Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Costello Denies Trying to Intimidate Michael Cohen; Now, Defense Questioning Witness Who Angered Judge; Defense Rests in Trump Hush Money Trial. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired May 21, 2024 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:00]

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: A slightly different Robert Costello on the stand this morning, and by that, I mean they haven't had to clear the courtroom yet after yesterday he was nearly tossed from the witness box and his entire testimony was nearly stricken from the record.

You're watching CNN's special live coverage. I'm Kaitlan Collins here in New York.

And moments ago, Robert Costello's cross-examination by the prosecution just finished. Now, Trump's attorneys are back up at the stand, and what a morning it has been. Even though he has only briefly been on the witness stand, we saw prosecutors interrogating Robert Costello about emails that he sent to Michael Cohen, very clearly attempting to represent him after the FBI searched his home, his hotel room, and his office in 2018.

And Paula Reid and John Berman are back here with me. And, Paula, I mean, there was an amazing moment where Susan Hoffinger, the prosecutor, was just asking Robert Costello about that testimony in front of Congress last week, which was clearly designed to get Donald Trump's attention. And Robert Costello said he wasn't -- he didn't know that his comments he made there about Michael Cohen claiming he was a liar would be reported in the press, which I think is kind of difficult to really take at face value because you're testifying for a committee and the former president's allies.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's garbage. That's the whole reason that you testify before a committee. And speaking of the Robert Costello Testimony origin story, as we've reported, Bob Costello was never expected to be part of the defense strategy But there are several people in Trump's orbit who wanted him to testify because they believe that he could help undercut Michael Cohen's credibility. He was the only defense witness to testify before the grand jury.

Now, he was not able to stave off an indictment, but that's a lower standard So, even though the defense team did not want to call Costello, Trump allies, again, they had Costello testify before Congress, knowing it would likely get Trump's attention, and indeed it did. He was very impressed with how he attacked Michael Cohen, attacked the case, attacked the judge and pushed for Costello to take the stand over objections from some members of the defense team.

And now what we're seeing here is this is a bit of a mess. It's not doing what was intended to do. It's not going to make or break the case, but this is a forced error. And it's something that not the lawyers were pushing for, but the client was pushing for, because people in his orbit thought it would be a good idea.

COLLINS: I mean, John, right now, this is Emil Bove, that's Trump's attorney, who is questioning Robert Costello about a 2018 email where there was clearly a lot of traffic back and forth between the two of them, where he was very clearly trying to use Rudy Giuliani and his connections to him to provide this backchannel to Donald Trump. He's denying that it would be characterized as a backchannel.

But then we saw emails where he was complaining about Michael Cohen playing them and slow rolling them, where Michael Cohen was later saying he was not going with them to represent him.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Look, I think the legal term to describe what we just saw from the prosecution in its cross of Robert Costello is Susan Hoffinger beat the snot out of him. I mean, she really did. She dragged Robert Costello through this incredible exchange of emails. They have a lot of emails that this guy was on that talk about Rudy Giuliani, that talk about even President Trump.

And, again, it just muddies up the water. The defense worked so hard to make people dislike Michael Cohen. But now the prosecution is seizing on this guy that they may be able to dislike even more. This guy who was completely unnecessary, probably, to this case, is now being put on trial. First, you know, look, Michael Cohen's not on trial, but the defense tried to put him on trial. Robert Costello is certainly not on trial, but the prosecution is now successfully putting him on trial.

COLLINS: Well, and it seems like the jury is -- we don't know, but they're laughing at Susan Hoffinger's comments, where there was this point yesterday where she was asking Robert Costello about an email, she's the prosecutor, asking Robert Costello about an email, and instead of really explaining, he just kept going, the email speaks for itself, the email speaks for itself.

I was watching it, and you could see his kind of tone of condescension, and she just asked him about an email, and he was trying to explain it, and she said, well, does the email speak for itself, Mr. Costello? And he said, sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. And then she just moved on quickly.

But there was a comment there that it elicited laughter from the jury inside the room.

[10:05:02]

That's not a good sign for you if you're the defense attorney.

REID: It's not, especially with this jury. They rarely tip their cards. I think they've laughed once at a D.A. paralegal who said he really enjoyed taking spreadsheets. That's the one time they've conveyed any kind of laughter. So, the fact that she got a laugh shows that maybe they have empathy for her in this task.

COLLINS: We also have retired New York Supreme Court Judge Diane Kiesel here with us. And, Judge, I have to get your take on what we're seeing happening this morning with Robert Costello and just the level of questioning with the prosecutors here.

DIANE KIESEL, FORMER NEW YORK SUPREME COURT JUDGE: Well good morning. First of all Susan Hoffinger, you underestimate her at your peril. She's an excellent lawyer and she's doing what every good prosecutor should do on cross-examination. She's essentially turning what should have been a Trump witness into a people's witness.

I'm scratching my head, quite frankly, as to why he was called at all. But be that as it may, he's something of a gift to her. And she's demonstrating excellent cross-examination skills. She's keeping it short, to the point, and she is essentially turning him around to her advantage.

COLLINS: And what Costello is talking about right now is his partner, Jeff Citrone, and he's saying that every time he asked him about the retainer, Michael, did you sign the retainer yet, that he gave them an excuse, that he was kind of dragging this process out. Trump's attorney is asking Robert whether he was concerned when he was representing Michael Cohen about essentially what that would mean and what that would look like. He said, yes, sure.

I think maybe -- do you think some of the jury are wondering, you know, what this testimony is getting them? Because the only thing it seems to be doing is -- they've already seen these emails. They saw this when Robert Costello was kind of first introduced to the jury when the prosecution was questioning Michael Cohen. How do you think the jury is looking at this testimony?

KIESEL: Look, again, it's always dangerous to try and poke around in a jury's head, right? However, I think the point that was just made, the fact that the jury remembered the way -- excuse me, the way Mr. Costello had been testifying and saying the email speaks for itself, it speaks for itself, and then when Susan Hoffinger turned that around, the jury laughed, right, which means they're listening very, very closely to this. They remembered.

And remember something, even though Judge Merchan sent them out of the room yesterday, they knew that they heard the comments of Mr. Costello on the stand, because he sits a few feet away from them. They knew what was happening there, and I'm sure they see the difference in his demeanor today. So, it raises the question about how seriously they might consider his testimony.

COLLINS: Have you ever had to clear a courtroom in your tenure as a judge?

KIESEL: I've never cleared a courtroom, but I have certainly reached my limit of patience and have said to the court officers, please take the jury out right now. We're going to take an early break, jurors. And then I have either given a stern talking to a witness or lawyers in front of me. It happens.

Judge Merchan has shown remarkable patience, frankly. This was really the first time that he'd reached the end of his rope. And look what Mr. Costello was doing to him yesterday.

COLLINS: Yes. And, obviously -- sorry, Judge, just to give you an update. Costello says Rudy Giuliani in response to my telling him we couldn't make this public because that's what Michael Cohen told me. There was a series of exchanges where Robert Costello was emailing his son, for example, and saying that he was about to represent Michael Cohen, was talking about how excited he was, his son congratulated him on that. And, essentially, he was here, the understanding we heard from Trump's sources was he was brought in to undermine Michael Cohen's credibility, but instead it's his own credibility that is the question right now, as the jury is seeing emails where he clearly was trying to represent Michael Cohen, but then, you know, was saying, I wasn't seeking Michael Cohen as a client.

KIESEL: Yes, it's somewhat mind boggling. Again, I think that this testimony really reinforces that people were trying to keep Michael Cohen away from flipping. And who might those people be? You know, connect the dots. I don't see -- unless I'm really missing something I do not see the purpose or, I should say, the efficacy of the testimony of this man.

COLLINS: Well, we'll see how the jury takes it right now. There are some objections. The judge is -- the lawyers have just approached the bench. We're watching it all closely. Judge Kiesel, thank you for your insight this morning.

KIESEL: You're welcome.

COLLINS: Jake, back to you.

[10:10:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks, Caitlin. So, former Trump Attorney Jim Trusty joins us now. Jim, thanks so much for joining us. Good to see you.

What do you make of Bob Costello as a witness? Do you think this was a mistake by the defense to bring him up? It seemed as though the revelation yesterday that Michael Cohen admitted on the stand to stealing $60,000 from Donald Trump and the $60,000, that theft was inside some of these so called smoking gun documents proving the case. It seemed like that was a really strong moment, and now I don't know what this gets them, this Bob Costello testimony.

JIM TRUSTY, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: Well, Jake, good to see you. It's hard to say from outside. I mean, you know, if you're not sitting in the courtroom watching the entire trial, there's always a little bit of speculation to it. And, look, the fact that they're apparently scoring some points on cross-examination doesn't mean that it destroys all of the direct.

I mean, I understood Costello to be coming in to basically say once again Michael Cohen has lied about a whole bunch of stuff and that's not necessarily a bad idea. You can't really tell from the outside or even as a litigant whether you've gotten to a point where the cross was so devastating of Cohen that you're going to get a 12-juror unanimous acquittal or you're going to get some portion of them to dig in and acquit or dig in and hang the jury because they can't trust Cohen. So, you know, hindsight will be more precise than anything else.

But I think Costello had some stuff to offer. I don't think it's great to pick a fight with the judge, which apparently he did. I also think it's kind of amazing how thin skinned New York judges are. You know, it's the most thick skinned part of the country, but they're thin skinned on the bench. And, frankly, it's a mistake, it's a legal error to clear the courtroom. If you want to clear it, get the jury to go out and say, like your last guest just said, take a little break here and then chastise the witness for giving you a side eye, you can do it. But, you know, the public trial right is a serious constitutional right for the public and for the defendant. And clearing the courtroom is just yet another thing to be in an appellate brief someday.

TAPPER: Well, I hear you on the thin skinned nature of it, but let me ask you, would you ever want to have your witness openly expressing disdain for the judge sustaining the other side's objections? I mean, he was yelling -- or saying under his breath, ridiculous and geez and rolling his eyes. You know, I'm not saying that as a journalist, that doesn't happen to me on an hourly basis. But, I mean, I don't think you would want your witness to be doing that to any judge, right?

TRUSTY: No. I mean, look, you know, Bob is a wild card, right? He's been a lawyer for 51 years. One of the dangers of that is that the lawyer gets very opinionated and basically feels no real built in respect for any judge because they've been at it so long. And that's a danger and that's the kind of thing you have to talk about in trial prep, which is like, you know, Bob, do me a favor, don't pick a fight for no reason. Let me do the lawyering. You're just a witness. You know, it's true, doctors are their own worst patients. Lawyers can be their own worst witnesses.

But I think that all in all, it doesn't, it doesn't mean the jury is disconnected from what he had to offer about Cohen on direct. And so that's, that's the wild card. We're not going to know until we see a verdict or a non-verdict. But you're right, Jake. I mean, I would certainly want to spend a little bit of time with the witness saying, look, I know you're very opinionated, I know you've said some things, I know you've been on the media a lot before you testify, which is never great, but don't come in and pick a fight with the judge.

TAPPER: So right now in the courtroom, Trump Attorney Emil Bove is trying to establish more about Costello and his relationship in terms favorable to Costello and unfavorable to Michael Cohen. In a June 13th 2018 email, Costello writes to Cohen, you have the ability to make that communication when you want to presumably the communication to Trump through him and then Rudy Giuliani and then Trump. We should note that the defense just rested. 10:13 on Tuesday, the defense rested. In any case, Costello writes you have the ability to make communication when you want. It's whether you exercise that ability, totally up to you. Was that pressuring Michael Cohen to do anything, Bove says, no, not at all, Costello says. Did you ever pressure Michael Cohen to do anything, Bove asks. I did not, Costello says. Did you ever have control over Michael Cohen, Bove asks. Clearly no, Costello says. And the defense rests. What do you think of that case presented by the defense, short, Concise and focused on Bob Costello?

TRUSTY: Yes, I think that's smart. I mean, it's redirect. It's you know, a moment where you try to clean up a couple of things that you feel like might have hurt you or might need more explanation. And here, the idea -- I mean, I don't think it's really a dispute.

[10:15:01]

Maybe Costello made it a little bit of a dispute and his answer is uncrossed. But it's not a dispute that he wanted to represent Cohen, that he was interested in helping him out, that he wanted him to flip to help him get out of his legal problems. That the heart of the problem for Cohen's testimony.

TAPPER: All right. Jim Trusty, thank you so much, always good to see you.

So right now, the people, the prosecution, Mr. Steinglass has said, that they have no rebuttal witnesses, nothing further, Judge, Steinglass says. Judge Merchan is now instructing the jury on timing. Judge Merchan says he expects the summations, that's the closing arguments, will take at least a day. And he prefers not to break them up if possible. Judge Merchan is explaining the schedule. And so that is what's going on now. So, if they expect a day for closing, I assume that does not include today?

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: No, it'll start next Tuesday instead.

TAPPER: Okay. So, they're just going to break Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Memorial Day weekend, they're off, and then they come back a week from today, closing arguments?

COATES: It appears so. And we now know the answer to the question we've all been wondering. Will Donald Trump testify? No, he will not be testifying in this case.

TAPPER: Surprising to no one.

COATES: Surprising to no one. Will he go outside the court? I mean, the gag ward will be in effect until the conclusion of the trial, which includes the verdict, not just the close of the evidence.

This is a really important moment, though, because remember the judge did not want to have a start and stop for this jury. It doesn't actually benefit the defendant to have a start and stop if there are jury notes, if there are questions, if there are deliberations, you try giving a presentation before the lunch hour, same effect for the jury.

But also the instructions are going to be so important here. It's going to come down to what instructions you're going to give. Elliot talked about this issue earlier in terms of how you're going to talk about contextual evidence or circumstantial evidence, whether you're going to assess the credibility of witnesses. But also, very importantly, you've got this New York law, and I'm going to go to my tablet --

TAPPER: But before you do that, let me just say here -- well, I just have some news here to bring to you.

COATES: You don't like my tablet, Jake Tapper.

TAPPER: I love your tablet. I just want to bring the news. So, what Judge Merchan is telling to the jury is he thinks the best thing to do, as we said, to adjourn now, hear summations, hear closing arguments a week from today. He said he's considered all the permutations at the end of the day. I think the best thing that we can do is adjourned now until next Tuesday. At that time you'll hear summations for the attorneys. Probably Wednesday, I'll ask you to come in. So, he normally doesn't hear this case on Wednesday, but a week from tomorrow, he will probably, he says, to hear the jury charge. And then I would expect that you will begin your deliberations hopefully at some point on Wednesday. So that is a week from tomorrow. We expect this to go to the jury. And who knows how long they will take to make their decision.

Laura and your tablet, take it away.

COATES: Thank you. Okay.

TAPPER: Wait, wait. I'm sorry. One more thing, it might be tempting to think now that both sides have rested. You can kind of let up a bit. But, in fact, these instructions take on even greater significance. Merchan tells the jury of his instructions not to talk about, not to research the case, no googling, thinking ahead to next Tuesday. I'm not 100 percent sure we're going to get both summations done by 4:30. Give some thought if necessary if you can work late on Tuesday. If you're unable to do so, that's fine, and the jury has left the courtroom. Go.

COATES: So, there are going to be some key moments to think about here, and it's very important to remember, the jury still has to follow the evidence. They cannot -- now that they're done with hearing testimony, they're going to have some very important instructions. Remember what they actually have to talk about. There are these charges. They are based on 34 counts of falsified business records. You got 11 checks, 11 invoices, 12 entries.

This is important because they have to prove their case not in one final swoop with the prosecution essentially saying -- I don't remember actually what they were talking. But the jury actually talking about the convictions and whatnot from before, what to look at, but they have to prove that there was intent, that Donald Trump is the connection here, that Donald Trump had the intent to not only commit this act but try to hide and conceal a different crime.

It is not entirely clear yet what they will use in summation. Will it be a campaign finance issue? Will it be tax fraud? Will it be something different on these issues? Some key points to consider. One is going to be what has come into testimony from David Pecker, the catch and kill scheme. What has come into testimony from Karen McDougal about the respect that he had for Melania, his wife, and trying to ensure she wouldn't receive different information through newspapers and beyond. Another very important point, Stormy Daniels, trying to solidify the idea that he was trying to was aware of why this would be impactful for the actual election. And, of course, Michael Cohen, really the star witness in all of this, talking about what his role was going to be and what Donald Trump knew.

But this $420,000 payment is at the very core of the issue. Can they prove that there was actually a connection between Donald Trump and Michael Cohen, and what happened? They could use what's known as, in New York law, this idea of an intentionally aiding instruction, where they can find that a person has committed the crime of another, by showing that they commanded, solicited, requested or intentionally aided that person to engage in that conduct. In other words, a full day of instruction may actually take place, that's how important it is.

[10:20:01]

TAPPER: So, Judge Merchan has left the bench, and it is going to be -- I mean, we're in a historic moment. The presentations of the information are over, Elie Honig. They're going to be back at 2:15 today to talk about the charging instructions.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

TAPPER: What does that mean?

HONIG: So, jury instructions are really important. This will happen now next week. It's the last thing the jury hears before they disappear into the jury room to deliberate. It can take an hour, two hours, three hours for the judge to lay it out. This is where the judge will go through the charges, as Laura just was --

TAPPER: But he says it's going to be back at 2:15 today to discuss it.

HONIG: So, what they're doing today is they're going to argue about what the judge will tell the jury, exactly. And there will be disputes about exactly how to define, for example, what is the other crime that the prosecutors have chosen to argue.

They're also going to argue about the missing witness, right? Allen Weisselberg, maybe Keith Shiller, what is the judge going to tell the jury about the missing witness? And sometimes judges tell juries, you can hold this against either side, if you want. Sometimes judges will tell juries you can hold it against neither side.

So, they're going to -- it's going to be very legalistic, but very, very important because what they're doing now is working out arguing and hopefully to an extent agreeing on how the judge will send the jury into the box.

I just have to say, I breathe a sigh of relief now that it's official, Donald Trump will not testify because I did say to Dana Bash on air, under duress, that if he testified, I would shave my head. So, you can put the clippers away.

DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: It wasn't --

HONIG: No, it wasn't for you, it was for the other guys.

TAPPER: Well, we are expecting Mr. Trump to come out and, and address the cameras momentarily, but, Bill Brennan, as a moment in history, this is a rather stark moment. We have a president of the United States, a former president on criminal trial. The defense has rested, the prosecution has rested and the next we will hear from, or the next the jury will hear will be in a week they're going to hear closing arguments.

WILLIAM BRENNAN, FORMER TRUMP PAYROLL CORP. ATTORNEY: You know, Jake, I'm gob smacked by the fact that both sides have rested and we still don't really know what that second crime is. It just seems bizarre to me. This case from the beginning, at least to get to the felony, it seemed like an indictment in search of a crime. It'll be interesting to see what they come up to, but instructions in some cases are perfunctory. First degree murders this, third degree murders that.

The instructions in this case are hugely important, crucial. Because let's take the, I don't want my marriage to implode, I don't want my campaign to implode. Are they equal? Is one above the other? If you just have one and not the other, is that enough? I mean, there're so many permutations that can be instructed on. That may be the determining factor in how this case goes.

TAPPER: And, Dana Bash, Todd Blanche has made the argument -- Donald Trump's chief defense attorney has made the argument that nothing ever happened between Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels. And whether viewers out there believe that or not, it hasn't been proven that it happened. You have somebody testify that it did happen. Donald Trump has not testified, but he denies it happened.

And the argument from Todd Blanche is paying somebody to not spread a false story is not the election interference that, I guess, is the underlying additional misdemeanor that makes the business record misdemeanor a felony, right? I mean, and the idea that this was election interference because they hid information, but the argument from Todd Blanche is they didn't -- that didn't happen, and so this isn't keeping information from people because it's not true information.

BASH: I actually want the lawyers to weigh in on this because my understanding, having never been to law school, is that there are some cover-ups, if you will, which is what this has alleged to have been, that you can be prosecuted for even if the underlying alleged crime, and in this case, it is the affair or the moment with Stormy Daniels didn't happen.

HONIG: Yes.

BASH: is that right?

COATES: It doesn't actually -- I mean, for the purpose of this case if there was in fact a sexual encounter right or allegations of affair. All that matters is that you believe that that might go public in a way that force or enticed you to actually pay someone an amount of money. You did not disclose it as a campaign finance or contribution and therefore there is an underlying crime. So --

TAPPER: Even if it's false? Because, I mean, they've already established that they paid, or the National Enquirer and its parent company paid $30,000, I think it was, to a doorman who had a fake story about a child that Donald Trump had fathered outside his marriage, that's it's not a true story. So, they already established that money has been paid to keep false stories out of the public eye. Why is it a crime to -- forget the business record falsification, because I understand why that's a misdemeanor, but why would it be a crime to pay somebody to not tell a false story?

COATES: That's not what the prosecution is arguing. The prosecution is not saying that anything is inherently illegal about a catch and kill scheme.

[10:25:0]

They've gone to great lengths to explain that very notion. As Michael Cohen has testified and others have testified, things can be untrue and still damaging to one's political career otherwise. And so the allegation at the timing of the Access Hollywood tape in particular would have been the straw that they believe broke the camel's back, not the catch and kill scheme.

But from my understanding of how they have presented the evidence so far, if they are basing this theory on the underlying crime being a non-disclosed campaign contribution, then that is in and of itself an underlying crime, to elevate it from the misdemeanor to the felony level. But that is --

TAPPER: Not disclosed campaign contribution by Donald Trump to his own campaign?

COATES: Yes, and in excess of what is the requirement as well. And so this is the very issue that you're asking the question of why people were very skeptical about the case in the long run in the first place. To elevate from the misdemeanor to the felony, there had to have been this intent to defraud or hide this underlying crime. It has not been abundantly clear, which is problematic. What is the specific underlying crime in theory that they are going with? Summation will give us that information for the first time we heard in the opening about a conspiracy as possibly an underlying crime to do that very thing. This is what the --

BASH: And this whole conversation speaks to what you were saying, which is that jury instruction is going to be so important because we've been steeped in this for weeks and weeks and weeks, months and months and months, and we're still explaining it. They have to absorb what they're actually --

BRENNAN: But, Dana, sometimes in conspiracies, we file different jurisdictions called different things, a bill of particulars, a writ of habeas corpus, but you basically come to say, Judge, let me know specifically, what did my client do in the conspiracy? And in this case, it just seems that we're here now. And as Laura just said, I guess we'll find out in the instructions where this is headed.

But I'm just flummoxed by the fact that we still don't know where this would land. It's like I see like a roulette wheel in my mind. I'm looking at the little marble. We should know where that is before -- frankly, before we start defending the case.

HONIG: That's what an indictment is.

BRENNAN: Yes.

HONIG: It's supposed to be.

BRENNAN: This is an indictment in search of a crime. It's bizarre.

TAPPER: It's whether or not you believe that. I mean, it is odd that the -- remember, because what's going on here is, it's a business falsification case, which is a misdemeanor. But because it is allegedly in pursuit in the service of a different crime, even if that is also a misdemeanor, that makes it a felony. And this idea that Donald Trump made an undisclosed campaign contribution by paying Stormy Daniels to keep her mouth shut about a rendezvous that may or may not have happened, but they certainly didn't prove that it happened. I mean, everybody out there might think that it happened, but it is one person's word against another's.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: That doesn't matter, that much we know. And I will leave to the jury instructions how they explain the felony and what it's based on.

But as the pretend juror here, there are a couple of things that to me are just common sense. This happened in October. That's two weeks before the election on the heels of Access Hollywood. The incident or the alleged incident happened a long time before them. Why is all of a sudden now, two weeks before election day, is Donald Trump so worried about this becoming public? That's number one.

Number two, I think that there's testimony from Hope Hicks that is very effective about Michael Cohen didn't go rogue. And she's a sympathetic witness, she's not a hostile witness to Donald Trump, same for David Pecker in laying it out.

And I would argue, and, Bill, you mentioned this, how is the judge going to give instructions on whether this is about you're worried about your wife, or you're worried about the election? One of the -- Stormy Daniels was able to say on the stand, if the jury believes her, that Trump told her don't worry about Melania, that they sleep in separate beds, and that he didn't use a condom in the alleged incident.

If you want to talk about the ultimate thing that says you don't care about your spouse, if the jury believes that, then, to me, that tips it to election interference. But that's just all based on a common sense reaction.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I think one thing, as the judge just sent the jury home for the week, I'm surprised that nothing has happened with any members of the jury. The fact that the former president goes out every day and speaks at the end, not talking about the jury, but this is such a public case.

Over the next week, the judge must be, I would assume, very nervous about what is going to happen, perhaps all the parties are, with this jury.

[10:30:01]

It's extraordinary that they're still in place.