big issue...

PHILLIP: Yes.

REID: ... definitely the most interesting thing we have seen.

PHILLIP: Yes, yes, this is a major, a major situation right now, because, all week, we have been asking about Allen Weisselberg and that handwriting on that ledger, that critical handwriting where he lays out how much Michael Cohen was going to be reimbursed, not just for what he paid to Stormy Daniels, but the taxes and the plus-up for a bonus, et cetera.

The question that is rightfully being asked right now is, why isn't he testifying? And has the prosecution made an effort to get him there? And, I mean, the question for us, I think, also that's interesting to me is, what kind of witness would Allen Weisselberg even be if he were to hit the stand?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Which is quite literally the debate that's happening right now between defense and prosecution counsel and the judge, with Judge Merchan actually saying, I need to see some evidence that you have actually tried to get information from Allen Weisselberg or at least tried to compel him to come testify.

The benefit of this, beyond giving Paula freedom from every commercial break...

(LAUGHTER) MATTINGLY: ... me being like, why aren't they calling Allen Weisselberg, but, to your point, I think, is the question everybody is happening -- is asking, is, you're starting to get a sense of the actual answer here, which is that the prosecution is saying, there is a severance agreement that is in place...

PHILLIP: Yes.

MATTINGLY: ... that limits him from what he can say, and probably wouldn't say anything at all.

[13:05:05]

Emil Bove, the attorney for the defense, saying, likely, the understanding is that he would plead the Fifth, the judge saying, I haven't seen any effort out of this. I'm not going to necessarily...

PHILLIP: Yes.

MATTINGLY: ... move towards stipulating anything at all.

What's fascinating about this, and you make great points, why we have all been asking the question, the direct link that has been missing throughout that we know Michael Cohen is going to provide, and be ripped apart for it by the defense team for many past issues, is, Allen Weisselberg.

Throughout...

REID: Yes.

MATTINGLY: ... Jeffrey McConney, Allen Weisselberg was the person in between him and Donald Trump through all this, Rhona Graff, Allen Weisselberg. The junior bookkeeper went through Jeffrey McConney, then to Allen Weisselberg.

Allen Weisselberg, without any question at all, has direct knowledge of what the president, former president, knew, when he actually knew it, and was directly involved with this entire process. The only other person who seems to be is somebody who's going to be testifying next week.

PHILLIP: And we're seeing just, before it changed there, Emil Bove was saying there are some procedural problems with bringing him on as a witness...

REID: Yes.

PHILLIP: ... because he was not on the prosecution's witness list.

Judge Merchan says, "You didn't think it was a possibility there."

Look, I'm wondering, does the defense want Allen Weisselberg on the stand? I mean...

(LAUGHTER) PHILLIP: ... maybe nobody wants him on the stand at this point...

REID: I...

PHILLIP: ... because he's such an unpredictable potential witness.

REID: Yes, and probably not really going to help them, right, to get up there and take the Fifth.

It was more helpful for them the fact that he wasn't on the government's witness list. And every time I ask if he's going to be there, they say, no, he's not on that list, so he's not expected to be called. And that was something they were going to call to the attention of the jury.

Well, if this was an alleged conspiracy, why didn't you hear from this man? So, that's why this is really a critical point. And as you can see on the side stream, now they're moving on to argue about the man of the hour, Michael Cohen, and possibly putting a gag order on Cohen.

PHILLIP: Yes, social media posts, I mean, not just Michael Cohen, but Stormy Daniels also using social media to needle Donald Trump.

This is a serious issue, because Donald Trump is prohibited from attacking these witnesses, but it's kind of a fair point to say, the witnesses are not prohibited from attacking him. And that has been happening.

MATTINGLY: Right.

I think it was, what, less than an hour after Stormy Daniels left her testimony or finished her testimony yesterday she was up with a tweet. And that was Todd Blanche, the former president's attorney's point yesterday, was, you need to revise the gag order in some way because he can't defend himself.

It's been the president -- former president's frustration that he's talked about, that he's posted about on social media as well. He can't defend himself. And I think the reality is, is, the former president thinks and, to some degree, has been proven out to be the best defender of himself.

And, right now, they feel like he can't. And I think they're right in feeling that he can't. Whether or not he should, that's up to the judge, but he's very clearly unable to fire back. And we have already seen witnesses have done it themselves.

PHILLIP: Yes.

REID: It's always been an open question why the judge just didn't gag everyone in this case, especially knowing the players.

I mean, the prosecutors here saying they have asked witnesses, in particular, Michael Cohen, I know, not to speak out, not to do what they're doing. And it's just been to no avail. PHILLIP: Yes, I mean, he put a pause on it for a little while, but, this week, as this testimony has been ramping up, Michael Cohen has resumed his chatter about Donald Trump. This is all leading up to Monday, when he will take the witness stand.

Paula and Phil, thanks very much -- Brianna.

KEILAR: All right, Abby, thank you so much.

Let's talk a little bit about what we are seeing happening there in court, this discussion about the Stormy Daniels tweet and also Michael Cohen, as we are expecting him to testify on Monday.

What do you think about what we're seeing here?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

KEILAR: And I should just say, Merchan telling prosecutors to inform Cohen that the judge is telling him that the instruction is coming from the bench that, basically, he needs to knock it off.

WILLIAMS: What you're seeing is, a judge who is reluctant to extend a gag order. Judges are reluctant to implement gag orders in the first place.

And as we saw over the course of this case, the judge, it took him a little while to get to actually issuing a gag order here. Now, the question is and what the Trump team asked in the break when we were going over this was, can we extend -- the defense asked to extend the gag order to apply to Michael Cohen to limit the statements he can make about the case leading up to his testimony and during it?

Now, the judge here -- and I'm not surprised that he's doing this -- rather than reopening the gag order, is simply saying, prosecutors, tell your witness that the judge is asking him not to speak about the case.

Now, that doesn't really have a lot of teeth. And perhaps they can revisit the gag order question down the road.

KEILAR: While walking out, Trump motioning for Jeanine Pirro to follow him. So that would be an interesting...

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: She is someone not on a gag -- under a gag order.

(LAUGHTER)

KEILAR: That's right. That's a very good point, and be interesting to be a fly on the wall for that conversation.

But why is...

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: Let's go to the Stormy Daniels tweet. Why is it so problematic, Elie?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, so, what the judge just did was issue essentially a gag order-lite, right?

He did not issue an official order. But, as Elliot said, when the judge tells you, hey, you need to knock this off, it's going -- it should resonate.

The Stormy Daniels tweet really is -- is unfair, I think, and inappropriate. And the worry is, if a juror sees this -- and, look, let's be real. I mean, jurors have to have some sense of what's in the media. I mean, if they look at their phones, they have some idea of what's happening in this case.

[13:10:09]

Stormy Daniels' tweet basically undermines Donald Trump's Fifth Amendment right to not take the stand if he so chooses. If a prosecutor said what Stormy Daniels tweeted, this case would be over immediately.

Now, it's not the same thing when Stormy Daniels says it.

CORNISH: Yes, so I don't understand. How does it undermine his right?

HONIG: Because why -- so why is Donald Trump gagged with respect to witnesses? Because we don't want witnesses intimidated, because we don't want jurors maybe seeing him saying inflammatory, unfair things.

The intimidation part does not really apply to Stormy Daniels, but the latter one does apply to Stormy Daniels. We don't want jurors seeing her saying -- what if a juror sees that and goes, yes, why doesn't he take the stand? Doesn't a real man take the stand?

CORNISH: After a week of hearing from her directly?

HONIG: Yes, because this is something she's saying -- it would have been totally inappropriate if she said that in court. It would have been immediately objected to and stricken from the record.

And the concern is, if a juror sees that, they go, oh, it's a good point by Stormy Daniels. Why isn't -- wouldn't he take the stand if he was not guilty here?

WILLIAMS: So, I would say two things in relation to that. Number one, it comes with the imp -- because she's a prosecution witness, it comes with the implication that it's got the stamp of the prosecution actually saying that we call into question his right to not take the stand.

Also, and this is -- Elie touching this a little bit. The judge will instruct the jury once Donald Trump does not testify -- and I'm pretty confident we ought to be that he's not going to. The judge will instruct the jury not to glean anything from the defendant's decision not to testify.

It's really sensitive, this issue, and they just don't like messing with it, even from witnesses.

KEILAR: Well, former President Trump speaking as we are talking here.

Let's start at the very top. This is from just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Mr. President, are you going to testify next week?

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (R) AND CURRENT U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There is no gag order to Michael Cohen.

What the judge did was amazing, actually. It was amazing. Everybody can say whatever they want. They can say whatever they want, but I'm not allowed to say anything about anybody. It's a disgrace.

And you see it. The media sees it. And it's really...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: OK, there is.

He is saying, they can say -- let's talk about the political track, if we can, on this, Audie, because he's...

CORNISH: Is there any other track? It just...

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

KEILAR: For him -- I mean, well, there should be, I mean, right, as he's looking at this. But, for him, really,there's so often is not.

He's saying, they can say whatever they want. I can't say anything, which obviously is playing very much into this line that he's done time and again.

CORNISH: I mean, I think you guys will talk to sort of how -- the fairness of this for a defendant, because there are some complexities here.

But this is a president who -- this is a person who became president literally on the strength of his deftness with social media and with using these kind of amplification. And, in fact, one of the reasons why people are so concerned about intimidation, et cetera, with him using it is because it's very clear that the power of -- that Donald Trump can call forth through crowdsourcing, et cetera, could be dangerous, could be intimidating to a witness.

So I can imagine he does feel incredibly stifled. The flip side is, he's there with, like, a very famous broadcaster. So I don't get the sense that his point of view will somehow not make it out there, but, legally, does he have a point?

HONIG: Just real quick. I know, Jackie, you want in here. But Donald Trump just said -- quote -- "I'm not allowed to say anything about anybody."

Completely false. He's allowed to say whatever he wants about Judge Merchan, about the district attorney, about the indictment, about the gag order. He just can't comment on witnesses, jurors and family members.

CORNISH: But he feels like he can't defend himself somehow.

HONIG: Yes. Yes.

JACKIE KUCINICH, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, and it also goes against everything we know about the former president, in that he likes to hit back.

That is sort of going back to his real estate days. If someone goes after him, he's going to go right back at them. And so this is just going back. And that's probably why he was fined, because it's just -- couldn't resist the urge to hit back.

And now, I mean, apparently, his lawyers actually have a lid on this. But it is interesting. But the question of fairness, from a political standpoint, is really interesting and how that will play out, if perhaps people might look at that and say, hey, that isn't fair.

KEILAR: Legally, I wonder, though, if Michael Cohen wants to sound off ad nauseam, Stormy Daniels wants to tweet, I mean, that's not entirely bad all the time for the defense.

WILLIAMS: It's not entirely bad all the time for the defense.

Well, yes and no, because, theoretically, the jury is not consuming social media or reading news about this.

KEILAR: Theoretically, yes.

WILLIAMS: And, quite frankly, the judge will, back to jury instructions, instruct them disregard other things that they have seen. He told them at the beginning of trial to not be taking in media, and so on.

So, technically, they're not seeing any of this. Now, on the broader political question of what the public sees when Michael Cohen or Stormy Daniels are popping off in the media, that's a totally separate question.

But, assuming the system is working as judges presume that it is, the jury -- this is irrelevant to the jury.

KUCINICH: But these press conferences he does every time he walks out of the courtroom have nothing to do with the jury. It has everything to do with the court of public opinion and trying to build his case that he's being treated unfairly and that this whole thing is a political attack. So...

[13:15:08]

WILLIAMS: Yes. No, I'm just addressing...

KUCINICH: Yes.

WILLIAMS: ... like, how is this going -- how might this affect what happens in the courtroom?

And, again, there's a little bit of fantasy world thinking that goes into this notion that jurors don't read the newspaper, don't turn on the television, don't open social media, because I think you and I both know they all do...

(LAUGHTER)

WILLIAMS: ... and put it -- right?

HONIG: A hundred percent.

WILLIAMS: And, at the end of a trial, will say that they didn't, but -- and I don't mean to be cynical about jurors, but they're human beings, and they read the newspaper, and they walk down the street and see them on the newsstand and so on. So...

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: It's just impossible these days.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

HONIG: In the good old days, judges would just say, if you see it on TV, just change the channel, and if you see it in the newspaper, just turn the page.

Now it's if -- you live with it. It's on your phone.

CORNISH: Well, that seems no more likely.

HONIG: Right. Right.

(CROSSTALK)

KUCINICH: It's all an honor system.

WILLIAMS: It's also the ridiculous notion that the judge merely giving what's called a curative instruction, saying, please disregard what you just heard...

HONIG: Yes.

WILLIAMS: ... actually works on people who just heard something that has now formed a worm in their brain.

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: These are not the droids you're looking for. WILLIAMS: Yes.

KEILAR: It works all the time.

(LAUGHTER)

KEILAR: All right, if you guys can stand by for us, ahead, we have some reaction from someone who has been inside of the courtroom all morning.

CNN's Kara Scannell will bring us all the color and details that we haven't heard.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:20:39]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The articles are unbelievable.

And I'd hand you the articles, but the problem is, I'm not allowed to, because if anything's mentioned against certain people -- and you know who they are -- certain people, anything's even mentioned, he wants to put me in jail.

And that could happen one day. And I'd be very proud to go to jail for our Constitution, because what he's doing is so unconstitutional. There's never been anything like it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Those certain people would be witnesses in the case, which is pretty customary, witnesses and also prosecutors, aside from Alvin Bragg, and family members of those folks, including family members of the judge.

This is not that outlandish, but certainly a lot of discussion about what some of the witnesses are saying, including Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, as we are back now with our special coverage of former President Trump's criminal hush money trial.

Let's bring in Robert Hirschhorn. He is a jury consultant and an attorney.

And I just wonder. Robert. Obviously, the jury is not supposed to be paying attention to media coverage. They're not supposed to be hearing Trump say that, or reading Stormy Daniels' tweets, or listening to Michael Cohen opine. But what are the chances that some of them actually are hearing, say, Trump say something like what he just said?

ROBERT HIRSCHHORN, ATTORNEY AND JURY CONSULTANT: Well, maybe the two lawyers on the jury won't, but, of course, we're humans, right? It's human nature. It's curiosity.

They're not going to decide the case based on what Trump says before he goes into court or what he says after, because everybody knows he's talking to his base, he's fund-raising, and it's a lot cheaper to do that now that he's got the whole country kind of riveted on his words.

It's a lot cheaper to do it this way than to fire up that 757 and go to one of his gigs. So, look, the jury's going to have some access to it. They're not going to decide this case based on that. They're taking this really seriously. It is a president, a former president, of the United States that's on trial.

They understand the historical significance of this, and they are going to require the government or the prosecution to prove their case. And if they don't, they're going to acquit the former president. And if they do meet their burden of proof, they are going to find Donald J. Trump guilty.

KEILAR: It's interesting you brought up the two lawyers on the jury. And there are.

So you think they are going to find him guilty, based on what they have heard so far? Tell me why that is, considering we're still waiting. This is a...

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: Sorry. Yes.

HIRSCHHORN: Yes. No, that's not what I was saying.

What I was saying is, in terms of the -- watching the news, access...

KEILAR: That's not why they would find him guilty.

HIRSCHHORN: ... you know, when the notifications come across...

KEILAR: OK.

HIRSCHHORN: Right. Correct.

KEILAR: Yes.

HIRSCHHORN: What I'm saying is, if the prosecution proves their case, the whole jury will find him guilty.

If they don't, they're going to find him not guilty. And I got to tell you, Brianna, I think the prosecution has got some problems up to this point. What you saw with Stormy Daniels is like the warmup act compared to what's going to happen next week, because, next week, you're going to have the fixer versus the fixture, right?

Trump is a fixture in our life now. Trump hired the fixer. It's going to be fascinating to see what happens next week. Stay tuned, everybody, because this is going to be something.

KEILAR: Do you think -- OK, so, as you said, maybe those two lawyers on the jury aren't paying attention to the fact that Michael Cohen is going to be on the stand next week, or we're expecting that to happen, right?

Some of them may know. They may know that. And I wonder what you are expecting from a juror perspective, considering what we did just see of the Stormy Daniels testimony.

HIRSCHHORN: Yes, so, Stormy was a really good witness. I mean, you could see why Trump is attracted to her...

KEILAR: I think we're having some...

HIRSCHHORN: ... because she's a really powerful woman, right?

But Stormy's not going to decide this case. It's going to be -- this is an accounting case, right? So we're finally getting to the point of the accounting piece of the case. We're finally behind the salacious part of the case.

The jury all knows that Michael Cohen is going to come and testify. The only question is, how is he going to do as a witness? And, Brianna, I have been saying this over and over. Cases are won and lost on cross-examination, not direct, because, on direct, the prosecutor is just pitching up softballs, and the witness is knocking it out of the park.

[13:25:12]

But, on cross-examination, the witness is getting 105-mile-an-hour Nolan Ryan fastballs to see what the witness can do. And I got to tell you, the defense is going to spend this whole weekend figuring out every key way to get under Michael Cohen's skin, because, if they can get under his skin and get him to, like, yell at the lawyer or act out, that's going to be the best thing that could happen for team Trump.

KEILAR: Yes. No, that would certainly work in their favor.

Robert, great to have your perspective. Robert Hirschhorn, jury consultant, we appreciate your time.

HIRSCHHORN: Thank you.

KEILAR: And ahead, dramatic moments today from the historic trial in Manhattan.

We have CNN's Kara Scannell, who was in the courtroom, ahead. We're going to speak with her after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)