Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CNN INTERNATIONAL: Now: Longtime Trump Aide Hope Hicks Testifying; Over 2,000 Protesters Arrested In 2 Weeks At U.S. Colleges; Biden Administration Vows To Help Colleges Fight Discrimination And Unsafe Learning Environments; Gaza Journalists Risk Their Lives To Cover The Israel-Hamas War; China Launches Mission To The Moon. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired May 03, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:34]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: It is 8:00 p.m. in London, 10:00 p.m. in Gaza, 3:00 a.m. in Beijing, 3:00 p.m. here in Washington.

I'm Jim Sciutto. Thanks so much for joining me today on CNN NEWSROOM. And let's get right to the news.

We begin with crucial testimony in the criminal trial of former President Donald Trump. On the stand today, one of Trump's closest aides, a member of his campaign's inner circle, and that is Hope Hicks. She was Trump's campaign press secretary in 2016 and helped manage the crisis that was leaked -- the leak now infamous Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump bragged about assaulting women. Prosecutors say that political crisis motivated $130,000 payoff to Stormy Daniels. And that motive is at the center of their case.

CNN's Katelyn Polantz has been following this on.

Katelyn, this has been what the prosecution has been trying to establish that that the crisis following the Access Hollywood tape lead to a sense that, hey, we could lose this thing and affect the election so that when the Stormy Daniels allegation came up, that was the motive to then kill that story.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Hope Hicks on the witness stand is a big moment for Donald Trump is a criminal defendant, somebody who was by him, by his side working for him for years and years, and then was the tip of the spear of the communications response of the campaign at that time, when the story about Stormy Daniels was coming out, when the Access Hollywood tape was coming out, saying it was a crisis and it was a quiet crisis with women voters. They had to do something about it.

Now, a little bit more of the context she's putting around this though, it's not just that she's corroborating that this was something of concern to the campaign. She's also some putting some context here about Michael Cohen that she was in touch with them. They were exchanging text messages in response to the "The Wall Street Journal" story coming out about Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels and Trump, and she says just a few minutes ago, I didn't know Michael to be an especially charitable or selfless person. So, it leaves the question for the jury why he'd give this $130,000.

SCIUTTO: No question, but it also establishes that he was there at involved in this decision making. Of course, the defense is going to go after his credibility.

On the issue, though. It seems at the defense strategy might be to establish another motive for Trump to have made this payoff, and that is to protect his family?

POLANTZ: Yes.

SCIUTTO: From the bad news, from the embarrassment?

POLANTZ: Yes. And as the afternoon wears on, were now into the cross- examination by Trump's defense team of Hope Hicks. We're going to see more and more of this. We're getting some notes from the courtroom that she may be getting a little bit emotional on the stand, that she's under this questioning, clearly a very nervous witness, but one of the things that she has said already is that she knew that Donald Trump was concerned about the story, quote, because it would be viewed by his wife and he wanted to make sure that newspapers weren't delivered to his residence that morning.

So that's something that she is providing more information around. She's a context witness. She's the star witness. Is she a great prosecution witness? We'll have to see.

SCIUTTO: And she's a -- she's testifying in front of her boss, Donald Trump, as well.

We should note that trial just went into a brief break as we understand it, though, they do plan to resume.

Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much.

I want to bring it down to legal experts, Jeff Swartz, former Florida judge, professor of law, Cooley Law School, and CNN legal affairs commentator Areva Martin.

So, first, Jeff, with you. Tell us the significance of Hicks' testimony here, given her closeness to Trump? And prosecutors tried to use her testimony to establish that connection. The crisis post-Access Hollywood tape, and therefore, the incentive, the motive to kill the Stormy Daniels story, and make that payment.

JEFFREY SWARTZ, FORMER FLORIDA JUDGE: She's at the center of everything, even as much as maybe Michael Cohen because her contact with Trump was constant. He was right -- she was right outside his door. All he had to do was yell, Hope. And in she ran.

So it was one of those things where she knew everything that he knew. She knew what was going on with everything outside of him, making phone calls, checking with other people, doing the things, and then giving him information.

[15:05:03] I thought what was funny was the idea that he didn't want "The Wall Street Journal" delivered to his front door the next day. He was almost like an eighth grader, doesn't want to take home his great -- his report card. What could possibly make him think, his wife wasn't going to find out about this? It was going to be in every newspaper.

So I -- you know, I don't think that that really helps him all that much because remember, it can be more than one motive as long as the substantial motive is the campaign.

SCIUTTO: Understood.

Areva, I was going to ask you that same question. If prosecutors established or convinced the jury that well, he did care about his wife's reaction to this story. If they have also established that the campaign and potential damage to the campaign was a motivator. Have they -- have prosecutors done their job?

AREVA MARTIN, CNN LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Well, as the judge said, and I agree with him wholeheartedly, as long as they can establish that the substantial reason that he wanted the story killed, that he paid the $130,000 to Michael Cohen was to ensure that voters would not walk away from his campaign. That's all prosecutors need to establish.

And this panic that we heard about through Hope Hicks today, I think goes along way in establishing that it wasn't just panic about the wife. Clearly, he didn't want her to get the newspaper, but this was panic about women voters, how they would take this story on the heels of the Access Hollywood story coming out as well.

SCIUTTO: And just to be clear, Areva, has to be these substantial motive or a substantial motive?

MARTIN: Well, essentially, it has to be the reason, the main reason that he engaged in misconduct. So two things can be true at the same time, it could be the reason that he did was to ensure that voters stayed with his campaign. And at the same time, he didn't want to be embarrassed by his wife.

SCIUTTO: Judge, Pecker -- David Pecker, of course, the former publisher of the American media company that owns "National Enquirer", he testified that Hope Hicks was in and out of that August 2015 Trump tower meeting when Pecker, Trump and Cohen agreed to catch, catch and kill stories like this one. Is her testimony key to establishing that meeting and the importance of that meeting as well?

SWARTZ: Well, I think that it's important, but remember, she said she didn't remember going in and out of a meeting with Mr. Becker so her not remembering doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

She did not contradict David Pecker, but she didn't corroborate it. So it really becomes a neutral issue, at least on that one particular point. However, she had other conversations with Mr. Pecker during all of this panic time. So it's not like she wasn't aware of who he was and what he was doing.

SCIUTTO: Okay.

Areva, does the "I don't recall" defense work with juries? I was talking to my team earlier. I mean, you go back their cases different is the Iran-Contra case, right there. Administration officials say, I don't recall making those decisions. Does that work with juries as a way to remove a witness or do juries make their own judgment as to the credibility of the "I don't recall" answer.

Well, absolutely, juries are making a credibility assessments from the minute that a witness takes the witness stand. And if jury start to believe that I don't recall is a way to be evasive, is a way to avoid the questions or is a way to again, avoid having to testify to something that you otherwise know that could be the harmful to one side or the other, they will punish a witness for that. They will make their own assumptions, and they will assess that persons credibility and maybe determined that the person is not being honest.

And it has a lot to do, Jim, with how long ago did these incidents occur? How substantial, worthy, how likely is it that this is a detail that you but not remember and all of that will go into determining whether this witness is really credible and they don't remember this detail or if this is just an excuse.

SCIUTTO: We should note that there was a short break, as I mentioned, a few minutes ago, but now Hope Hicks has now returned to the stand, so we expect cross-examination to continue.

Judge, yesterday, we saw quite aggressive cross-examination by Trump's attorney of Keith Davidson, the attorney for Stormy Daniels, and Karen McDougal. Would you expect a similarly contentious cross-examination of times of Hope Hicks or less so?

SWARTZ: No, not at all. They have to be very careful with her. If she's getting emotional in answering the questions, that's a sign that she's under a lot of pressure and that makes a jury feel sorry for her, that she's in the position that she's in. So the last thing you want is to be very aggressive with her.

I think they need to get up, ask the questions they need to ask, keep it short and sweet and get what they want out of her and then sit down. I think going after her would be a big mistake.

[15:10:03]

SCIUTTO: Areva, I'm asking you a hard to answer question here, but your best guess. Based its on the arguments, the evidence of witnesses you've seen so far do you have any sense of how far into the prosecutors' case we are?

MARTIN: I think we are halfway, perhaps halfway through their case. We know the big witness that everyone's waiting to see is obviously -- the two big witnesses I should say -- are Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen. You talk about aggressive cross-examination, Jim, we could expect the most aggressive cross-examination ever when it gets to those two witnesses, particularly Michael Cohen, who has been convicted himself and who is pretty much an avowed liar. So we can expect Trump seemed to go after him pretty hard and we know Donald Trump hates my Cohen and wants his lawyers to annihilate him on the witness stand.

Now, Michael Cohen is a lawyer himself. So that's going to be a battle of the ages I would call -- I would say. So I think were probably about halfway through the case and from a prosecution standpoint, I think they're probably pretty happy with the witnesses that have testified to date.

SCIUTTO: Jeff Swartz, do you feel similarly based on the case as presented so far, do you think the prosecutors if you were the judge presiding over this case, would you be thinking they're in a strong position?

SWARTZ: I think they're in a lot stronger position that I even thought they would be at this point. I think some of these witnesses have really created an atmosphere and corroboration for what Michael Cohen has said, that this case was all Michael Cohen, this would really be a problem, but it's really not.

As I've said before, Michael Cohen was nothing more than the bag man. If Michael Cohen (INAUDIBLE) temper and does not get angry on cross- examination from Trump's lawyers, he will win the day.

SCIUTTO: Jeff Swartz, Areva Martin, thanks so much to both of you. We will come back to you later in this hour as the trial is expected to wrap for the day, and as I mentioned, testimony from Hope Hicks has now started once again in that courtroom.

Still to come this hour, campus protests have now gone global. Students around the world stand in solidarity with the people of Gaza. We're going to get the latest on the movement after a tense week at colleges here in the U.S.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

In just two weeks, more than 2,000 protesters have been arrested on college campuses as the pro-Palestinian movement spread nationwide. Rutgers University is the latest school to have struck a deal with students ending the encampment there.

These protests are going global now. Students in Paris and Australia show solidarity with the people of Gaza.

Polo Sandoval joins me now.

Polo, I wonder as you've been covering these protests, and I know you were out on Columbia's campus for a number of days, only a few weeks left until graduation, what happens next? And is it expected that a lot of folks organizing these things, they won't be able to get the same critical mass once school is out?

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, it's a good question actually, as recent as this week, I heard from some of the students which are also really, really important voice in all of this, which are those who have been objectively observing these demonstrations, which really is a majority of Columbia students who say, would tell you that they have not actively participated in any sort of demonstrations on campus the last couple of weeks.

And I can tell you for that section of the population or of the student body, there is a desire for some normalcy on campus, especially the class of 2024, as you mentioned, those who are preparing not only for finals right now, but for commencement that's around the corner. And then many of these students waking up to news that some of their fellow students at other universities here in New York City also experienced similar operations, albeit scaled back considerably.

For example, there was two operations this morning in which the NYPD was asked to assist in the first at New York University, the second at the New School, both of those in Manhattan and that yielded a total of about 57 people who were detained.

NYU officials saying that the clearing of an encampment that was in place for about six days and only took a few minutes, and there was about a dozen people who were arrested. That's those people who refused to leave.

And then at the New School, which is what were these aerial images are actually taken from, we understand standard about 40 people were detained there in a similar incident also for another encampment. It's still unclear whether or not these individuals that were detained today had direct links to each respective university.

But then finally, Jim, we did learn a little bit more about the events from earlier this week when New York police officers made their way onto Columbia to dismantle the encampment and to detain various individuals that had occupied who had occupied and administration building there. We learned recently, according to authorities that 13 people who were found occupying that building did not have direct links to Columbia University.

So again, everyday really bringing just a little bit more information in terms of some of those dramatic images that we also play out on Tuesday night.

SCIUTTO: It's interesting to see that Rutgers came to an agreement without arrests with students to remove the encampment.

SANDOVAL: Right.

SCIUTTO: We saw Brown do similar, agreeing in effect to have a vote on divestment for the university, unclear where they go, but they made an agreement, the encampment is gone.

Have you heard of other university -- universities attempting to do similar?

SANDOVAL: Well, there's also Northwestern and I'm glad you mentioned Rutgers, because that's also fascinating sort of dialogue that happened, that played out there over the last several days here. As part of that agreement, Rutgers agree to take in at least ten displaced Palestinian students, essentially allowing them to come to New Jersey and carry out their studies because so the conflict that is raging overseas.

As part of the deal, they, the students, as you see here, agreed to take down their encampment. And then you also mentioned Brown, that's a really fascinating one as well, because the university now essentially agreeing to a vote that is scheduled to happen later this fall, as you point out, unclear exactly where it will go, but at least it open up at dialogue.

So it perhaps, perhaps could serve as a model for other universities to attempt to build on but that, of course, just referring back to Columbia, there was, of course, that drastic escalation when you saw individuals occupy a building and that is what then triggered those wheels that were set in motion for that pretty extraordinary show of force that we saw play out earlier this week.

SCIUTTO: No question. Polo Sandoval, thanks so much.

SANDOVAL: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: This campus protests continue to put pressure on the White House. Today, the Biden administration sent a letter to college and university presidents offering the federal governments support to combat discrimination on campus.

To the politics of all this, I want to bring an Alice Stewart. She's a Republican strategist, former communications director for Ted Cruz.

[15:20:03]

Alice, Republicans have been using these protests to add to a narrative of chaos around the country, which we've heard, a lot of that connecting some of it. Actually connected some of it not, but I wonder, what is the president's role in your view? I mean, these are -- some of these are public university, some are private, some have had state police responding, some have had city police responding.

What actually is the role of the president in terms of federal authority or federal resources?

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think a big part of his role or responsibility is what he did yesterday, going out, speaking to the nation saying that looks civil discourse as a cornerstone of our democracy. However, destruction is not and pushing back on those that are breaking into buildings, causing destruction and threatening other students, putting it into that -- ideally, who would have done that a long time ago and really lower the temperature.

But look what but he can do speaking with these college universities is engaged with them on how they can communicate with these students and how to dissuade some of this conversation, some of this antisemitic rhetoric, and make sure that people on this college campus are safe. Look, Jim, so much emphasis has been put in the last days and weeks on these protesters, the anti-Israeli protesters. I speak with students across the country, Jewish students who are really voiceless for the most part in these demonstrations, they are afraid to go on campus. They feel as though they are intimidated. They feel as though they're being threatened and not to mention the fact that their classes are virtual, and this will impact their graduate duration.

So I think it's important to make sure that not only for Jewish students, but all students on these campuses have a safe place in which they can learn.

SCIUTTO: But it's not so black and white, is it right? We had a Jewish student on the air on Friday who's taking part -- actually earlier this week, who's taking part in the protests said saying this is not about antisemitism, it's about protesting the conduct of the war and there's a long history of anti-war protests on U.S. campuses going back when I was in college, it was the Gulf War.

Of course, we saw that the Iraq invasion. I'm not equating these -- certainly going back to the Vietnam War. I'm not equating it because it seems that the protest mix, a lot of emotions and a lot of motivations as well.

So, I wonder, how does that come across in the political conversation, or is it also seen in a black and white context?

STEWART: Look, you have to look at this from the standpoint these protesters are out there on these campuses and they say they're there to peacefully protest and to get their message out there. Yet I've seen many of these encampments that have signs that say from the river to the sea, completely annihilating Israel and the Jewish people.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

STEWART: That is certainly not a good way to engage in constructive dialogue.

So I think the reason this may have become political is because what we've seen for many years, Republicans have been quite supportive of Israel. It's one of -- it's our greatest ally in the region and it's important to continue that support.

If anything, we're seeing a lot of division with Israel and Democratic representatives. The Democratic Party is split. You see many Democrats that are supportive of Israel, but then you have others that are more antisemitic and pro-Palestinian wing of the Democratic Party. So, there's a lot of division there.

SCIUTTO: You saw they're pro-Israel but are against the progress of the war. It's not another explicitly Democrats who are against the state of Israel, certainly.

STEWART: Right and I think that's how it's become political, is that Republicans are, are being steadfast in their support for Israel, making sure that the spotlight and the focus on this goes back to October 7th. Hamas invaded Israel, Israel has the right to defend itself and protect itself.

But most importantly, what we can do is provide Israel with the resources they need, whether it's funding for the Iron Dome to protect themselves, but do so in a way that minimizes not necessarily collateral damages, but minimizes civilian casualties, which we certainly need to put an end to.

SCIUTTO: I believe we also have established communications with Jamal Simmons, former communications director, fittingly, for Vice President Harris.

Jamal, good to have you.

I wonder what your view is of the Biden administration's handling of these protests to date and do they have a plan in your view going forward? Or as part of the plan, just waiting for the end of the school year?

JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No, listen, I think the plan is, first of all, the macro plan, which is to try to get some resolution on behalf of the parties, right? So what you're seeing is secretary of state, Tony Blinken, traveling the world, talking to the parties in to bring them together to get piece. That I think is the number one issue.

Second, they're engaging. We see the president is going to go down to Morehouse College on the 19th of May. He's going to talk to review the students.

There are reports that next week, he's going to talk, give more about antisemitism. He had this speech last night. So he's engaging. I think what people are finding, who are on campus as is the more you communicate, the better off things are going to be. And that's a general approach that I'm detecting.

[15:25:01]

SCIUTTO: Jamal, I heard from Democrats, including in the White House, that the protests themselves. But, specifically the issue of Israel, Gaza is a lesson important issue for voters, for young voters, a less important voting issue for young voters than the attention communicates. And I wonder if you agree with that point of view because of course there been great concern that this could cost not only Biden's steadfast support for Israel, but his handling the protests, et cetera. That this could cost him specifically Democratic support in key swing states.

SIMMONS: Yeah. There's some concern that there are voters who are already too far gone, right? They've kind of gotten dug in on this question. I think the president hasn't moved fast enough. So there's some concern that some of those voters may not be able to come back.

On the other hand, it is -- there are, there's polling, both the Harvard poll and some of the other polls, NBC poll, that perhaps this issue while it is salient and people care about it a lot, and the substance is very tough because people are watching what's happening on the ground, that it's not the number one of the only issue that it's going to drive voter turnout.

So I think for a lot of Americans who have had seen protests on campus over the last couple of generations since my dad was an anti-war protests or during the Vietnam era, they've seen these protests for a long time that we've got to have two things happen at once. You police the unlawful and make sure that they don't have -- they don't do and say things are a problem, but you also protect the unpopular, right? You make sure that the people who are saying things, not necessarily agree with have the ability to do that, and not get the two of those streams to cross.

SCIUTTO: Yeah, that's the issue, right, is that -- is that you end up me. Listen, this happens in our own political discourse as you both know, you caricature the other side and by the way, there are folks who were certainly saying antisemitic things. Our own reporters of witness that, but there are others that we've talked to. We've interviewed who just have a different view of the progress of the war.

The trouble I meant imagine Alice Stewart is that -- just as in our own political discourse, it's certainly hard on an issue is charged as this.

STEWART: Right, as you and Jamal, both mentioned, the Harvard poll, this issue -- the Israel and Gaza situation ranks far down in terms of young voters, issues that are most important to them. Other issues to take top priority --

SCIUTTO: And you find that among Republican voters as well, Republican-leaning voters.

STEWART: Exactly, far down the list.

SCIUTTO: Uh-huh.

STEWART: But for those that this is a big issue or a single issue for them they are looking at this, in our CNN poll shows that 81 percent of those that this is the key issue, 81 percent of those polled young voters say that Joe Biden, President Biden has handled this extremely poorly. So for those that this is their issue, he's not doing well with voters.

SCIUTTO: And in an election where small numbers of voters can move things. I spent in each issue you can matter. Alice Stewart, Jamal Simmons, great to have you both.

STEWART: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Just after the break, the war in Gaza, is the deadliest conflict for journalists since records began. With no international media allowed in, we look at the risks that local reporters are facing to bear witness to history.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:31:34]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

Today marks World Press Freedom Day, at a time when attacks against the media are intensifying. Only seven months into the war in Gaza, and it is already the deadliest conflict for journalists since records began. No international media has been allowed in without military escort, and the IDF refuses to guarantee the safety of foreign journalists if they do enter.

This has made a local journalist in Gaza, our eyes and ears to a conflict that is now killed more than 34,000 people, 14,000 of them children.

This fact is drawn attention and criticism in recent weeks, including from Jon Stewart.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JON STEWART, TV HOST: More journalists have been killed in Gaza in six months than anywhere else in the world. And a new Israeli law says they can ban media outlets they consider a threat.

KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: So as it relates to al-Jazeera, specifically, we've seen the reports. If it is true, if it is true, a move like this is concerning.

STEWART: We're concerned again.

How about if it's true, we condemn it?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Well, today, the White House announced that Biden will take executive action in response to the crackdown on press freedom, including sanctions against those who attempt to silence the press but no mention that if that will include Israel.

Nada Bashir brings us the story of two local journalists still risking their lives to report the war.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NADA BASHIR, CNN REPORTER (voice-over): What should be a moment of reflection reduced to a hurried memory, recorded on an iPhone.

A young girl now an orphan, pays her last respects.

A drop in a sea of tragedy, marking its witnesses and victims alike.

But this is the story of the person behind the camera, one of many risking their lives for the truth.

KHADER AL-ZANOUN, JOURNALIST IN GAZA (through translator): Once he now always remember, was in al-Shifa hospital in November last year. It was during a siege.

BASHIR: Khader al-Zanoun has been documenting the assault on Gaza since the war began, sending material to CNN, our gateway into a war zone sealed off by Israeli authorities.

AL-ZANOUN: They were taking this woman to be buried in a mass grave. And I saw this little girl following the crowd. She told me her mother was a victim and she wants to say goodbye to her. She really affected me a lot. Tears were falling when I saw her running after her mother.

BASHIR: Living with his wife and children in Gaza City in the north, one of Gaza's worst affected regions. He shows us his home, largely destroyed an onslaught, part residence, part bureau.

Everything is a challenge. From the search for signal to transmit the day's footage, to the search for food.

AL-ZANOUN: There have been days when we've eaten donkey and a horse food, corn and fodder, as well as barley, just to stay alive.

BASHIR: For journalists in Gaza, the biggest challenges are the most basic ones.

Sami Shehadah is a photojournalist for Turkish base broadcaster TRT.

[15:35:03]

He was filming at a refugee camp in central Gaza.

SAMI SHEHADAH, TRT JOURNALIST (through translator): We went to cover the movement of displaced people, and as soon as we arrived at the place, we were targeted.

BASHIR: Sami had to have his leg amputated above the knee and is now a waiting medical evacuation to Turkey.

At least 97 members of the press have been killed in what the committee to protect journalists has termed the deadliest period for media workers since its records began. But that figure, according to the CPJ, is likely to be much higher.

And yet, despite the risks, Palestinian journalists in Gaza keep doing their jobs, working in groups for protection, covering stories, even if it means getting there on a donkey and cart.

AL-ZANOUN: Every day we wake up, we thank God that we are still alive and that we are still able to continue documenting the events in the Gaza Strip.

BASHIR: In the belief that one day, his work and the work of Palestinian journalists like him won't have been in vain.

AL-ZANOUN: Our hope is that this war will end God willing, and that we will be able to save and protect our children after these targeted attacks, and this continuing war because they want to live like the rest of the world's children, in security and peace.

BASHIR: Nada Bashir, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE) SCIUTTO: Our thanks to Nada for that powerful and important story.

Still to come this hour, a court has just ended for the day in Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial. Hope Hicks, once one of the former president's most trusted aides, has now finished her testimony. We're going to be live on the scene, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

Resetting our top story. Hope Hicks is now off the stand.

[15:40:00]

The jurors dismissed for the weekend in Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial. Court will resume on Monday. We do expect Trump to come out, deliver remarks any minute now. We will monitor those once they begin.

Our Erica Hill has been on the scene all day for us.

And, Erica, quite a big witness today, and quite a central part of the prosecutions case, isn't she?

ERICA HILL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. She really is.

And what we saw when she was called to the stand this morning, Jim, the prosecution really establishing this relationship that she had with Donald Trump, how she started working at the Trump Organization. Once the campaign was launched, she moved over to the campaign. She, of course, was press secretary for the campaign in 2016.

And then when we really got into the meat of what the prosecution wanted to get to this morning, and a lot of this started before the lunch break was about "The Wall Street Journal" contacting the campaign about a story they had about AMI and a catch and kill deal with Karen McDougal.

So this set off a bit of a fire in the campaign. There was a lot of concern. There's a lot of talk about what those conversations patients were and how involved Donald Trump was in the statements and in wanting to know what those statements would be.

At one point, Hope Hicks detailing a conversation that you have with David Pecker on a phone. She told Donald Trump about that conversation he wanted to hear it. They called david pecker back. He repeated this deal was nothing more than getting around the cover for a fitness deal nothing to see here, not a big deal.

Well, then we learn later on about what happened. "The Wall Street Journal" had also noted that Stormy Daniels would be mentioned in this article that they were working on Donald Trump according to Hope Hicks, really wanted to know the context of how Stormy Daniels was going to be mentioned and wanted it to be clear there was no relationship there. When we return turn from lunch, the questioning continues from the

prosecution. They're going in on Michael Cohen and how involved two was what did Hope Hicks know about that involvement? What did she know about some of these statements?

As she finally learned about that payment, if she had said, it seemed a little out of character that this is something that he would do out of the goodness of his own heart, the prosecution had asked if that was how it worked, and then she talked about Donald Trump and what he had to say about it. And the prosecution ending just before a break when Hope Hicks became very motional and ended as Hope Hicks said, and I'm quoting here, it was Mr. Trump's opinion that it was better to be dealing with it now, talking about after the campaign with this story and that it would have been bad to have that story come out before the election.

That is where we ended. Hope Hicks it become emotional on the stand at that point, the judge and the jury out of the room, they took a short break when she came back, we were onto cross-examination, which was much shorter this afternoon, talking about what her role was again, and Michael Cohen's role.

The defense Emil Bove really trying to talk about what his role was in the campaign. She said he didn't have an official role. He was sort of inserting himself and that he went rogue at times, notably saying he liked to call himself a fixer or Mr. Fix It and it was only because he first broke it, but then he was able to fix it.

They ended with the defense on this note and cross, Jim, saying that when they were talking about this story getting out, the fact that Donald Trump did not want Melania Trump to know, it was because he didn't want anyone in his family to be heard are embarrassed. He just wanted them to be proud of him.

So you can see what each side was really hoping to set up as that final thought for the jury, things wrapping at 3:30, just about 12 minutes go. And as you noted, we could be hearing from the former president in just a couple of minutes.

SCIUTTO: Well, as you've been speaking there, we do see that he is speaking now. We're monitoring his comments for any news in there.

It's notable because, Erica, I spoke to some lawyers earlier in the hour and I ask them question what if there were multiple motives? In other words, one, not to damage his campaign? But also to protect his family. Would that be sufficient to allow for conviction under these charges? And what they said was that if the attempt to prevent damage to his election campaign was a substantial motive, that would be enough, even if there were other motives at the same time which is notable.

One thing that struck me is that the cross-examination of Hicks was much less aggressive than the cross-examination we saw on witnesses previous -- previously this week.

HILL: Yeah. And some attorneys I spoke with earlier, Jim, and you may have heard the same thing today, were saying this was going to be really challenging ahead of the cross-examination because when Hope Hicks came into court, she was visibly uncomfortable. She was nervous. She said she was nervous on the stand.

And then even when that cross-examination started, our colleagues in the courtroom were saying she seemed even more tense, at that point, as his cross-examination had started. Remember she was coming back into the witness box after having left for a few moments, needed to compose herself because she had come very become very free emotional.

She wasn't asked about that, when that cross-examination happened, but that was going to be very delicate regardless, because of how she was presenting herself and because she was talking very fairly glowingly about Donald Trump, about the time that she spent working with him. It didn't seem that she was a person on the witness stand, Jim, who had an ax to grind.

SCIUTTO: No question.

Erica Hill, good to have you outside the courtroom there.

[15:45:02]

Adjourn for the weekend, be back at it next week.

So how has the Trump campaign reacted to today's testimony from Hope Hicks? For that side of the story, let's speak to CNN's Kristen Holmes.

And, Kristen, I've seen some of the reporters commenting on the president's comments, just there leaving the courthouse, that he did not look or sound very happy. What are you hearing from the campaign?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, this is going to be very emotional for Donald Trump himself. You have to remember that just because he and Hope Hicks have not spoken to each other since January or around January of 2020, that doesn't mean that he's not still incredibly fond of her. You could even see the fact that he leaned over to talk to his lawyers when Hope Hicks said that she was stunned when she first learned about that Access Hollywood tape. That's not something he wants to hear from somebody that he used to be so incredibly close to.

The other thing to note here is when I'm talking to the campaign, they're not talking about anything in terms of the substance of what Hope Hicks the saying, but they are talking about is just how hard it is for them to watch her up there. This is a person who does not like being in the spotlight, who does not like being questioned. She was ahead of the communications division for the White House at one point, but still didn't really like to be in the spotlight.

And yet seeing her there, seeing her voice shake, that is something that had a lot of his closest allies feeling bad for this woman who was once an aid of Donald Trump's. And I think as Erica mentioned, both the prosecution and the defense got some of what they wanted out there, think they -- the defense I've been told wanted her to say something negative about Michael Cohen, obviously, to paint the fact that he was not actually part of the campaign that he was kind of always around, always under foot, which she did.

But at the same time, she was still a very credible and coherent witness for the prosecution.

SCIUTTO: Kristen Holmes, thanks so much.

So lets go back for a quick legal review from our legal experts, Jeff Swartz and Areva Martin.

Good to have you both back.

And, Areva, as you predicted, the cross-examination of Hope Hicks was not nearly as aggressive as we saw, the cross-examination of previous witnesses there, particularly given those in the courtroom said that her demeanor during her testimony was quite emotional.

Based on what both sides got out of this, the prosecution getting her to say yes, damage to the campaign was a motivator. The defense getting her to say, well, it was also a motivation that he didn't want his wife to know, did they both get something out of her -- with her testimony?

MARTIN: Yeah. Jim, I think they both got the best that they could expect out of this witness, and absolutely, they did the right thing. They'd been the defense team and not going after her aggressively. This is someone who is very close to Donald Trump in some ways, like a daughter to him.

And I think one of the most important thing is the prosecution got was her shot him? The story coming out about "Access Hollywood", this is a woman that obviously didn't like being in a position of working for someone when all of these stories about affairs and interactions with women -- negative interactions were coming into the media.

We saw that she testified when she was first got the notice from "The Washington Post" about the story of Stormy Daniels. She wrote an email saying denied, denied, denied.

I think she truly believe that Donald Trump was telling the truth when he talked about his encounters with these various women. And I think are emotional state, the fact that she got teary on the witness and just adds to the fact that this was a very difficult day for her, but Donald Trump puts folks in his inner circle in these very precarious situations.

SCIUTTO: Yeah, to your point, she was subpoena to testify. Doesn't appear she wanted to be there.

Jeff Swartz, when you look at the case, so far? Has the prosecution established the paper part of this case and that is the falsified records? Are we beyond that? Are now are we into getting into the motivation, the motive, the intent?

SWARTZ: I don't think they've gotten everything in. There are documents have probably only Michael can test -- Michael Cohen can testify to. I think there will be other witnesses who will bring in more records. There's a lot of records that don't -- don't come in.

Though the key for the prosecution is to keep people riveted on the case, keep anticipated fading who the next witness is going to be. Then sneak in something that's mundane and bring in somebody else. It's a way of keeping the jury's attention on everything and I think that's kind of important.

So we're seeing a lot more. That's why I think were still a couple of three weeks away from the end of this case.

SCIUTTO: Got you.

And, Areva, bringing in Hope Hicks on a Friday before the jury takes a couple of days, often has a lot of time to think. I imagined that was deliberate by the prosecution.

MARTIN: Oh, absolutely. This is all about storytelling and gamesmanship. That's what trials are about, Jim. So it's always about making the next strategic move and putting on that witness that allows you to build out that story, those compelling witnesses that helps support the narrative.

[15:50:07]

And we know what the prosecutions narrative is and Hope Hicks I think did a great job on behalf of the prosecution of telling that narrative in a way that doesn't cause you to just have to rely on Michael Cohen who we know is a flawed witness in so many ways.

SCIUTTO: And to that point, we know Hope Hicks close to the president to not someone who has been exiled from the island as it were.

Jeff Swartz, Areva Martin, thanks so much.

And still to come, China's unmanned mission to the moon is on its way as the international space race heats up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Three, two, one, blast off. China's successfully launching an unmanned mission to the moon just earlier today. The spacecraft, consider the country's most complex robotic lunar mission to date, rocketed into space from China's Wenchang Space Launch Center.

The goal of the mission to bring back samples from the far side of the moon, something that's never been done.

The launch is all part of China's push to become a leading space contender in the international space race.

With more on this mission, CNN's Kristin Fisher.

I mean, two things, right, to get to the dark side of the moon and to bring something back. That's not easy. KRISTIN FISHER, CNN SPACE AND DEFENSE CORRESPONDENT: It's not easy.

In fact, it's one of the more complex things that you can do in robotics, space travel.

Remember, China became the first and only country in the world to ever successfully launch a space craft on the far side of the moon back in 2019. And for those that are wondering the far side of the moon is the part of the moon, the dark part of the moon that really never sees earth. And so it's much more difficult to get to because there's a communications blackout there. And so to get to this point, China has had to launch a satellite in March in order to relay comms from the ground up to this spacecraft.

And what we're going to see, Jim, over the next 50 days or so is this spacecraft getting into the lunar orbit, then a lander lands on the moon, it goes out, collect some samples from deep inside of a crater, then puts it on a different little spacecraft, the ascender, brings it back up to the orbiter and then that takes it back to earth.

So this is multifaceted. It involves a lot of different components. It's very, very technically difficult to do.

[15:55:01]

And, you know, Jim, what this does is it really sets the stage for Chinas ultimate goal, which is to land Chinese astronauts or taikonauts on the surface of the moon by the end of this decade.

And so what you're seeing here is essentially the robotic precursor to those crewed missions a little bit later this decade, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Yeah, the dark side of the moon is not that's just a Pink Floyd album. It's a really different place to get to.

NASA, in -- keeping in mind that the space race, NASA sending two astronauts into space on Monday on a Boeing spacecraft. Tell us the significance of this.

FISHER: Yeah, Jim, this is a big one. It's been years -- I mean, years in the making. It has been delayed so many times.

This is SpaceX's one and only competitor for NASA's commercial crew program. This is the program that NASA uses two send its astronauts up to the International Space Station. They doled out to conference contracts about a decade ago. One to Space X, one to Boeing.

SpaceX been the only company that's been able to do it up until this point. Now, it's up to Boeing's starliner. They are cleared to launch Monday night from the Kennedy Space Center, Jim.

And if all goes according to plan, SpaceX's kind of monopoly over the last few years, over getting NASA astronauts up into space will come to an end, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. And you always hear that they want options, right? They want fail-safes to have options. FISHER: Redundancy is what they call it.

SCIUTTO: Exactly, redundancy.

Kristin Fisher, thanks so much.

And thanks so much to all of you for joining me today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.

Our special coverage of Donald Trump's hush money trial continues with Paula Newton. Do have a great weekend and in the spirit of space travel, happy early the May 4th, May the force be with you.